If you understand why the war on drugs is bad....

Safety and shooting should be mandatory to public school education. Also have programs to help arm more citizens and supplement the cost of guns.

What would a shooter do if every citizen was armed and carrying?

 

You make some good points.
Another is that drugs are limited to use by addicted people, and do only harm. Drugs create demand for themselves through addiction, making choice not an option for the addict.
The only reason to have illegal drugs is illegals and destructive use- but 60 years and billions of dollars hasn't changed their availability.

Guns are open to all, but do not interfere with a persons ability to make choices and hold values, and while they can be misused and abused just as a multitude of things can be, they also save lives, provide security, and serve people in many ways.

The two things are at opposite ends of the spectrum; people who don't understand this are emotionally driven, not logic driven.

 

I am honestly puzzled. Who believes that the war on drugs is bad?

This topic seems simpler than you try to make it. You want to know how gun control would be enforced. And the answer is simple: you don't!

You seem to have this ... mythical image in your mind about police busting down doors and confiscating guns. That's not how it works. I started a thread a long time ago about how I believe gun control should be implemented.

You start by banning the sale of the weapons we want restricted. Not only the weapons, but bullets and replacement parts. And complement it with a sensible buy-back program. Pay more than the market value for those weapons. There will still be a lot of them left out there, of course. But the one thing that causes mass shootings is how readily available those weapons are. So we make it harder for potential mass shooters to obtain them. If you want to keep one for self defense... fine. Just make sure not to waste bullets. You're going to have a hard time getting more.

 

Anyone with a functioning brain.

 

So you believe that putting drug mafia in prison is "braindead". Huh! Who would have thought!

And why is that? Any personal interest involved? Or you just like El Chapo.

 

I think ending Prohibition kills the black market. Ask Capone and his ilk.

 

In Portugal They decriminalized ALL drugs and teat it as a medical problem not a criminal one. Guess what it works better than what we have.

 

El Chapo was created by the war on drugs.

 

glad to see you support ending the war on drugs... me too

the ban on machine guns has worked out pretty well, so there is precedence there, no one is saying to ban all guns, just ar-15 types

 

so to the op, do you think banning ex-felons from owning guns works, should we get rid of that law?

 

Nobody buying weed is trying to kill people nor themselves.
Nobody is going to pull out a pack of joints at a robber nor at a clerk.
Weed and it's use is approved and in fact has been used by a majority of Americans.
Weed smokers do not scare me no matter how inexperienced they may be.
Too many guns are designed specifically to kill people.
Because of that too many people have their guns stolen by people who would use them, more guns are stolen each year than used to prevent a crime. Far, far more. At least triple the most extreme number of crimes averted, ridiculed by most experts, and 12 times the most accepted number of crimes prevented.

If weapons designed specifically to kill people are owned by people without proper training which will store them properly and allow them to use when required then there is a problem. That leads to misuse, theft and death.
If a person smokes too much weed he/she passes out and sleeps it off.

 

There are plenty of first world Western countries that have managed to keep the number of guns relatively low. This isn't true of drugs.

Why is the question in the OP only being asked of those who support gun control? Isn't it just as much a question for those who think gun control wouldn't reduce the number of guns but who are not in favor of legalizing every drug?

 

Then you're missing the point. Machine guns were never popular and never in high demand. Restrictions work because there wasn't and isn't much of a market for full auto firearms. Its tantamount to banning a car that runs on $20 bills for fuel. Not very many people are interested in something that eats up that much expensive ammo that quickly, and those that are can afford the tax stamp and lawyer fees that go along with the associated licensing. Semi-auto and high magazine capacity on the other hand are very popular and there is very high demand. Support for banning 'ar-15 types' is support for precisely the same sort of corrupt, police state, monopoly and authoritarian results that the war on weed has created.

 

Those are reasons why you think its morally justifiable or obligatory to to ban some or all guns. What reasons do you have to think such restrictions will be effective? Do you think banning weed ever meaningfully reduced how many people smoke weed? As a resident of WA, it doesn't appear to me that weed is any more popular since it was legalized than it was before it was legalized. People are just less paranoid about hiding their use of it now.

 

So they are fighting the war on drugs by decriminalizing drugs. I ask again: "who believes the war on drugs bad"? Especially since you have provided an example that appears to indicate how it can be won.

 

Guns have always been more popular among the American public than other nations. Thats kinda the foundational point here- guns are too popular here for restrictions to work like they have in other places that never had very much civilian demand for a gun market.

