Please please PLEASE: this question is made from a place of pure curiosity, with no political biases intended. I’m asking because restrictions and prohibitions puts a pressure on the market since the demand never ceases, and someone interested in supply for that demand will do it for massive profits - no matter what. Wouldn’t it be the case for any product, be it drugs, alcohol or guns?
Guns have no purpose other than destruction.
Drugs feel good to eat.
Guns feel good to shoot. See how easy it is to oversimplify?
No.
I feel the addiction potential and effects on the body from certain drugs is pretty destructive, especially paired with freely being able to use and recommend them to other people.
On the other side of the coin people can buy guns for competition, hunting, historical preservation, studying the mechanics via dissasembly… Its not really all black and white even though i agree drugs probably have less destructive potential than guns when regulated
To temporarily take the side of gunphobes: Legalization reduces crime related to the buying, selling, and transportation of guns, but has little effect on the crimes with which guns are committed.
In the USA we have an extrodinary abundance of guns and people who defend having a personal arsenal as ‘stopping a bad guy’.
Thing is that you exchange one black market for firearms for the ability for potentially anyone to kill at scale and range with little notice or chance to avert it. The ‘good guy with a gun’ theory only serves a trivial role when you create a situation where mass availability makes any unstable person with a will much more likely to have access to one
Problem is, the “good guys with guns” tend to leave their guns safely locked up at home, because being good guys they are responsible firearm owners.
That too, but usually when I think of the sort that use such slogans I picture the ones who think they need 3 handguns on them to got to Walmart.
It’s a crime to have drugs. It’s not a crime to have guns. When you make something that is a crime not a crime, that’s less crime.
Drugs are generally a thing that people use consensually on themselves, usually taking care as to any consequences.
Guns are something you typically use non-consensually on someone else, usually when the consequences be damned.
I’m personally against gun prohibition, but the logic differentiation between gun and drug legalization is pretty glaring.
I see your point, but I’m not thinking just about the end but the middle: the things that happens in between for the product to arrive at the hands of the user. A cartel has massive power doing drug deals, and uses violence to assert its control over the market. The same happened in the prohibition era with alcohol. Wouldn’t the same happen with gun prohibition?
Nah, underground gun trafficking is a solved problem for criminals. The only thing a gun ban would do is piss off all the libertarian types and provide ample conflict to further militarize the police over.
The difference is how they’re used. Drugs are mainly used recreationally, the crime is either in obtaining or making and selling the drugs. Weapons are mainly used as tools to commit crimes with, with a few exceptions for hunting, but most weapons like handguns aren’t very suitable for hunting anyway.
Estimates are around 8-12 billion rounds used in the U.S. annually. With 115,000-120,000 people being shot annually, that means the highest estimates of bullets being used on other people is around .0012%.
So I would have to conclude that people highly underestimate the amount guns are used recreationally in the U.S. The “few exceptions” are the 99+% usage.
I excluded ammunition for the military hoping it wouldn’t distort those numbers.
(Fucking jaw dropping amounts of bullets fired… It’s crazy)
Note those afraid to comment, that means on average every American shoots 2000+ rounds before death. We know not everyone does. It means when you meet 3 people and 2 say they have never fired a round… Likely it means 1 has never, 1 fired 1-20 shots, and the last fired 100. Yet none of those 3 were the man who fired 10,000 shots that year who distorted the figures
I feel like this question is based on a lack of understanding of what people mean when they say legalizing drugs reduces crime.
Legalizing drugs reduces the crime of drug possession simply because it is not a crime anymore. In exactly the same way, legalizing carrying a gun without a license reduces the crimes associated with carrying. That said, it does not necessarily reduce crime overall, especially without an increase in support for rehab and addiction services.
