Why do liberals support drug legalization but favor gun control? (1 Viewer)

[JuliusCaesar]

To me, this position seems hypocritical. Those that support legalization of marijuana often say that its illegality is what causes the problems, and that we create a bigger problem by making them illegal, causing a rise of the black market (I agree with this, btw.) However, the same people also say that ownership of guns should be illegal. But wouldn't making gun ownership illegal cause the same thing, with a black market for guns instead of drugs? And since the black market has an obvious crime affiliation, the guns wouldn't disappear; they'd just end up in the hands of criminals. So why do liberals support gun control when they also favor decriminalization of drugs?

 

[dragonslayer]

To me, this position seems hypocritical. Those that support legalization of marijuana often say that its illegality is what causes the problems, and that we create a bigger problem by making them illegal, causing a rise of the black market (I agree with this, btw.) However, the same people also say that ownership of guns should be illegal. But wouldn't making gun ownership illegal cause the same thing, with a black market for guns instead of drugs? And since the black market has an obvious crime affiliation, the guns wouldn't disappear; they'd just end up in the hands of criminals. So why do liberals support gun control when they also favor decriminalization of drugs?

I am as liberal as I can get, and I don't support legalizing Drugs. Now and then I read this crap. To say that all liberals want legal drugs is like saying that all conservatives hate women. Some libs may want legal drugs and some Conservative hate women, and want them as slaves.

I own a number of guns and certainly don't support the streets saturated with 10 hand guns and ammo for every gang member, as the conservatives want. Gun control, yes for the protection of our environment and our grandchildren. Make Guns illegal hell no. I love goiing to my shooting club and going hunting.

Besides, the liberals have to get armed so they can overthrow the NeoCons and reclaim America for Democracy. Democracy means the rule of the people and Conservative means the rule of the Corporations.

Remember that Conservatives love drugs. If person is on Drugs they can send him or her to prison take awaythe right to vote. All the great Drug lords in the World are conservatives. Drugs and distribution of drugs give the conservatives power over the poor, and downtrodden.

 

[JuliusCaesar]

I'm not saying that all liberals support marijuana legalization and oppose the Second Amendment, but some do. This question is primarily aimed at them.

Also, I think I should clear up my definitions, I kind of used the wrong terms. By gun control I mean illegalization of ownership of guns or extremely strict limits on them. When I talk about having gun ownership be legal, I'm not talking about giving gangsters submachineguns or anything. And with drugs, I'm specifically referring to marijuana.

Besides, the liberals have to get armed so they can overthrow the NeoCons...

:lol: Agreed.

OT: Can't edit my first post?

 

[Herophant]

To me, this position seems hypocritical. Those that support legalization of marijuana often say that its illegality is what causes the problems, and that we create a bigger problem by making them illegal, causing a rise of the black market (I agree with this, btw.) However, the same people also say that ownership of guns should be illegal. But wouldn't making gun ownership illegal cause the same thing, with a black market for guns instead of drugs? And since the black market has an obvious crime affiliation, the guns wouldn't disappear; they'd just end up in the hands of criminals. So why do liberals support gun control when they also favor decriminalization of drugs?

How many people do seriously want to ban guns altogether? Personally I find a difference in owning guns for sport and owning assault rifles. Isn’t the issue more about which kind of guns should be allowed? Anti aircraft weapons aren’t legalised in most countries but even countries with strict gun laws think hunting rifles and weapons used in competitions to be ok.

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

It is due to the fact that most crimes are not drug related, but most idiots shoot other people by accident with guns when they own them. It's hard to do much when you're stoned. Only ya selective few drugs actually make people violent. Guns are dangerous even when you're normal.

Many people need better training and more responsibility when they own a a firearm so they can reduce the accidental injury and death to others. If they were just shooting themselves, that wouldn't be as bad (but still bad).

Further, there are other countries in which guns are not part of the mass culture, yet crime isn't magically higher in a statistically significant way. I don't support banning all guns, but I think there should be regulation, not to prevent crime (most crimes aren't done by the weapons they want to ban and criminals will get them easily anyway), but to prevent needless injury and death by people too incompetent to be owning them. Further, no criminal should be able to go into a gunbarn and just walk out with them.

 

[Kandahar]

The situation is a little more complicated than that. While there are similar concepts at work, these are two separate issues and should be treated as such.

I agree with what you said about drugs: making them illegal creates a black market, which leads to a lot more problems than we would have if they were just legal in the first place.

