Uh, talking about, that is.
That’s not how it read, even with the context you suggest IMHO.
But alcohol use and firearm *use *don’t occur at the same rates. Much like alcohol ownership doesn’t imply alcohol use, gun ownership doesn’t imply people are exposed to the gun. A gun that’s unloaded and secured to its rack ; or loaded but locked in a safe that’s never opened ; or disassembled in a trophy case isn’t dangerous. For that matter, a gun that is loaded, armed, safety off and left on a desk - not dangerous.
It becomes (possibly) dangerous when someone picks it up and pulls the trigger.
If you want your silly comparison to work, you have to restrict your statistical games & comparison to heavy alcohol consumption or drunk driving fatalities to people who actually use their guns, not just own them.
[QUOTE=curlcoat]
And guns have non-criminal uses, where as I cannot think of one useful thing comes from getting stoned of your gourd, particularly as a routine thing.
[/QUOTE]
I fail to see how the two notions (criminal/non-criminal vs. useful/useless) readily relate to each other, but I can at least tell you one very useful thing that comes from getting high as a kite. Namely: you’re high. As a kite.
The truth is, illegal drugs are already kind of cheap, all things considered ; and that’s factoring highly increased costs from all the risks involved and government enforced scarcity. Certainly heavy and routine use runs up the bill over time, but an evening’s worth of junk ? Probably costs you less than dinner-and-a-movie.Some quick-and-dirty googling reveals that a gram of cocaine runs you about 60 bucks and can be split among anywhere between 3 to 10 individual bumps. Which is going to last, what, an entire WE maybe ? More ? I dunno - never touched the stuff. But I know I spend that much per week on videogames alone ! An entire day’s worth of flying on acid, *seriously *fucked up ? 20 bucks. Cheaper than Disneyworld, just as many giant talking animals.
With that in mind, what makes *you *think they’d suddenly rise in price if they were made a dozen times more readily and safely available ?
Nonsense. Even the most strung out junkies aren’t high **all **of the time, you know ? If only because they need to make money to buy their next fix. Which, despite what you might believe from watching a lot of cop shows, doesn’t necessarily (or even routinely) involve petty theft or prostitution.
And you believe there aren’t also enormously many functional drug users out there ? If you live in a moderately large city, you probably meet at least ten of 'em any given week. Like I said, recreational drug users - not high all the time. Hell, some might even work around you while high and you wouldn’t notice the difference, depending on what they’re on.
But regardless, just because drugs are addictive doesn’t mean all of the people who enjoy them are going to be stereotypical hopeless addicts themselves. Alcohol is actually extremely addictive, and its withdrawal symptoms are pretty harsh - yet despite its wide consumption, full-blown alcoholism is not all that common (relatively speaking), nevermind lit-up-from-8AM-onwards-every-day alcoholism.
Are people going to comprehensively destroy themselves on junk ? Sure. They already do. They also already do on cheap whiskey. Or sex. Or any other outlet for self-destructive behaviour. But most people gasp aren’t *looking *to destroy themselves.
So they don’t.
I was aware that my classification of the weapons used in the latest atrocity was probably incorrect. Still wonder why people need those particular models for their home collections. Hey, the woman who actually paid for them might have had time for a bit of regret before her son killed her.
Despite all the tangents, the subject of this pitting is Crafter_Man. Nobody has managed to defend his long-standing idiotic cruelty. Has anyone even tried?
TMTR, so sorry if this has been mentioned already, but:
Does the OP mean that no one at all would ever be killed by a gun? Including guns used by police and soldiers? In other words, if firearms could be made obsolescent? There was a science fiction novel called “The Trigger”, in which someone invented a field that would cause any nitrate-based explosive to spontaneously detonate. It became impossible to bring guns and most bombs into any area where it was deployed, radically changing the world. This story examined pretty much the premise of the OP.
As to whether Crafter_Man’s stated position is reprehensible, I will say it sounds pretty extreme; but if there is one good thing about guns, it’s- as the saying goes- that God created all men, and Samuel Colt made them all equal. If no guns meant going back to a world in which you were at the mercy of anyone bigger and stronger than you, or who outnumbered you three to one, then I’d have to think about it.