Portland, Oregon reduced the severity of possession crimes from a felony to a misdemeanor for schedule 1 and 2 drugs, and the result was a decrease in felonies, but an increase in misdemeanors proportional to the felony decrease, suggesting that overall arrests remained the same. While there was not a significant increase in crime overall, the growing popularity of fentanyl during that time did lead to an increase in deaths, and public opinion seemed to indicate that there was a change in the perception of public safety during that time even though the crime rate remained mostly stable. In my opinion, I think it probably had to do with an increase in the visible public consumption of drugs and the unpleasant realities that can come with that.
A primary difference between drugs and guns is that drugs more often lead to the death or injury of the user while guns are more likely than drugs to lead to the death or injury of someone else. Furthermore, a gun enables the commission of a crime in that you can’t rob a liquor store with a joint, but you definitely can with a firearm.
That said, I live in an extremely gun friendly area and have carried both openly and concealed, yet the perception of “how safe is my neighborhood” seems to be swayed much more by the growing homeless/drug using population than the sight of a person with a gun on their hip does. I have never seen someone avert their gaze and pick up their pace for an open carrying person around here, but I see it all the time when they encounter a drug using homeless person. I know that is mostly anecdotal, but when paired with the data from Portland, I think it can be safely suggested that the perception of public safety has more to do with sights that make people uncomfortable over actual statistical crime data.
It is very possible to live in a place that is statistically safer, yet feels more dangerous, entirely due to the discomfort caused by witnessing human suffering, which is less of a factor when witnessing someone carrying a gun. Furthermore, decriminalizing drugs in one particular area can lead to an increase in drug users inhabiting that area, thus reducing the perception of public safety regardless of crime statistics.
Legalization of carrying a gun primarily leads to an increase in concealed carry, thus hiding the increased presence of guns from public view, and therefore leaving the perception of public safety unaltered. Concealed carry is more popular than open carry because it increases the tactical effectiveness of the firearm by not making you an obvious target of a criminal, so it is the preferred choice for most gun carriers, both legal and illegal. Contrastingly, it seems pretty hard to hide the fact that you’re totally zooted on fentanyl or methamphetamine.
Overall, I’d say that simple decriminalization does not have a significant effect on crime. Most drug users are not homeless or violent criminals, so they simply fly under the radar just like a concealed firearm carrier does. However, an increase in public intoxication or public discharge of a firearm does decrease the public perception of safety, regardless of actual statistical consequences, and politicians create a narrative based on that public opinion rather than using the true data about public harm.
That’s not what’s meant when it’s said that legalization reduces crime. Legalization reduces violent crimes like robbery, theft, and gang violence. It typically has the effect of reducing overall problematic drug use as well. When weed was legalized in Colorado (iirc) opioid abuse dropped.
Plus, if drugs are legalized fewer people die from laced drugs or dirty needles, taxes can be used to fund rehab and education programs, etc.
Prohibition only ever leads to a thriving black market and violent criminal behavior.
I think it depends a little on what you mean by legalization.
Decriminalization, as far as I’m aware, is all that has been seriously tried for hard drugs. That leaves the illegal industry in tact, and continues all the issues that can come with it. I am 100% behind the legalization of drugs, I just think that the real societal improvement comes with increased healthcare availability for addicts, such as needle exchanges, purity testing, and addiction recovery services.
Fully legalizing hard drugs comes with its own minefield, too. Cigarettes are powerfully addictive, and companies have exploited their legal status to make them ubiquitous. They intentionally market them to children and use product placement to ensure that smoking is seen as “cool”. I can only imagine how things would go if companies like that were in the methamphetamine business.
And to an extent, they are. I am part of the generation that was pumped full of Ritalin to “fix” attention issues in children, and many of those kids have experienced a continuation of the addictive behavior that was introduced to them in a doctors office. The intersection of capitalism and biochemical addiction is a gross industry of exploitation.
I am a recovering heroin addict (17 years clean), so I am no stranger to the problems of addiction, enforcement, and healthcare. I definitely believe that removing the prohibition on drugs is the first place to start if we want to improve the problem. I just also know how fundamentally powerful hard drugs can be, and without an accessible off ramp for addiction as well as available materials to stay safe while you’re addicted, the life problems that come with drug abuse are likely to continue in one form or another.
