Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Ultratwinkie said:
Jonluw said:
Indeed, alcohol is a pretty horrible drug.
The world would be far better off if we substituted it for cannabis.
However, I don't believe in banning drugs, as prohibition only drives the market value to a level where people will start killing eachother over it.
Guns not intended for hunting just strictly aren't necessary in a civilized society, and strict gun control correlates with lower gun crime.
The fact that you find firing guns entertaining is no argument for allowing people to own them.
I fine military grade artillery entertaining. For some reason, I'm not allowed to own that.
Yes, people will always find ways to kill other people if they really need to. Guns make it a whole lot easier though. Gun control mainly stops the kind of crimes where someone goes on a spree of some sort.
Also: Guns are extraordinarily effective for threatening more than one person at a time. Bank robberies and the like aren't very easy to do with a knife.
Not California, where its the most strict yet crime is still through the roof. Strict gun control doesn't walways work.
Banning them sure as hell won't. I saw through that bullshit first hand.
I highly doubt gun control in California would qualify as 'strict' by a definition from anyone outside of the US.
Strict gun control effectively takes guns away from criminals when done right.
Gun control that is not strict enough only makes it slightly more difficult for normal people to get a hold of, while criminals don't suffer much.
Plus, gun control on a state level in the US is pretty much useless.
Trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals by restricting gun access in your own state isn't very helpful when guns are a dime a dozen just a couple of miles in pretty much any direction.
To see any significant effect from strict gun control in the US, you would have to enact it on a federal level, and carefully enforce border control in regards to guns to your south.
And of course just plain banning guns won't work in a country like the US. It's saturated with the things. You'd just get a market chock full of illegal guns.
Guns, particularly handguns, need to be restricted through a gradual process, leaving less guns on the market altogether.
Not going to happen when criminals would just tunnel under the border, like they do now.
Banning guns would only end up as another prohibition just like alcohol, pot, etc. So basically its a moot point. Unlike Europe, organized crime tend to be more complex than the ones in Europe.
The worst are the Cartels that prop up the American gangs. With Cartels, any gun ban or cgun control would fall flat on its face.
Considering that other countries with gun control don't have that problem, I think you're incorrect.
Take the UK for example: Just like anywhere else, there are drugs everywhere. However, pretty much no crimes are done with guns.
Same with Norway: Oslo is considered the amphetamine (I think) capital of Europe by some. Yet, noone uses guns.
Restricting guns is not equivalent to banning drugs. It just doesn't work the same way because there isn't the same kind of demand.
Experience shows that gun control minimizes the black market while drug bans makes a black market flourish.
Oh great the "but-but Europe" excuse.
Europe is not the world. Europe has a history of restricting weapons to the government since guns were first invented. Contrary to what you may believe, once you step outside Europe, it stops being Europe.
Since when does the UK deal with the Cartels on any actual level? If they did, their cops would look like Americans cops. If they were stupid enough not to, the cartels would send the entire country's police force back in caskets.
Cartels make all your points irrelevant. Cartels steal from government armories, sell the drugs, and deal the guns. America is in a different socio-econimic climate entirely. Cartels are the supply AND the demand. Any gun control laws while they are near would fall flat on its face.
I am sick and tired of hearing this fallacious excuse. Take some time to learn the political climate.
... and they call Americans disconnected with the world.
I was not talking about your point about cartels, was I?
I was pointing out why it's fallacious to think a prohibition of guns would inherently have the same effects as drug prohibition.
In either case have I never been advocating completely banning guns.
The differences between Europe and the US is exactly the reason why I've been making a point to say that gun control must be implemented gradually.
Cartels are a problem though. You could of course defuse them by lifting the drug prohibition, but everyone knows that's not going to happen.
A simpler idea might be to place more focus on stopping firearms that may be crossing the border, and perhaps create a buffer zone near the border where gun laws differ from the rest of the country.
Specifically, what I'm thinking about is keeping armouries and weapon factories away from the border states, implementing extremely strict gun control in these states (perhaps even a ban entirely), and keeping an armed police force supplemented in part from the rest of the country.
Cartels have gone beyond drugs. They are now into sex trafficking, rackets, and other crimes. They are massive, and diversified. There is no way we can stop them now outside of an actual war.
The time when pot legalization would harm them is long gone. Especially since they have all the other drugs to make.
America has a litigious and drug culture. Do you seriously think that drugs beyond pot would be allowed? It would be a legal nightmare for both consumers and companies who produce them.
Not to mention companies are allowed to "cut" their product in America. Its the same reason cigarettes are so toxic, because companies added chemicals. So all the drugs would just end up like cigarettes. Even food and drinks are cut, and they aren't even drugs.
On top of all of this, there are many government armories. National guard, Naval, army, Marine, etc. California alone has plenty of them, numbering at 25. Not to mention the military bases have armories, and those bases are used for extensive testing. Most of the military bases in California are Naval bases, which effects half of America's navy.
So with taking away the armories, you take away military bases and take away America's largest testing ground for military objects, and effects America's naval effectiveness on one side.
Its much more complicated than most people want to deal with. So they just keep drugs illegal, and allow guns to the citizens but have them regulated.
The Cartel problem would require America or Mexico to step in. Both are too scared of the Cartels to do anything. If Mexico steps in, it looks at civil war. If America steps in, its military will face another Vietnam, but with more sadistic enemies.