That’s a fair comment, but I think the problem here is “fighting the hypothetical.” There are many people who feel it would be a defeat to even acknowledge an absurdly broad hypothetical by answering it.
So to answer your complaint, we’d still have tasers, mace, cell phones to summon police – all sorts of tools of this century that Sam Colt’s time lacked.
I do not favor additional gun restrictions, but I have no problem saying that if if all murders from guns could be ended, the trade-off would be worthwhile. It’s jut not a possible goal in a world that lacks wish-granting djinn.
I think the folks posting in favor of guns here are overlooking the hypothetical nature of the question–I didn;t read the OP to mean he was actually positing the hypothetical in order to get a real world answer, but simply to gauge how important those 2nd amendment rights are to you. Let’s suppose, only a tiny bit more realistically, that the crime rate (due to 23rd century advancements in technology) goes down to virtually 0%, and the only crimes that exist are directly tracable to the prevalence of handguns. IOW, say we get rid of every other major criminal issue, but handguns are proliferating. No one needs a gun to protect himself anymore against non-existent crimes, rape has been eliminated, there hasn’t been a home invasion in decades, BUT schoolkids and passersbys and innocent spouses et al. are being slaughtered every day and this is directly tracable to the ready availability of guns. Without disputing my hypothetical situation, would you be able to say “Hmmm, under those conditions I’d want to re-examine gun ownership” or would you still adhere to your hardline 2nd Amendment defenses?
Since we can’t eliminate all murders, is there a lesser margin of reduction that would be a fair trade off? 80%? 60%? Or is is total eradication or nothing?
Just jumping in here after reading only the first few post on this tread.
It’s just pure fantasy. If his choice was to become actual reality I doubt he would choose his gun over never having to have another gun killing.
My 2 cents…Even though I’m not a gun enthusiast I would not want total banning of guns or the ban on indivudual gun ownership. Although I really don’t understand the need for a hand gun at home. Only one use for it and that’s to kill another person be it self defense or otherwise. I don’t want that on my conscience.
I do feel a much better gun control law needs to be administered. Perhaps throwing out all existing gun laws and coming up with an all inclusive one. The way I see it, it’s much too easy for anybody to get a gun. I’m against mail order shipping of guns. Any criminal offense other than routine traffic should block gun ownership. A mandatory 30 day exhaustive investigation would be needed prior to gun purchase. Even if it’s an additional gun.
Anybody with any type of mental disability or live in family member with criminal or mental disability should not be allowed to own a gun.
Here’s food for thought…Look at your neighborhood. Probably most of them have guns. Do you really trust your neighbors that well that you feel totally comfortable with them having guns? I don’t. Here’s my problem, in today’s society it take very little to insult (intentionally or not) somebody and get them ticked off to want revenge.
Maybe I live in a better neighborhood, but yes I would trust all my neighbors with guns. In fact I wish we had a block gun club.
Which isn’t useful at all, it is merely selfish and potentially dangerous. If you are one of the few who can take addictive drugs without negatively affecting others, that’s great but most of your fellow beings cannot do that.
Same reasons legal drugs are so expensive, starting with the FDA.
Really? How is it that you know so much about what heavy users do?
Of the seriously addictive ones, which is what I said? No. I’m quite sure there are many functional routine pot users out there but things like meth? You keep trying to sidestep what I’ve said and include all illegal drugs, when I have been very specific that I am talking about the ones that are highly addictive.
No, not at the level of the drugs I’m talking about. Do you really believe that alcohol is on the same level as meth?
Heh, I wouldn’t trust many of my neighbors with guns, since they have proven their inability to handle responsibility already!
I live in a town that is awash in guns in a state that is awash in guns. There are shootings here from time to time, but never in my neighborhood. The shootings, very nearly always, take place in certain neighborhoods among people of low socioeconomic and educational status who are involved in criminal activity. Said criminal activity, in one way or another, comes back to drugs. Buying, selling, stealing in order to buy, trying to steal from another dealer, etc. etc. etc.
We can, at some point, recognize that it isn’t the guns that are the problem, or we can leave these people to rot in ignorance and poverty, murdering the shit out of each other all the while.