Fully legalizing hard drugs comes with its own minefield, too. Cigarettes are powerfully addictive, and companies have exploited their legal status to make them ubiquitous. They intentionally market them to children and use product placement to ensure that smoking is seen as “cool”. I can only imagine how things would go if companies like that were in the methamphetamine business.
And where are legalized cigarettes now? And this isn’t happening with marijuana with all the “it’s not bad, you can’t OD from it, it’s not addictive” talking points? Take it from someone who it adversely affects and who knows people who have been addicted. It can ruin your life and the withdrawals are a whole different ballgame as they’re more mental than physical and can last for months or even years.
One of the biggest reasons for the decline in ciggarette use, and what is often paired with calls for legalization, is education and treatment. Using taxes from the legalized product, taxed similarly, to invest in education and treatment as well as regulating production so that dosages are consistent and it avoids diluted product that can be cut with other, more dangerous dosed drugs like fentanyl. In so doing, creating a safer market and driving people towards safer practices and understanding, it reduces drug related crimes as a black market no longer needs to exist.
You have the same answer here
I definitely believe that removing the prohibition on drugs is the first place to start if we want to improve the problem. I just also know how fundamentally powerful hard drugs can be, and without an accessible off ramp for addiction as well as available materials to stay safe while you’re addicted, the life problems that come with drug abuse are likely to continue in one form or another.
Drug addiction is almost always a symptom of something else. People take the shortcut of placing all the problems caused by the drug, but if it weren’t one, it would be another. Systemic abuse, undiagnosed mental illness, etc. The off ramp needs to be education and assistance programs, treating people with empathy, using the funding from decriminalization (and the funds clawed back from the wasted efforts on “the war on drugs.”)
But, we live under capitalism. Better to drip feed expensive medications, expensive rehab, and criminalize drug use so that for-profit prisons can have a steady supply of slave labor. Lack of education and support also ties well to reoffense. The point of prisons we weretold is reformation and the indivudual would return to society. Naaahh, private prisons need that slave labor, let’s criminalize homelessness as we push to replace labor with AI!
I agree with almost all of your post but I have to say this about open carry.
I live in Texas . I occasionally see people open carry. If I see someone open carrying, I tend to avoid them.
It’s as stupid as seeing someone walking around with a sword or a big knife. You call yourself out and make yourself a target.
Everyone around you suddenly knows you have the power of life and death over them but have no idea what kind of person you are. That can produce fear, and at the very least, make some uncomfortable.
It’s also not a statement of strength. It is a statement of fear. I fear that those around me may do me harm, so I want to be able to protect myself from them and show them I have the power to do so.
It separates you from the people around you.
Conceal carry, great, no one gives a shit, but as soon as you open carry, you may as well have a flashing neon sign saying, “Look at me, look at me!”
It attracts all the wrong kind of attention.
I am not saying you fall in that group, I do not know you at all, but that has been my anecdotal experience in Texas
Hi fellow Texan!
You are totally right—my example was only based on the part of Texas I live in. The reaction in Austin or Dallas would be different than it is in more rural areas.
I honestly think there are very few reasons people should open carry. I’ve done so when I’ve been mostly in the wilderness and occasionally for a short stop at a business where it’s tolerated on the way, so the context in that moment is different than it would be in the middle of the city.
Concealed can be done comfortably pretty easily, and is much safer for many reasons. If you choose to carry, safety, legality, and context are of paramount importance.
Shooting someone with marijuana is difficult.
The difference is scope; e.g., the ease of murdering people.
If you drop a container of oxytocin, you won’t accidentally murder a child who lives next door.
If you drop a gun, there’s a chance you might.
The difference is scope
Very true. If someone has a scope on their gun, they are serious about murder.
Well if you accidentally drop it into your neighbours tea who’s pregnant with a fetus that’s too young to be viable, you actually will kill the child next door.
