April 17, 200719 yr Not at all. I think there is a lot of drugs produced in this country. I think it would be more if it was legal. Why is that naive? Some drugs are brought into this country. A good portion of those drugs might be grown in this country if it was legal. Some people don't purchase drugs simply because they are illegal. If it was legal to snort cocaine, they might try it since they are not risking a jail sentence. Marijuana and Meth are the drugs grown or produced in large quantities in this country. Nothing has been able to slow meth production and if you legalize marijuana it would be the sale and not the growth. That's the system used in Amsterdam and it works very well for them. Illegal growing would die because there would no longer be any supply and demand...
April 17, 200719 yr Gun control is a matter of policy debate. One way or the other, it doesnt make the necessity or assessibility any different. People want guns, they will get them.
April 17, 200719 yr No, by no means would I advocate the legality of drugs or bombs. What would you suggest the government do ? Make guns illegal to the general public ? I think a key point is to define guns. Guns for hunting, I don't think many have a problem with allowing them. But the semi-automatics or automatics or whatever the term is that has NOTHING to do with hunting but is for simply being able to own one or for criminal purposes is the question. Correct. My original post was to show the absurdity of the argument "its not guns - its the people." LBBC pretty much said what I would say in regards to the right to bear arms issue.
April 17, 200719 yr I think a key point is to define guns. Guns for hunting, I don't think many have a problem with allowing them. But the semi-automatics or automatics or whatever the term is that has NOTHING to do with hunting but is for simply being able to own one or for criminal purposes is the question. What of the purposes of owning one for self defense? I don't understand the problem with owning a Beretta 9mm or a Colt M1911 semi automatic for home defense.
April 17, 200719 yr Nothing... :thumb: There is no regulation or law that can stop mass murder in a free society.
April 17, 200719 yr Exactly. It more for peace of mind than functionality. I wrote my thesis on this topic. House alarm, peace of mind, car alarm peace of mind, gun control policy; peace of mind.
April 17, 200719 yr :thumb: There is no regulation or law that can stop mass murder in a free society. Liberals will blame President Bush for this somehow.
April 17, 200719 yr Liberals will blame President Bush for this somehow. I am disappointed, not surprised however, that the media is already attempting to lay blame and attempting to make a political statement already with sidebar stories on their websites about control laws in the state. That crap should be on the editorial/opinion page days from now, not on the front news page hours after all this happened before anyone even knows what has truly happened!
April 17, 200719 yr I believe it does in this country. it may deter a few people but it has only gotten worse as the laws have gotten tighter. looks at the neterlands and their stance on drugs and compare their crime rate to ours.
April 17, 200719 yr Gun control has been proven to do nothing to stop gun deaths, for years. Washington DC has the strictest gun control possible - no gun allowed. And for several years in the 90's DC led the country in the number of gun related crimes. The simple answer is, if people are going to break the law they will. There are plenty of gun laws on the books that are broken daily. It is against the law for convicted felons to possess a gun. Convicted felons are charged with being in possession of firearms all the time. So the, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" stance is really narrow minded. Out laws have guns right now. These laws are in place, so what makes people thank that if we have another law, all of a sudden these criminals will say, " Oh there a gun ban, I guess I will turn my guns in". Years ago the police in this nation carried revolvers with 6 shots, then the criminals started carrying semi-autos with 15 shots. The police had to adapt, because they were out gunned, and up grade to semi-autos with 15 shots. So, if the criminals have 15 shots, then I want 15 shots, as well as the police. Owning semi-autos for protection is legal and should remain legal, to defend ourselves.
April 17, 200719 yr I think a key point is to define guns. Guns for hunting, I don't think many have a problem with allowing them. But the semi-automatics or automatics or whatever the term is that has NOTHING to do with hunting but is for simply being able to own one or for criminal purposes is the question. Good post and I agree. Why does anyone have the need to own guns that should be for military use only. Do you need a weapon with a big 50 shot banana clip to go squirrel hunting?
April 17, 200719 yr Good post and I agree. Why does anyone have the need to own guns that should be for military use only. Do you need a weapon with a big 50 shot banana clip to go squirrel hunting? To make sure you hit him of course.
April 17, 200719 yr Author Marijuana and Meth are the drugs grown or produced in large quantities in this country. Nothing has been able to slow meth production and if you legalize marijuana it would be the sale and not the growth. That's the system used in Amsterdam and it works very well for them. Illegal growing would die because there would no longer be any supply and demand... Tell me again when Amsterdam and whatever country it is in was a world leader in anything besides shoes, cuckoo clocks and legal drugs?
April 17, 200719 yr Tell me again when Amsterdam and whatever country it is in was a world leader in anything besides shoes, cuckoo clocks and legal drugs? :confused: I don't follow.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.