Ban or Legalise?

[Cormac]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

Exactly.

I am not exactly in favour of legalising "hard" drugs, but I do advocate their decriminalisation. That would pull the carpet out from under organised crime and it would lower insurance rates by about 80%. That's approximately the proportion of burglaries, car thefts and robberies due to addicts financing their addiction.

As for guns, I am totally against them. While gun control legislation in Australia has not reduced the homicide rate, nor has it increased the rate of violent crime, so that is not a factor for my opinion. What I do fear about the free availability of firearms is that our local communists and crypto-communists will find it easy to arm themselves, overthrow our democratically elected government and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Unless you advocate state supply of drugs, decriminalisation will achieve nothing. It is the illegality of the supply chain that creates the business opportunity for drug barons.

[hiyymer]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

So when I get sloshed at the local watering hole, fall asleep driving home, cross the divider and wipe out a family of four returning home from the circus, is it only I who is taking the consequences? When I get my deer tag, take my gun out and kill a nice fat doe and feed my family all winter, are the consequences only affecting someone else (the deer?)

[Gallstones]

....also for shooting dead people who break into your home.

Dead people break into homes?
Whoa, zombie burglars!

[Cormac]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

So when I get sloshed at the local watering hole, fall asleep driving home, cross the divider and wipe out a family of four returning home from the circus, is it only I who is taking the consequences? When I get my deer tag, take my gun out and kill a nice fat doe and feed my family all winter, are the consequences only affecting someone else (the deer?)

The chain of events is different.

If I decide to use alcohol it is not in any way a given that I will drive a car
When a gun is used for its intended purpose a human or animal is the intended target
. At law, there is a concept of "mens rea", loosely translated as "guilty mind", and it refers to intention.


It is here that the key difference lies.

But, in the circumstance where you kill or injure people by driving drunk, you'll be prosecuted for the harm, and convicted based on intent (manslaughter, murder).

[Thinking Aloud]

@Thinking aloud. So when you let that arrow go, you were aiming it at someone? They took the consequences for your actions? Or were you just having fun? Your arguments don't really work.

Sure they don't. That's why bows and arrows can be found in every home in the UK, and you can carry them in the street without repercussions.

We're not talking about sporting weaponry, or even hunting weaponry, which are legal to own and use under very controlled circumstances - this thread seemed to be talking about legalising the carrying of guns by anyone anywhere vs the legalisation of drugs, which is just a teeny bit different. But hey, good deflection.

No one really consents being hit by a car, or knifed or kicked to death by a gang of teenagers but be don't ban cars knives and trainers.

A car is not intended as a weapon. Unless you, as the driver, intentionally aim it at a person in order to kill them, incidents where people die as a result of being hit by a car are not generally considered malicious. Shooting someone is. In the UK, carrying a knife without good cause is illegal. Trainers are clothing - the foot inside the trainer does the kicking.

So when I get sloshed at the local watering hole, fall asleep driving home, cross the divider and wipe out a family of four returning home from the circus, is it only I who is taking the consequences?

If you're the kind of person who'd do that, you're grossly irresponsible and shouldn't be in possession of a car, let alone a firearm.

When I get my deer tag, take my gun out and kill a nice fat doe and feed my family all winter, are the consequences only affecting someone else (the deer?)

See my comment about hunting. That's not what we're talking about, unless suddenly it's "any excuse or justification to own a gun", again...

[Cormac]

....also for shooting dead people who break into your home.

Dead people break into homes?
Whoa, zombie burglars!

That is what I get for posting when asleep and in a vernacular...

[Cormac]

....also for shooting dead people who break into your home.

Dead people break into homes?
Whoa, zombie burglars!

That is what I get for posting when asleep and in a vernacular...

And this was just as bad.

Posting in a vernacular, while very tired was what I should have said...

And the original post should have been "shooting people dead".

[hiyymer]

So when I get sloshed at the local watering hole, fall asleep driving home, cross the divider and wipe out a family of four returning home from the circus, is it only I who is taking the consequences?

If you're the kind of person who'd do that, you're grossly irresponsible and shouldn't be in possession of a car, let alone a firearm.

When I get my deer tag, take my gun out and kill a nice fat doe and feed my family all winter, are the consequences only affecting someone else (the deer?)

See my comment about hunting. That's not what we're talking about, unless suddenly it's "any excuse or justification to own a gun", again...

Doesn't change my point. The consequences are what they are and don't simplistically impact only me for drugs or only someone else for guns. That would be true for only one set of circumstances.

