To anyone who thinks that handgun control is bad, but preventing IV-drug users from having access to clean needles is good:
Please explain this apparent contradiction.
Thanks.
I don’t fit into your parameters as I have had far too many junie friends not to support needle exchanges, but what exaclty would the contradiction be?
Sharing a bong can give you the flu, but I can’t walk down to target and buy a spare in my state. What in the heck can that possibly have to do with whether I want to own a gun for self-defense?
What’s “junie”?
you want to debate needle exchange and gun control in the same thread? how about this: how can you be against gun control, needle exchange, and abortion?
It’s not a contradiction by assuming genocide. It’s only a contradiction if we buy into the NRA definition of a free country (more prisons, longer sentences).
Meant “junkie.” You’re sig line left me a little dizzie there. But, yeah, what zwald said.
That’s: YOUR sig line left me a little dizzie there.
Or maybe it’s Monday!
Some interesting responses, but so widely varied that I should probably explain myself a little more clearly (I seem always to expect you Dopers to read my mind as well as my post).
Here’s where I was going:
I often amuse myself by sitting around, staring into space, and fuming about the transparent disingenuity of handgun apologists’ talk of rights and freedoms; I’d have a lot more respect for them if they would at least be honest and admit that it’s all a Freudian thing, if you know what I mean* and I think you do. *
I mean, the rights-and-freedoms argument is such patent bullshit–how does Bubba’s right to supply lethal weapons to any gang member who can break into his double-wide and steal them, outweigh my right to live in a world not eyeball-deep in lethal weapons? Or his kids’ right to live in a safe household? It simply doesn’t, but the NRA continues to con us, as a nation, into believing it does.
At the same time, many people on that side of the political fence believe that the government should step in and prevent IV drug users from choosing to commit a personal act that hurts only themselves. Suggesting that Bubba’s right to be contemptuous of a “lifestyle” he would not choose for himself outweighs the drug user’s right not to die (not to mention spread disease to other users) for making poor choices.
Where’s the talk of rights and freedoms now?
How can many of the same people believe that they have a right to what amounts to, at best, a hobby which makes the world a more dangerous place for others, and at the same time believe they can indirectly sentence someone to death for doing something to his or her own body?
Wait, is that the drug users, or the gun owners?
Talk about mis-presenting the other side’s position. Either you are woefully lacking in knowledge about gun rights, or you have decided to create the greatest straw man of all time.
The short answer, is that we feel that outlawing personal ownershipof firearms would INCREASE the amount of guns in the hands of criminals.
A hobby?
I guess free speech, privacy and religion can all be considered “hobbies” as well.
You would do well to understand that there are many combinations of beliefs out there. It seems to me that you have your greatest beef with the Religous Right, and not with people who support freedom.
You’re joking, right?
Let’s see, the right of ownership of firearms is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution; the right to shoot smack, is not.
And with that, I’ll no longer be posting to this thread. The inital premise is patently absurd and lissener has shown himself in the past to be impervious to logic. His track record indicates he really has no wish to do anything here except ruffle some feathers; I don’t see this thread as a serious attempt to do anything more than that again. For what it’s worth, my advice to anyone (from either side of the gun control argument) is to not waste your time here.
The right to shit on Sundays is not explicitly protected in the constitution.
Well, since Uncle-go-bye-bye, i’ll field this:
The powerful elite have no vested interest in preventing people from doing number twos on Sunday, thus it doesn’t need constitutional protections.
Exactly. I think it helps if we all remember that needle exchanges are not kissing a junkies ass, but rather preventing the spread of a terrible disease for which there is no cure, which often ends up in blood supplies and exposing health-care workers and other people just doing their job, etc. Also, needle exchanges are not just humanitarian, but facilitate drug enforcement and the ability to notify addicts of safety information they need to be aware of, and vice versa. Now I need to know if gun ownership makes people feel more secure from disease. I have long felt that guns make people feel more secure, just curious as to how far this security is imagined. I suppose if one does not ever have sex, this would also empower someone to despise needle exchanges.
Question: Are fresh syringes a controlled or presciption item only?
My mom is a retired Registered Nurse. She once told me about how, in the Old Days, hypodermic needles were not the “use-once-and-throw-away” deals they are today. Needles were a lot tougher, and needed to be sharpened by hand. The nurses were required to carry a small supply of their own hypodermic needles with them when they were on duty. After each use, the nurses would put each hypodermic needle in a sterilization machine of some sort, then take them out and put them back in their needle case to be re-used.
It is my obnoxious and completely-uninformed opinion that there would be less danger of spreading diseases through needle-sharing if junkies had easier access to sterilization machines.
Real classy.
You want needles? Go to Agway. They’ll sell you all you want.
I’ll even go a step further.
To one who demands and argues eloquently for respect for a differing viewpoint and lifestyle, how do you explain your unwillingness to respect another?
Your arguments seem less eloquent when it becomes clear that what you really mean is that it is only your viewpoints which are worthy of respect.
I own several handguns and rifles. They are necessary tools for more than one aspect of my life.
I’m going to pretend for a minute that there’s even a shred of sense in your initial premise.
Let’s imagine that the right to dope yourself into oblivion was an explicitly protected Constitutional right, on the same level as the Second Amendment.
Now, what exactly gives you the right to have free clean needles given to you? That’s like me being able to demand brand new bullets given to me free of charge, in exchange for spent casings. If you want them, buy them. Just like everybody else.
But regardless, shooting dope is illegal. Firearms are among the most important of personal rights, and explicitly protected by the Constitution. We’re not talking about apples and oranges here. This is more like apples and comets.
So only a couple of you have understood the thrust of my OP: a question of rights vs. “rights.” The microphallic gun-toters, of course, just want to bluster defensively. Though no kind of surprise, this isn’t really what I was after. I’m interested in the apparently contradictory view of what constitutes a “right,” especially when one intentionally misinterpreted–oops, “consitutionally protected” ( :rolleyes: for all you well regulated militiamen out there) right inarguably makes the world we live in a more dangerous place. Yet this remains the “right” we stand behind, while, Joe Cool and Scylla, clean needles cannot simply be bought, like bullets.
So why is this OK? How many third-party deaths are caused by hypodermics? How many by bullets? Which one is more closely regulated?
It is illegal to buy them. OK, so they can be bought on the black market, but the average junkie jonesing for a fix isn’t always going to make shelling out extra money for a new needle a priority when it takes all day to spange $20.