Lumby, I’m glad you do. Because in most likelihood more than you might think have a gun. Especially the neighbors who you would likely not lend money to.
curlcoat, I agree with you. I’m on very good terms with all the neighbors I know and say hello to the ones I don’t. But the one’s I know, I like, but would not trust my money or my life much less with a gun. And the new neighbors that move in at about a rate of one to two a year God only knows what their like.
My neighborhood is a typical middle class suburban tract of about 300 to 400 homes.
Why is it that in today’s society when one is confronted with a possible altercation, the best advice is walkaway? Looks cannot be relayed upon as an indication of pent up anger. It’s a scarey world out there.:eek:
You need to visit Uncle Al’s Auto Stop and Gunnery Shop!
In the immortal words of Bill Hicks, “And if you don’t believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor. Go home tonight. Take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CDs… and burn them. 'Cause you know what ? The musicians that made all that great music that’s enhanced your lives throughout the years ? Rrreal fucking high on drugs. The Beatles were so fucking high they let *Ringo *sing a few tunes.”
Legal drugs like tobacco and alcohol, you mean ? 
Or medical marijuana for that matter.
I’m into tobacco and beer, that’s all. I don’t “do drugs” myself, I’m too much of a control freak. Don’t even drink coffee.
How is it that *you *do ?
Me, I personally knew a couple of them over the years. Only one really ever “scared” me or was anywhere near your stereotypical self-destructive addict bound to end up turning tricks behind the 7/11 or whatever. But then, he was already unwell long before walking down that road.
I certainly know plenty of recreational drug users, who do drugs besides the ubiquitous pot, and aren’t anywhere near your stereotypical TV drug wretch. Shit, Marion Barry smokes/used to smoke crack, and he was the fricking mayor of one of the largest cities in the US. I’d like to think that job requires mental capacity and the ability to work. Not much, but some.
Absolutely.
I admittedly have little contact with IV heroin users or dragon chasers, but know/knew a whole bunch of people who regularly do coke, ecstasy, medical opiates, all kinds of funny pills at parties and/or on bored Sunday afternoons. Engineers, bankers, insurers, PR execs, TV staff, computer geeks, one assistant mayor of a small town.
Look, I won’t deny there’s a substance abuse problem among the destitutes - but IMO that’s really a poverty problem more than it is a drug problem per se. Plenty of the poor are just as hooked on the devil gin. Poverty sucks, inescapable poverty sucks more. I hardly blame the poorest for desperate, hopeless escapism and plain tuning out.
Abso-fucking-lutely. Have you ever met an honest to god alcoholic ? Scary people.
Because dead-fall traps for deer (or anything else bigger than a mouse, for that matter) are illegal, because they might kill a passing kid playing in the woods, like I frequently did as a kid? A shotgun requires that you actually identify a target, although you may do that mistakenly. A dead-fall just kills indiscriminately. I’m just guessing, here, but I think that just might have something to do with it.
Look, after you cop to smoking and drinking beer, you lack the square-cred to say, “don’t even drink coffee”.
Did CM ever confirm whether he understood the hypothetical? I think he meant he wouldn’t give the guns up if we ALL had to give them up…not just him. I may be wrong. I haven’t perused both threads, but I did skim.
Guns wouldn’t be that. I used to live where drug dealers were a dime-a-dozen. During the over half a decade I lived there, the only shooting deaths were either dope-dealer accidentally hitting a random innocent bystander (some of whom were accidentally hit through walls) or 2, count them, 2, who were co-conspirators in the crime in question, who were hit instead of the person the gang-bangers were intending to victimize. Not one, during those years, managed to hit his intended target. There were many more successful stabbings. FTR, neither did any cop who shot at a criminal get a better hit rate, so the ‘forces for good’ ain’t any better. Gangbangers were far more likely to shoot their own co-conspirators, accidentally, than they were to shoot their intended victims.
Jesus Tapdancin’ Christ you’re an asshole. At least you were kind enough to accurately describe yourself.
That was my first thought, and I’m one who would prefer to see much greater restrictions (and enforcement of those restrictions) on gun ownership.