I have created threads on that subject before as well. The drug banners tend to be every bit as much as hypocrites regarding gun control and the gun banners are regarding drug control. With rare exception, folks fail to understand that the dynamics that doom one to failure and detriment similarly doom the other as well.

 

El Chapo was created by using the wrong strategy in the war on drugs. Different things.

If what you are talking about is decriminalizing drug use and drug trafficking... that's a strategy that is PART of the war on drugs. Different wars require different strategies.

 

Ask that question outside of the context of this discussion if you really want to know the answer ;D Most folks here and now are going to be mum on the subject.
I believe the war on drugs is bad. I don't believe it stops enough people from using them to justify how much it empowers the criminal class, disempowers freedom of choice and militarizes and corrupts our law enforcement. And an escalated war on guns will amplify these effects.

 

I wonder where the criminals get their guns? Hmmmm! I bet many of them come each year from the 600,000 plus reported stolen. That's just the reported stolen mind you.
So a large part of the arsenals are provided by stupid people who don't store their guns safely. I grew up on a farm and we had guns, pretty much all farmers do. One day my mother found her house broken into and was horrified to find her guns stolen. I told her not to worry and where she could find the ammo, in another room, and the firing pins or bolt, for each gun in yet another place.
"You mean I couldn't use them!"
"Nope and neither can they."
Want to bet on how most of the 600,000 stolen each year from stupid people were stored? Most handguns were in cars, loaded. No details on the other 30%. Stupid people.
This is why I've said take out the stupid added on comma in the 2nd amendment and make people learn how to make their weapons as safe as possible and to use them properly in the national guard or require proper training prior to ownership just like people getting licenses to drive vehicles.
Do that and I have no problem with gun ownership.

 

Around 1/3 of guns used in crimes were stolen (and other interesting facts here) : Inside the Black Market for Guns (forbes.com)

I too would love to see more people trained in proper usage and storage of firearms. I'm certain this is (partly) what the founders meant by a 'well regulated militia.' But also, that 'well regulated militia' was supposed to be our 'standing army' instead of an actual professional army... but since we have one of those, the government has no interest in regulating the militia. I was in a Civil Defense group that officially petitioned our office of governor for training and direction. We received no reply. I disagree that gun ownership should be predicated upon training as that would be dangerous legal precedent. However 'the militia' in general (which is legally all able bodied males 18-45 and effectively all law-abiding adult citizens) could certainly be encentivized to be thusly trained. In fact, it used to be common practice roundabout the JFK 'Civil Defense' era for such things to be taught in public school. Good luck with any such program these days... seriously, I'm behind it 100%, but our establishment would rather we all abstain from guns entirely than learn anything useful about them.

 

According to the responses I have received here, looks like they are confusing "war on drugs" being "bad" with "decriminalizing drugs". Which is obviously a mistake. Decriminalizing drugs to some extent is actually a weapon in the war on drugs. But you're correct that it's a different topic.

The war on drugs has been poorly handled. Just like the war on gun violence has been poorly handled. But that's about the only thing they have in common. No idea why the OP intentionally confuses the two.

 

Agreed. Though authoritrian bans on popular products are part of the 'bad handling' and, being that bans on popular products are the foundational strategy to both, it seems that 'only thing they have in common' is really the crux of the matter, and indeed the main focus of this discussion.

 

The war on drugs has been a disaster because it has incarcerated far too many for very small crimes. It also focused mostly on supply rather than demand. How much of a threat to society is an individual found with several joints in their possession?

As much as I would like to go on to discuss what you want to call the 'war on guns', I've been very clear for years here at PF regarding my position. As have you and others who share your views. Why do we need to flog that dead horse? It won't bring either side around to the other side's view.

 

I'm of the opinion that on both sides of both issues are a majority ( or a very loud minority) of disingenuous hypocrites who parrot a philosophy that they understand when it supports their cause but choose to ignore when it comes to taking things away from people they don't like. Control freaks. Control freaks as far as the eye can see...

 

Since the states are considered "laboratories of Democracy" lets see how Washington States' decimalization of "personal" amounts of ALL drugs pans out in practice. I believe the voter approved initiative also called for "increased" treatment...my bet? Washington will see an explosion of addicts and the accompanying increase in crime to fund their addictions, and the increased "treatment" provision? Why such things require FUNDING so, heh, heh, I predict that aspect will die quietly on the vine. Moreover guns and drugs can't equated, the personal possession of firearms has roots going back to the first colonists, drugs, with the exception of alcohol, not so much.