Not that I have time for a deep response, but doesn't that cut both ways?
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.
I'm against all three actually.It can work both ways. I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are anti abortion, pro gun and moderate of drug legalisation. In Britain we have strong gun control along with strong drug control, criminals still get guns and drugs into the country. The same thing can be applied to Abortion, desperate pregnant women will still find a way to get an illegal abortion. Anyone can use the argument.
In reality, yes.Not that I have time for a deep response, but doesn't that cut both ways?
I'm against all three actually.
Across the pond from you, "they'll get them anyway" is an accepted argument for abortion and drugs but not for guns.
I just find that the inconsistency falls along a political line.
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.
So you are seemingly fine with criminals getting guns and dope into the country.It can work both ways. I'm going to assume (correct me if I'm wrong) that you are anti abortion, pro gun and moderate of drug legalisation. In Britain we have strong gun control along with strong drug control, criminals still get guns and drugs into the country. The same thing can be applied to Abortion, desperate pregnant women will still find a way to get an illegal abortion. Anyone can use the argument.
Well you're just an excitable boy.Iam more of a Lawyers, guns and money type.
Well you're just an excitable boy.
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.
You're right, it's not a main argument for any of these.Yeah, but I don't think that's the main argument for most people in any of those issues.
For the record, I'm pro-choice, pro-legalization, and pro-gun. So this isn't really an issue of where I stand, per se. And it also proves that you're generalizing about a huge group of people when you shouldn't be. After all, you're a professed conservative who's anti-gun. So it's kind of ironic for you to be generalizing the other way.
But I rarely see people argue any of these things, except maybe drug legalization, purely from a perspective that they'll get them anyway. It seems to be more of a tangential issue for most people. Or, if it comes up at all, it comes up in the context of the harm that happens from the black market, rather than the inevitability of acquisition. And in that case, there's a big difference in how these respective black markets operate, and they really can't be compared to each other.
So you are seemingly fine with criminals getting guns and dope into the country.
But are against law abiding citizens being able to protect themselves from said scumbags.
And if a woman goes to a "kitchen table" abortionist? Fine, hopefully she will get sterilized by accident.
Abortion is in the OP.No the point is that criminals don't obey the law. I never said my positions when it came to those issues, don't assume them.
That's a thing for the abortion thread.
You're right, it's not a main argument for any of these.
It's not just applied to drugs. The whole "back alley abortion" meme is based on this same argument.
I have no agenda here either since I feel the same about all three issues.
My point here is just about the inconsistency.
Abortion is in the OP.
And what would you have us do, declare all gun owners in the US "criminals".
Why do you automatically assume that I'm anti gun?
Just how you come off, how about clearing it up.
Why is the argument "if you outlaw them people will get them anyway" only applied to abortion and the liberalization of drug laws and not firearm ownership?
It's equally as true no more dangerous.
I couldn't give a **** if you own a gun or not, so long as you have the right to. That would be my position, however since I'm in Britain I don't feel the need or want for one, neither does the British public, so gun control prevails.
Naw, that dont sound anti gun at all.
And really did the Brit "public" demand it, or was it more between your rulers with powdered wigs and crowns?
Responses to Home Office consultation on firearms law:
We received 96 responses to the consultation with a majority supporting the changes to the legislation outlined in the consultation document.
85% of respondents supported the view that the maximum sentence for illegal importation of firearms should be increased.
76% supported the view that a new offence of possession with intent to supply is needed and should be introduced.
Half of the respondents who supported the creation of a new offence and an increase in the sentence for importation stated that the maximum sentence should be life.
A common statement among respondents with experience in dealing with gun crime was that sentencing provisions for the importation and supply of firearms should be aligned with the importation and supply of class A drugs, which have a maximum sentence of life.
Source: Home Office – October 2012
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?