That’s because oxytocin is a peptide hormone that has effects on social bonding, love and childbirth.
And in its synthetic form it’s used to start contractions and induce labour.
So, long story short, I think you meant OxyContin ;)
Lump of cells is not a child.
A fetus before 24 weeks is not a lump of cells.
A lump of cells would be called an embryo.
Edit: also, it was a joke about mixing up oxytocin and oxycontin. Calm the fuck down people.
If a lump of cells, moving, splitting, growing, etc, were found on Mars, you better believe it’d be “life on another planet”!
Just because it’s not an apples to apples “life” comparison doesn’t mean it’s not a life. Just like people who argue “I dIdN’t cOnsENt to bEiNg BoRn” BS argument; well, those fetuses also didn’t consent to being aborted.
However, nobody would claim a lump of sills on Mars was a human child.
They didn’t say it wasn’t life.
Don’t move the goalposts.
Bacteria in your gut is life, so when you take anti-biotics, you are a murderer by your own stupid logic.
Not exactly, Sherlock. I’m not sayng one living cell, nor “all cells matter”. But a “lump of cells” that are forming a human being is categorically different than a virus or bacterium that are alien and hostile to your natural body.
I’m also not saying abortion is 100 right or wrong. It’s not that black and white. There are a multitude of reasons it’s justifiable. But I don’t support just willy nilly getting an abortion bc someone made a mistake or 3 in life.
The majority of modern firearms are drop proof. I think a more realistic example would be a negligent discharge because the owner failed to empty the gun before cleaning it. (Both are negligence, you’re just not likely to have a dropped gun fire if it was made in the last 120 years or so)
Only with the Sig P320 😅
As a P365 owner, it pains me to agree, lol. Those P320’s have a mind of their own.
You have the 9mm or the .380 (9mm short depending on where you live)?
My wife has the rainbow .380 which is pretty sick!
The P365 is my 9mm. I love shooting that little thing. It is surprisingly accurate for its small size, and it is so comfortable to carry with its thin frame.
Depends on where you drop the oxytocin, to be fair. Drop it near a playground and you might.
True. Added the modifier that was on my mind, but that I hadn’t explicitly said.
Not really comparable imo. More guns = more crime, if I’m not mistaken.
More guns equals more severe crimes, not necessarily more crime. It changes the nature of those who are willing to offend, not the number of people willing to offend. Not counting the act of resisting new laws as crime, anyways, otherwise every libertarian type that has a gun would immediately become a criminal in the gun ban situation. lol
weapons are in a different class than other things. that being said lots of things are weapons and its really hard to limit them all. that being said some weapons are more destructive than others. would legalization of nuclear warheads reduce crime?
what kind of logic is this?
Bad logic that’s not thinking it through. At least they’re asking for discussion, so just make sure your reply is employing better logic than face-value generic statements!
What’s the question here? These are two factual questions. You assess them with data, not speculation. The truth of one is completely independent of the other.
Simply put, the crime from drugs arises only from society criminalizing the supply. People want to have a good time and where there is a demand a supply follows. But the demand doesn’t go away because of the criminalization, just as you said. The substitute for illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin, …) are legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, …). But as many users will tell you illegal drugs provide a whole different level of high. The substitute therefore is imperfect and we get to the situation we are at today.
Thinking about guns: Which demand do they satisfy? Security? Every nation on earth operates a police force that is trained in and tasked with upholing law and order (to which extend they do is a different debate). Therefore the average citizen does not need a weapon for self-defense. Skillfull competition? There are many other fields people can compete in. If it has to be loud and make a bang there is i.e. rocket assisted model aviation just to name one. Guns can therefore be reasonably substituted by other means.
Drugs harm the user. Guns harm somebody else.
Guns are also pretty popular for suicide when available.
“Sometimes, we all get a little sad…”
Yes, and you can force someone to take drugs, we both know that’s not the point.
I think you’re missing the point. Guns primary purpose is to inflict harm. Drugs primary purpose is fun, the harm is a side effect.
