How are guns and drugs different?

[Kanada Kev]

Interesting:

How are guns and drugs different from a societal point of view?

If drugs are banned because they are potentially abused, what makes guns any different? They are also innocent but often abused by criminals, gang bangers, and terrorists. At least drugs are only abused by individuals seeking to modify their own experience and not people attempting to kill others.

Interesting how the same segment of society that wants to outlaw drugs, also wants to protect guns from control or regulation. And the people who want to leagalize drugs are among the many who want to control gun sales and availability.

This just shows how dogmatic our beliefs are, and how inconsistent our true values are.

[Esau.]

At least drugs are only abused by individuals seeking to modify their own experience and not people attempting to kill others.

Although, a large number of crimes, both non-violent and violent, with or without a firearm occur for the sole purpose of getting money to purchase the drugs by those absuing them.

[Freak By Night]

Drugs - you can smoke them.

Guns - they can smoke you.

[Hal Johnson]

Dibs on "Drugs and Guns" as a band name!

[bradm]

One difference I can think of is that a gun can be used by an individual for defensive purposes, drugs cannot. So when there are efforts to clamp down on the availability of guns, that can be spun as an attempt to limit (or eliminate) a necessary personal right, the right to defend oneself*. Recreational drugs, however, are really just used to to create an enjoyable experience, which has a lot less of an "it's necessary" justification.

Aloha,

Brad

* Note that I'm not saying that I agree with this point of view, just that it gets used a lot.

[SaggyBalls]

At least drugs are only abused by individuals seeking to modify their own experience and not people attempting to kill others.

Although' date=' a large number of crimes, both non-violent and violent, with or without a firearm occur for the sole purpose of getting money to purchase the drugs by those absuing them.[/quote']

Guns and Drugs are 2 adjacent sides of the multi-faceted issue of prohibition.

If we produced and distributed these 'recreational' drugs to those dependant on them while investing more in the physical and mental health of these individuals, not only could it reduce the crime levels in our communities, but it would create jobs in health and wellness.

If those dependant didn't have to spend their days trying to hustle and score, there's much more of a chance they'd realize there's more to life and take the necessary steps to grabbing ahold of their lives once again instead of turning to crime as the easy option.

I wonder if the necessary steps will be taken to help our unwell society heal and recover, instead of just treating the symptoms it suffers from.

Hope to see it in my lifetime, anyway.

Depends on what our society values I guess.

[Birdy]

I think it just boils down to what a person knows. A peace loving hippy isn't likely to load up a shot gun and drive off into the forest to kill a deer. Nor is a gun-happy deer killer likely to sit around, smoke weed and watch The Office on a Thursday night. People don't understand what they don't know.

I consider myself somewhat lucky, in that I grew up in a house with a gun cabinet and a father who hunted (not deer), and also am of the inclination to sit around, smoke weed and watch The Office on a Thursday night. As it turns out, i'm pro-legalization of drugs and anti-gun registry.

[bradm]

How could something like a gun registry be demonstrated to help the justice system? For example, if you could show me a bunch of cases that had been decided before the registry was put in place, and which would have been made stronger or clearer (or a reversed decision) if the registry had been in place when they occurred (assuming the registry was 100% accurate, but not necessarily 100% complete), then I can believe it's a good thing to have (and to implement properly, which I'll admit government isn't great at), otherwise, I guess I'm more interested in what the justifications would be (and the specific problem or problems it's intended to address) before I decide whether we should have one or not.

Aloha,

Brad

[Birdy]

Perhaps i'm ignorant of any facts, but I have yet to come across (not that I actively search) any evidence on how the registry has benefited our society; aside from hearsay evidence along the lines of having less guns on the streets and knowing who has them.

One of the biggest arguments that i think i've encountered from those who are pro-gun control is the ability of the police to know if a house has guns in it before going in for a raid. This is where i need to see some kind of numbers, or something... because i'm inclined to think that most houses getting raided are occupied by people who don't lawfully register their firearms. That, and i think actually having this information might actually hurt police, because if they see that the house doesn't have guns in it, they're then caught unawares when the guns come out.