As for guns, that may be true to an extent (at least in areas of the country where people have legitimate uses for guns). However, guns are different than drugs in a few ways: 1. No one gets addicted to guns (thus driving up the price and causing people to steal because of price inelasticity), 2. The guns that are routinely sold on the black market don't have much of a purpose other than to harm someone, whereas drugs are generally a victimless crime, 3. There aren't a lot of people willing to risk selling in a black market for guns, because the profit margin isn't nearly as high as it is for drugs. Therefore, outlawing certain types of guns (regardless of whether its a good idea) tends to be more effective at eliminating guns than the similar policy for drugs.

Gun control has very different effects depending on where it's done. Obviously it's not a good idea to take away all guns from rural Southerners and create a huge black market where there will be lots of buyers and sellers, but cleaning up assault weapons in inner-cities seems to cut down on crime in some places that have tried it.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am as liberal as I can get, and I don't support legalizing Drugs. Now and then I read this crap. To say that all liberals want legal drugs is like saying that all conservatives hate women. Some libs may want legal drugs and some Conservative hate women, and want them as slaves.

I own a number of guns and certainly don't support the streets saturated with 10 hand guns and ammo for every gang member, as the conservatives want. Gun control, yes for the protection of our environment and our grandchildren. Make Guns illegal hell no. I love goiing to my shooting club and going hunting.

Besides, the liberals have to get armed so they can overthrow the NeoCons and reclaim America for Democracy. Democracy means the rule of the people and Conservative means the rule of the Corporations.

Remember that Conservatives love drugs. If person is on Drugs they can send him or her to prison take awaythe right to vote. All the great Drug lords in the World are conservatives. Drugs and distribution of drugs give the conservatives power over the poor, and downtrodden.

so much stupidity in one post-you accuse JC of stereotyping but then you claim the conservatives love drugs

me, I think JC makes a good point which is why this NON DRUG user who has background checks for my job is against both banning guns or drugs.

guess which side pushes tough sentences for criminals misusing guns-yep its the NRA and the GOP not the dems. DEms want to ban or restrict guns and if you think just because a John Kerry claims to be a hunter (French nobility loved to hunt-they hung peasants doing the same thing) and doesn't want to ban guns you have fallen for the incremental approach the ARC favors.

dems enact policies to keep the poor poor because if the poor were to escape poverty they would have no reason to vote for the dems

 

[TurtleDude]

The situation is a little more complicated than that. While there are similar concepts at work, these are two separate issues and should be treated as such.

I agree with what you said about drugs: making them illegal creates a black market, which leads to a lot more problems than we would have if they were just legal in the first place.

As for guns, that may be true to an extent (at least in areas of the country where people have legitimate uses for guns). However, guns are different than drugs in a few ways: 1. No one gets addicted to guns (thus driving up the price and causing people to steal because of price inelasticity), 2. The guns that are routinely sold on the black market don't have much of a purpose other than to harm someone, whereas drugs are generally a victimless crime, 3. There aren't a lot of people willing to risk selling in a black market for guns, because the profit margin isn't nearly as high as it is for drugs. Therefore, outlawing certain types of guns (regardless of whether its a good idea) tends to be more effective at eliminating guns than the similar policy for drugs.

Gun control has very different effects depending on where it's done. Obviously it's not a good idea to take away all guns from rural Southerners and create a huge black market where there will be lots of buyers and sellers, but cleaning up assault weapons in inner-cities seems to cut down on crime in some places that have tried it.

In England there is a huge black market for guns-the only reason why the black market for drugs is higher is because in this country you can't buy cocaine any place legally and drugs are used up while a good gun lasts for decades

no study has ever prove that the "cleaning up assault weapons" has had any effect upon crime-indeed the anti gun New England Journal of MEdicine (why they are in the gun control business is stupid-I don't read Guns and Ammo to learn about new colonoscopy techniques) did an intensive study of the gun laws passed under clinton and the best they could find was that the brady waiting period decreased elderly rates of suicide slightly

 

[ngdawg]

The so-called war on drugs is a useless drain of money, manpower, manhours, will never make a dent in anything but the federal budget and in fact, drives the price of drugs up, causing more turf-wars, more cheap dangerous drugs to hit the streets and more druglord wars in the supplying countries.
On the other hand, legalizing drugs would bring in more federal tax money, free up law enforcement, control the quality and quantity of the imports, reduce turf-wars, create jobs both here and in the drug-producing countries, possibly reduce drug deaths, free up jail space.
Gun control is a necessity, but they should NOT be made illegal to own. Prohibition was a dismal failure, except for the moonshiners and organized crime. If guns were banned, it would create the same scenario or worse.
I am 'libertarian'. As liberal as a person could get. But banning weapons would be a foolish idea. Better to allow, teach and control things than to out and out say no.

