Do you think someone can be against gun control but support drug prohibition?

[NorwegianElkhound]

This is an argument I'm working on.

Many people who oppose gun control use the argument that the gun doesn't hurt anyone, the person using it is in control and decides what to do with it. Well a lot of these people believe that drugs (not just cannabis) should be illegal though, to protect society. But I believe the argument could be used, the person using the drug is in charge of what happens with their drug usage. Not every person who uses drugs becomes addicted or commits crime (other than possession).

Just like with legal guns, bad things are bound to happen with drugs no matter what. At least in a legal regulated market, people will know what they're taking, and I believe the deaths will be reduced, and also removes the criminal aspect.

People will inevitably say "well guns aren't addictive, drugs are!" Well yeah, they can be. But almost every single schedule 1 drug besides some of the psychedelics (natural or accidentally discovered like LSD) and all of the schedules beneath it were created with the intention of helping, not hurting. Even heroin was meant to be a replacement in medicine for morphine. It's not like all or even most of the people who try drugs of abuse become hooked or die. If we're going to protect society from addiction and death, let's go all the way and take alcohol off the shelves, too. Problem is, most people don't see alcohol as a drug.

On the opposite side of that, assault rifles were originally developed specifically as weapons of war, specifically to kill people. Hollow point bullets are meant to be shot into someone. If someone thinks that a person going into an elementary school with an assault rifle and murdering 20 children, and then a movie theater and a church and more and more full of people isn't enough to make guns illegal, it doesn't really make sense to me that they would then also support drug prohibition. Again, it's up to the person and not everyone is going to be responsible. Don't punish everyone else.

This is something I've thought of recently and I would like the feedback of everyone here before I possibly use it in a debate one day.

 

[Iceman1216]

People will inevitably say "well guns aren't addictive, drugs are!" Well yeah, they can be.
This must be a thought of someone who does not own guns? Guns are very addictive !!
There are over 300,000,000 guns in America, and only 30% of Americans own a gun! So many guns are in a few hands.
It’s another area where we don’t call it Addiction, just like so many other, making $$$, getting Power, Work, Sex, Etc

 

[Meth novice 79]

I don’t think the two can be compared and fail to see any way they may be

I’m in a country with no guns.
But there’s a fuck tonne of drugs.

Let’s face reality here.
Drugs, equal damage to self.(except in rare cases of psychosis)
Guns, equal damage to anyone in proximity. (Without exception really, excluding suicide which can be achieved in many ways other than guns so irrelevant here)

Am I conditioned to buy that line because I’ve never known guns?
Probably
But our cops don’t use them indiscriminately so

 

[NorwegianElkhound]

I don’t think the two can be compared and fail to see any way they may be

I’m in a country with no guns.
But there’s a fuck tonne of drugs.

Let’s face reality here.
Drugs, equal damage to self.(except in rare cases of psychosis)
Guns, equal damage to anyone in proximity. (Without exception really, excluding suicide which can be achieved in many ways other than guns so irrelevant here)

Am I conditioned to buy that line because I’ve never known guns?
Probably
But our cops don’t use them indiscriminately so

Because supporters of gun rights believe making guns illegal in America will lead to more problems, but believe that keeping drugs illegal won't.

It's not the exact same thing, but what I'm getting at is the gun supporters defense is the argument that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will leave them open to victimization of crime because guns are already here and laws don't prevent people from obtaining and using them.

Well, drugs are here too, and the first group doesn't understand that under drug prohibition, otherwise law abiding citizens are opening themselves up to death from overdose or bloodborne diseases and criminal records themselves due to possession because laws don't prevent people from obtaining and using drugs.

I hope that makes more sense

 

[Zonxx]

i'll refer to > Guns don't kill people, people do. you can definitely believe in stricter rules however, but really they say its harder to get a gun in canada, 200 bucks, a weekend course and tada you have a license to purchase any handgun or assault rifles you can find

 

[Meth novice 79]

Because supporters of gun rights believe making guns illegal in America will lead to more problems, but believe that keeping drugs illegal won't.