If you confuse intention with consequences you are going down a slippery slope. Intentions are interpretations after the fact. That is the whole problem with trying to legislate a perfect world. The latest drug threat in the US is bath crystals. Yes that's right, bath crystals. You can buy them all packaged up nicely at the local gas mart, and it gives you a high when you ingest it. (Not available in the superstores.) It's not illegal yet because of intention. There is no regulation of substances which aren't intended to be ingested. So it will take months to track down exactly what's in it and write legislation to deal with it. The suppliers are all ready with the next one when that happens.

[Geoff]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

[Tyrannical]

So you are given the choice to make the law to ban or legalise either or both guns and drugs. What would be the ramifications of your choice being enacted. Do the potential benefits of continuing or going forward with your choice outweigh the potential to harm? Factor in the social with the economic the personal with the political.

What difference do laws really make?
Drugs are illegal, but people have plenty of access to them. The worse gun crime areas in the US have the strictest gun control laws.
Gun laws would affect that Norway killer as much as murder laws apparently did not.

[Eriku]

@Eriku. Legal and controlled, licenced? Who does the controlling, a government enforcement agency or the shopkeeper? Why do they need to be controlled? Seraph points out that gun control legislation has not reduced the homicide rate in Australia. Given that and that by restricting guns you are creating an unregistered and unguarded black market in which only criminals have guns by definition is it not also a matter for people to have their rights when it comes to having the ability or illusion of ability to defend themselves?

I was writing about drugs, I think you'll find, if you re-read what I wrote.

[Hermit]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

Exactly.

I am not exactly in favour of legalising "hard" drugs, but I do advocate their decriminalisation. That would pull the carpet out from under organised crime and it would lower insurance rates by about 80%. That's approximately the proportion of burglaries, car thefts and robberies due to addicts financing their addiction.

As for guns, I am totally against them. While gun control legislation in Australia has not reduced the homicide rate, nor has it increased the rate of violent crime, so that is not a factor for my opinion. What I do fear about the free availability of firearms is that our local communists and crypto-communists will find it easy to arm themselves, overthrow our democratically elected government and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Unless you advocate state supply of drugs, decriminalisation will achieve nothing. It is the illegality of the supply chain that creates the business opportunity for drug barons.

Yes, I do advocate state supply of drugs. In some cases even non-commercial quantities of privately produced drugs, such as is the case with marijuana in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

[laklak]

Require gun owners to smoke a lot of ganja, that will sort them out. Instead of shooting the housebreaker you'll offer him a brownie and a nice glass of milk.

[Gallstones]

....also for shooting dead people who break into your home.

Dead people break into homes?
Whoa, zombie burglars!

That is what I get for posting when asleep and in a vernacular...

And this was just as bad.

Posting in a vernacular, while very tired was what I should have said...

And the original post should have been "shooting people dead".

We know.

[Cormac]

There's a significant difference between guns and drugs. Who takes the consequences if you use drugs? You do. Who takes the consequences if you use a gun? Someone else.

Thus I can understand how people would support the legalisation of drugs (as taking drugs is something you consent to doing to yourself) but not the legalisation of guns (as the person you shoot has most likely not consented to you doing that).

Exactly.

I am not exactly in favour of legalising "hard" drugs, but I do advocate their decriminalisation. That would pull the carpet out from under organised crime and it would lower insurance rates by about 80%. That's approximately the proportion of burglaries, car thefts and robberies due to addicts financing their addiction.

As for guns, I am totally against them. While gun control legislation in Australia has not reduced the homicide rate, nor has it increased the rate of violent crime, so that is not a factor for my opinion. What I do fear about the free availability of firearms is that our local communists and crypto-communists will find it easy to arm themselves, overthrow our democratically elected government and impose the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Unless you advocate state supply of drugs, decriminalisation will achieve nothing. It is the illegality of the supply chain that creates the business opportunity for drug barons.

Yes, I do advocate state supply of drugs. In some cases even non-commercial quantities of privately produced drugs, such as is the case with marijuana in South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory.

To be clear, I am in favour of legalising drugs, with a monopoly of supply reserves to the state, which, if it is sensible would provide pharmaceutical grade drugs for free, which would still be cheaper and would completely wipe out any business opportunity.

It would also give the health authorities direct access to addicts for intervention purposes, in addition to quality control.

in the normal course of events, i don't think the state should be involved in such matters. But the alternative is very corrosive to peace and security of citizens and the state.