 

[F41]

I am a Conservative and I support the states right to legalize marijuana if the people so chose.

I also believe it is a American right to bear arms and no state or government has the right to deny us this.

And if liberals want to remove this right from the people, let them be the first to turn in their fire arms and then we will see who has the power then. :gunner:

 

[Technocratic_Utilitarian]

[quote[In England there is a huge black market for guns-the only reason why the black market for drugs is higher is because in this country you can't buy cocaine any place legally and drugs are used up while a good gun lasts for decades[/quote]

Do you have a source for statistics? Links, quotes?

 

[gwynn]

It seems to me that in general it is a middle road approach in both cases. Usually in terms of regulating who can buy guns and which can be bought on the gun control side and doing the same on the drug side. In the case of drugs it seems more hypocritical to me to have some "soft" drugs ( alcohol, nicotine ) legal and others ( marijauna ) illegal. I am against legalising hard drugs ( cocaine, meth, heroine, etc ), but would rather see all soft drugs treated the same way.

 

[Australianlibertarian]

I'll put my two cents in.

In Australia, most states banned all semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons after the Port Arthur massacre. Although some states still allow pump action shot guns.

I don't have a problem with people doing proffesional shooting at gun clubs or going hunting with rifles. I generally get the impression that these people treat their weapons with respect.

I think that is the issue culture. I read somewhere that Switzerland has a relatively high gun ownership, due to their citizen army, and that they have relatively low gun deaths on par with country's that have strict gun controls.

This suggests that maybe other social factors contribute to gun related violance, rather than just the number of guns per capita.

I do think that people should be allowed to own guns, but to me the fact that in some states in America you can buy assault rifles that are better kitted out than the ones they issue to GI's seems a bit perplexing.

I don't believing in banning guns, but I do believe that there needs to be some restrictions/regulations.

But then again, you can't conceal an assault weapon in the same mannor as a handgun? So which is the greater threat?

As a Libertarian, drugs and guns would be one of the few issues where I believe that a little bit of regulation is necessary.

I think gun violance relates to culture and training. If people are taught to respect guns and are trained, and if the culture doesn't glorify the gun as a source of power. Then I don't see why high gun ownership and low gun violance can't go hand in hand.

P.S does anyone know if gun related violance has ever decreased in times of economic prosperity in America?

 

[Iriemon]

I don't see the inconsistency at all.

Prohibition is a failure and should be repealed.

Legalization of drugs means they will be controlled. One of the benefits would be a lot less ODs do from taking drugs of uncontrolled purity or mixed with toxic substances.

Gun control is not prohibition. I am not in favor of gun prohibition. Just control

 

[F41]

Gun control is not prohibition. I am not in favor of gun prohibition. Just control

Unfortunately. the laws being applied greatly limits the use of firearms to the law abiding citizens. There is a saying "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". The only thing that gun control is designed to do is to keep them out of the hands of good people but that will not stop the bad from getting them in any way shape or form. This gives the bad the edge over the good. The bad guy wants as much gun control from the good guy. Why-This gives the bad the ultimate control.

 

[Iriemon]

Unfortunately. the laws being applied greatly limits the use of firearms to the law abiding citizens. There is a saying "If guns were outlawed, only outlaws will have guns". The only thing that gun control is designed to do is to keep them out of the hands of good people but that will not stop the bad from getting them in any way shape or form. This gives the bad the edge over the good. The bad guy wants as much gun control from the good guy. Why-This gives the bad the ultimate control.

Law greatly limit firearms? LOL Hell I could drive by Walmart's and pick up a shotgun this afternoon. There are how many hundreds of millions of them out there?

Do you think if we got rid of all gun control it would make it harder for bad guys to get guns?

 

[Ethereal]

It is due to the fact that most crimes are not drug related, but most idiots shoot other people by accident with guns when they own them.

I've taken a temporary hiatus from posting in the forums since I've been pretty busy lately, but a statement so utterly baseless and erroneous warrants a response.

If your of the opinion that the majority of firearm deaths are accidental in nature perhaps you should do some research. In the year 2000 ninety-four percent of firearm deaths were caused by suicide and homicide, one percent by legal intervention, and four percent due to accidental shootings.