It's not the exact same thing, but what I'm getting at is the gun supporters defense is the argument that taking guns away from law abiding citizens will leave them open to victimization of crime because guns are already here and laws don't prevent people from obtaining and using them.

Well, drugs are here too, and the first group doesn't understand that under drug prohibition, otherwise law abiding citizens are opening themselves up to death from overdose or bloodborne diseases and criminal records themselves due to possession because laws don't prevent people from obtaining and using drugs.

I hope that makes more sense

It does.
Apologies if I misread your first post

 

[Cream Gravy?]

People believe as such because they're naive. I believe all drugs and most firearms should be legal for anyone 21+ so long as they haven't a violent criminal record.

 

[NorwegianElkhound]

People believe as such because they're naive. I believe all drugs and most firearms should be legal for anyone 21+ so long as they haven't a violent criminal record.

I have one conviction on my record, but it's not violent, or even drug related. (It was related to drugs, just not on paper.)

My area just banned assault weapons though. I've always wanted an AK style rifle. I've always loved the AK style

 

[NorwegianElkhound]

I don’t think the two can be compared and fail to see any way they may be

I’m in a country with no guns.
But there’s a fuck tonne of drugs.

Let’s face reality here.
Drugs, equal damage to self.(except in rare cases of psychosis)
Guns, equal damage to anyone in proximity. (Without exception really, excluding suicide which can be achieved in many ways other than guns so irrelevant here)

Am I conditioned to buy that line because I’ve never known guns?
Probably
But our cops don’t use them indiscriminately so

From your other posts in guessing that you are from Australia, yes? (Sorry to sound creepy but your posts are archived and all over this site)

Australia still allows certain bolt action rifles and shotguns if I'm not mistaken... Is there still gun crime, or is it pretty much chill?

 

[Meth novice 79]

From your other posts in guessing that you are from Australia, yes? (Sorry to sound creepy but your posts are archived and all over this site)

Australia still allows certain bolt action rifles and shotguns if I'm not mistaken... Is there still gun crime, or is it pretty much chill?

Yeah it’s pretty much just semi automatics and above that are banned, and controls on licenced gun owners are stringent.
I guess I shouldn’t say ‘no guns’ should I?

I literally only know one person who has a gun licence though
No one really bothers

Yes there is still some gun crime among bikers (they just shoot at each other) with illegally obtained weapons but nothing remarkable and it rarely affects the general public

I’m almost 41 and I’ve never seen a gun, except holstered on a cop, so I’d say gun control has proved successful here

 

[Delusional Thomas]

It may be a valid argument. I understand the comparison when it comes to danger and responsibility. I'm pro drugs AND pro guns though, so it's kind of a weird one for me.

 

[Jabberwocky]

People believe as such because they're naive. I believe all drugs and most firearms should be legal for anyone 21+ so long as they haven't a violent criminal record.

Maybe people should be given a choice: you can be into drugs or you can be into guns - but not both. I'm having trouble thinking where the combination of drugs and guns ever resulted in a net positive good for the world.

Gun nuts free to do their thing, drug fiends free to do their kind of thing and never the twain shall meet.

 

[Delusional Thomas]

Maybe people should be given a choice: you can be into drugs or you can be into guns - but not both. I'm having trouble thinking where the combination of drugs and guns ever resulted in a net positive good for the world.

Gun nuts free to do their thing, drug fiends free to do their kind of thing and never the twain shall meet.

I personally don't think that somebody should be denied the ability/right to defend themselves or their loved ones (with firearms) just because they use drugs. There's obviously a lot of factors though. Somebody on a 3 day crack binge might not be the ideal person to posses a firearm... Whereas somebody who smokes a little weed or occasionally pops a pill may still be completely responsible and competent while having access to firearms.

Just like some people may not be mentally equipped to responsibly handle/posses firearms, some people aren't mentally equipped to responsibly handle/use certain drugs. I think there's way too many variables to make that kind of decision. Especially since not every gun owner is a gun nut and not every drug user is a fiend. There should be room to explore more balanced options for those in the middle.

Just my opinion. I think this would be a very interesting debate to have elsewhere. Sorry to highjack the thread with a different discussion!

