Castanet

It's weird that the same people on this forum who want to rid us of marijuana laws are the same ones screaming for more gun laws.

The only correlation I can see is that paranoid stoners are afraid of hard-working people who have firearms to protect themselves and their families from stoners ripping off their possessions to buy more dope.

The reason we have illegal guns coming into Canada, is drug dealers need to settle their business affairs on the street because they cant take their competition to court or call the police when they get robbed.

I want less guns in the hands of criminals, and less guns in the hands of people who regularly advocate vigilante justice and revenge sentiments littered with insults like some posters here.

Also, a person uses drugs on their own bodies. A gun shoots a lethal projectile. You can't "AK-47 yourself".

Unless someone can prove that pot smoke leaves a persons mouth at 2000+ feet per second and can inadvertently enter a child's lungs and kill them through a house wall if they miss inhaling properly, I believe the difference between using a substance on ones own body and owning a lethal weapon is obvious.

Yes, legalizing cigarettes has certainly stopped illicit dealers from smuggling truckloads of Marlboros into Canada too, hasn't it, Bago?

Selective rationale just won't cut it, Bago.

Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens is a proven deterrent to violent crime. Confiscation of firearms from law-abiding citizens is a proven escalator of violent crime.

Legalizing dope won't take gangs out of the dope business, the same way it hasn't taken them out of the cigarette business. In fact, legalization will boost demand, making it just that much more lucrative for gangs, who will need more smuggled firearms to protect their turf.

Again, paranoid dope smokers are the same ones who want to disarm law-abiding citizens, simply to make their associated lives of crime (read: too lazy to work, easier to steal from others) less cumbersome.

America's clearly a mess when it comes to guns, yet they don't want to change anything. Almost all mass-shootings have been done with legal guns. Remove the legal guns and the mass shootings will be reduced.

I'll say it again, harm reduction, you can not eliminate harm. If cigarettes were illegal you'd have a heck of a lot more smugglers than you do right now. Through regulation and education smoking has dropped dramatically. It is an effective method. With the rationale you are using for regulating (not eliminating) guns why have any laws at all? Drug abuse in a consenting adult is a victimless crime. Gun abuse is not. That is the difference.

Also, the majority of those advocating for ending drug prohibition don't even use them so no need for stereotyping.

underscore wrote:America's clearly a mess when it comes to guns, yet they don't want to change anything. Almost all mass-shootings have been done with legal guns. Remove the legal guns and the mass shootings will be reduced.

The violent crime rate has skyrocketed whenever legal firearms ownership has been banned. Those are the facts, whether people can rationalize it in their minds or not.

jennylives wrote:Drug abuse in a consenting adult is a victimless crime.

I'm a victim paying billions to the taxman to treat drugged-out consenting adults who end up with a myriad of injuries, diseases, and mental disorders due to their "consentual" drug use. I'm also a victim of crime as these pukes rob me blind to pay for their drug habits.

Rwede wrote:The violent crime rate has skyrocketed whenever legal firearms ownership has been banned. Those are the facts, whether people can rationalize it in their minds or not.

They don't necessarily have to ban firearms. But allowing an average joe to go pick up a fully automatic rifle and a 100 round clip is absurd. There is not a single legitimate use for these guns, so why the hell are people allowed to buy them? I've heard many people argue that the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to allow a good guy to have a gun. The only problem is, the bad guy has the drop on the good guy, and there will always be a body count. The larger the guns involved, the larger the body count.

underscore wrote:They don't necessarily have to ban firearms. But allowing an average joe to go pick up a fully automatic rifle and a 100 round clip is absurd. There is not a single legitimate use for these guns, so why the hell are people allowed to buy them?

Fully automatic rifles were banned in 1987. Just sayin'.

It took them until 1987 to ban full automatic weapons for civilians? What was the NRA's stance on that?

I guess it took 40 years for the carnage of WWII to finally sink in? Then again there was Korea and Vietnam in between.

Why regulate guns when the Homeland Securty Department is training people how to act *when* a shooter comes into their office?

Welcome to the UN-sane of America, the greatest country in the world. Keep your guns, we will produce safety videos so you can survive mass shootings instead.

As to the NRA "stuff and nonsense" about "more guns equals less crime": this has been a myth deliberately generated by picking and choosing stats out of context, and is promulgated largely to benefit the gun manufacturers. Why else did they give Wayne LaPerrier $39 million?

For a careful analysis that debunks this "more guns = less crime" bumper sticker:

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2240&context=fss_papers&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26oq%3D%25E2%2580%259CShooting%2BDown%2Bthe%2BMore%2BGuns%252C%2BLess%2BCrime%2BHypothesis%252C%25E2%2580%259D%2Bby%2BIan%2BAyres%2Band%2BJohn%2BJ.%2BDonohue%2BIII.%2BStanford%2BLaw%2BReview%252C%2BV%26sugexp%3Dchrome%2Cmod%3D4%26sourceid%3Dchrome%26ie%3DUTF-8#search=%22%E2%80%9CShooting%20Down%20More%20Guns%2C%20Less%20Crime%20Hypothesis%2C%E2%80%9D%20by%20Ian%20Ayres%20John%20J.%20Donohue%20III.%20Stanford%20Law%20Review%2C%20V%22

SurplusElect wrote:It took them until 1987 to ban full automatic weapons for civilians? What was the NRA's stance on that?

I guess it took 40 years for the carnage of WWII to finally sink in? Then again there was Korea and Vietnam in between.

Yup that means civilians had fully automatic weapons.... but back then school shootings, like we have today, didn't happen. So whats different between then and now? Way more pharmaceutical drugs and people that use them.

Lol, Glacier. That's cute.

That Assault Soda is banned in NYC. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/13/health/ne ... index.html