And when one refers to drug-related-shootings they're not insuiating being high causes the shootings per say, rather it's the illegal drug-trafficking that takes place in the inner cities of the United States which causes the "drug-related-shootings", which primarily afflicts African-American males from the ages of fifteen to twenty-four, and Hispanics who fall under the same age group.

Furthermore, the most prominant form of gun-related-deaths is caused by suicides, which accounts for fifety-eight percent of gun related deaths in America.

Further, there are other countries in which guns are not part of the mass culture, yet crime isn't magically higher in a statistically significant way.

And the converse can be said for Israel, Switzerland, and New Zealand who enact gun control policy and availability very much similar to that of the United States yet exhibit homicide rates that are very similar to the counties I assume you're referring to (England and Japan).

 

[Sob]

Gun control is a necessity, but they should NOT be made illegal to own. Prohibition was a dismal failure, except for the moonshiners and organized crime. If guns were banned, it would create the same scenario or worse.

It's already too late to say "if" in Washington D.C. and New York. With the result you predicted.

 

[DHard3006]

LOL Hell I could drive by Walmart's and pick up a shotgun this afternoon. There are how many hundreds of millions of them out there?

Not until you fill out the registration paperwork and submit to a background check can you “drive by Walmart's and pick up a shotgun this afternoon”.

The one thing gun haters do not do is demand criminal control. Guns are not the problem. It is the criminals with guns that create the problem.

 

[PorousRock]

I believe marijuana needs to be nationally legalized. Numerous studies have shown that it is about as safe/dangerous as alcohol. Whether it is more or less is debatable, and irrelevant

As for gun control, I believe that this should be a matter for the states to decide. It would be foolish to ban weapons in open, rural areas, and foolish to legalize all weapon in east L.A.

 

[bandaidwoman]

I believe in legalization of drugs and I own two handguns and a shot gun.

 

[DHard3006]

As for gun control, I believe that this should be a matter for the states to decide. It would be foolish to ban weapons in open, rural areas, and foolish to legalize all weapon in east L.A.

What state matter? Do you mean so some states can infringe on the rights of Americans while other do not? So you mean you like how the racist states infringed on the rights of Black Americans?

 

[GottaHurt]

Banning firearms is ridiculous. Our Constitution guarantees us the right to own them.Guns don't kill people, people kill people. With that said, I think you should have to take a gun safety course in order to purchase a firearm.

I think marijuana should be legalized, for several reasons.

1. Cut out the drug dealers and smugglers.That will lesson the burden on the DEA, Border Patrol, state and local law enforcement agencies.
2. Generates tax revenue, and makes it controllable, much like alcohol.
3. A viable crop for farmers, eliminating farm subsidies and creating new jobs for manufacturing, processing and distribution.

1.How much revenue will be saved by not having to chase, apprehend, prosecute and incarcerate potheads?

How much revenue will be saved, and how many resources will open up ( DEA boats, planes, radar systems etc..)
because law enforcement agencies can now focus their attentions on the more dangerous types of drugs.

2.How much personal/corporate revenue will be generated from the legal sale of marijuana? How much tax revenue will be generated from marijuana sales?
The tax revenues can be split, with a portion going to education and abuse prevention, just like alcohol.

3.We won't have farm subsidies anymore, we won't have to pay farmers NOT to grow crops. The marijuana crops will bail out the farmers, and probably allow more farms to "crop" up. Jobs will be created (more tax revenue) and you'll see a better product with lower prices.

You could even go a step further with illegal immigration and migrant workers.
A work visa/permit to illegals coming into the country, immediate employment, and also providing the farmers with cheap labor to keep prices low.After X number of seasons, the migrant worker can obtain permanent residence status, all-the-while paying taxes and becoming indoctrinated into the system (English language/writing courses, citizenship testing, legal documents etc..)

 

[new coup for you]

legalizing weed would have a profound effect upon the inner cities economy. legalization would take away what is sometimes the only avenue for the movement of capital into these neighborhoods. it may be illicit, but it's still money. i think it could actually be enormously bad for the inner city.

 

[PorousRock]

What state matter? Do you mean so some states can infringe on the rights of Americans while other do not? So you mean you like how the racist states infringed on the rights of Black Americans?

If the general populace of a state wish to have thier right to bear arms abolished in an effort to clean the streets of gun crime, that is their choice. Would you rather have a centralised government making that desicsion for everybody?