 

[Jabberwocky]

I personally don't think that somebody should be denied the ability/right to defend themselves or their loved ones (with firearms) just because they use drugs.

The abstract "right to possess firearms" (aften expressed as if it were the peak human freedom) argument and the more definitive "right to defend oneself" argument are two different things.

There are lots of different kinds of freedom (positive and negative) and inevitably they come into conflict with each other - I'm not sure how posessing firearms got so high up the totem pole but it seems to trump even the right to life for many Americans.

When it comes to defending oneself, Australia and other common law countries have a principle of proportional response. One can respond to a threat with force / violence only to the MINIMUM amount necessary to mitigate the threat (not kill it stone cold dead). It seems Americans need guns because so many other Americans have guns. The overall prevalence makes shooting the minimum amount of force to ensure safety since it is highly likely the other guy is armed and willing to shoot. It seems like a vicious circle.

I bet there are statistics somewhere that show the proportion of people on drugs shot by police with drugs in their system.

 

[Delusional Thomas]

The abstract "right to possess firearms" (aften expressed as if it were the peak human freedom) argument and the more definitive "right to defend oneself" argument are two different things.

There are lots of different kinds of freedom (positive and negative) and inevitably they come into conflict with each other - I'm not sure how posessing firearms got so high up the totem pole but it seems to trump even the right to life for many Americans.

When it comes to defending oneself, Australia and other common law countries have a principle of proportional response. One can respond to a threat with force / violence only to the MINIMUM amount necessary to mitigate the threat (not kill it stone cold dead). It seems Americans need guns because so many other Americans have guns. The overall prevalence makes shooting the minimum amount of force to ensure safety since it is highly likely the other guy is armed and willing to shoot. It seems like a vicious circle.

I bet there are statistics somewhere that show the proportion of people on drugs shot by police with drugs in their system.

I agree that some people put entirely too much importance onto the "right" to posses a firearm. To the point that I almost refrained from using that word in my reply because I don't want to come off like I'm one of those insane gun nuts. A lot of the real gun nuts in America do little to help convince others of the purposes/benefits of owning a gun. And then there's the equivalent in the drug world where burn outs and addicts make it hard to argue the positive benefits of some drugs.

It is definitely a vicious circle. My opinions on guns might be different if there weren't so many other people out there with guns with intentions to do harm to others. I was once robbed at gunpoint while unarmed and it was the most helpless I've ever felt in my life. I live in a city/neighborhood where this is all too common and I've lost friends to gun violence. Just like I've lost friends to drugs.

I'm sure there are many statistics that point to drug use as a possible contributing factor in gun deaths. Interestingly enough, the drugs often found in mass shooters are antidepressants and anti psychotics rather than recreational drugs. That's not to say somebody can't be so high on recreational drugs that they lose control and do something stupid. But I think mental health is one of, if not the most important factor when it comes to owning guns or using drugs. As a gun owner, I pray that I NEVER have to shoot another human being. But if somebody kicks in my door brandishing a gun with the intent to harm/kill me or my family, I'd rather be armed than not.

 

[ChemicallyEnhanced]

Of course you can.

I believe that all drugs should be legal, but that guns should not.

 

[JoEhJoEh]

Yes of course. With weapons I do harm other people (normally).

With drugs I do harm to myself. Now somebody will say, no, not true, there are so many drug induced crimes but I stay by that answer.

JJ

 

[F.U.B.A.R.]

Are you sure you're asking the right question?

Afaic the very same people that are against gun control also support drug prohibition.

They're called 'hypocrites'...

 

[JoEhJoEh]

I didn't now this. Ok, thanks, I learned something new.

JJ

 

[Skorpio]

Interestingly enough, the drugs often found in mass shooters are antidepressants and anti psychotics rather than recreational drugs.

Isn't this a selection bias as mass shooters are more likely to be medicated for depression/psychotic disorders. Mass shooters tend to be aggressive and grandiose and this indicates a tendency for society to try to medicate away these behaviors.

This is of course a fairly gross oversimplification as mass shooters are individuals and their motives will thusly vary quite a bit.