I don't want a gun happy society like our neighbours to the South though... i don't want the majority of Canadians to possess firearms. But i wonder if that's just more of an identity issue itself... 'the right to bear arms'... 'god bless America'... 'live free, or die', rather than having anything to do with legislation prohibiting their sale.

[phishtaper]

... I have yet to come across ... any evidence on how the registry has benefited our society

please Birdy, it gave hundreds of people government jobs!

hey, haven't seen you in a while. how's tricks?

[Birdy]

Ahhh yes, the coveted government job! Where do i sign up?

All's good, thanks PT... just took a mini-break.

[Thorgnor]

One of the biggest arguments that i think i've encountered from those who are pro-gun control is the ability of the police to know if a house has guns in it before going in for a raid. This is where i need to see some kind of numbers, or something... because i'm inclined to think that most houses getting raided are occupied by people who don't lawfully register their firearms. That, and i think actually having this information might actually hurt police, because if they see that the house doesn't have guns in it, they're then caught unawares when the guns come out.

That seems a pretty shady argument... Police would be better off with less information going in? Isn't that like saying we should take the speedometer out of the car so that people drive more cautiously? Should we turn off the Tsunami and earthquake warning systems because they make us nervous and they still can't stop the disaster?

[phishtaper]

Thorgnor, speedometers and tsunami warning systems are basically accurate. but if the information of a warning system is as faulty as that of the gun registry then yes, it would be advised not to pay attention to it.

absolutely, incorrect information can in many cases be worse than no information.

i got yer back here, Birdster!

Edited April 24, 2009 by Guest
in one of them moods

[Birdy]

Thanks buddy!!

It's not really an argument though. I said i was inclined to think. But for what it's worth, i'm very much inclined to agree with PT, 'incorrect information can in many cases be worse than no information'. Absolutely! Would you prefer police to bust in on a raid thinking that no guns are present only to be greeted with a semi-automatic pointed at their head?

[Thorgnor]

of course not, that'd be silly and it's the exact question that I asked, why provide them with less information? Just because there are no registered guns in that address doesn't mean they would approach with less caution in a dangerous situation, it just means they are aware of when there are guns there and have a heads up. Not knowing if there are registered guns is more information.

"Opinioning" against gun control is fine, but the idea that guns don't kill people, people do, just suggests that we shouldn't control guns (or in this case count them), we should control people instead.

I don't mean to get into semantics about what kind of communication this is.

It's good to see you around here again Birdy.

[phishtaper]

Would you prefer police to bust in on a raid thinking that no guns are present only to be greeted with a semi-automatic pointed at their head?

or worse, have them bust into your house thinking that you DO have a semi-automatic weapon when you don't.

i completely agree that having people register their guns is a good idea, in and of itself. there are a lot of guns out there and they are dangerous. the problem was in the implementation of that idea. it was a bureaucratic nightmare to cross the T's and dot the I's and the whole effort simply didn't measure illegal or undeclared weapons. it registered guns from among those who we really had little to worry about in the first place, and it was a huge hassle for them to do so.

[Hal Johnson]

I'd like to think that if police have to do a raid they would assume the people they are raiding have guns.

"Uh, don't worry about the vest, Kyle, I checked the registry, none of these Bloods are packing."

Edited April 24, 2009 by Guest

[hamilton]

Tories have long contended that the registry is a waste of taxpayers' money and does nothing to combat crime.

But in his letter, Momy says police officers used the registry an average of 9.4 times a day last year. Among other things, he says, the registry is helpful in alerting officers to the likely presence of guns when responding to domestic violence calls or other volatile situations.

He says the registry also "discourages casual gun ownership," prompting people to get rid of unused or unwanted firearms. And it encourages those who do own guns to abide by safe storage laws and report thefts.

Critics of the registry have characterized it as penalizing law-abiding long-gun owners, primarily hunters and rural residents.

But Momy notes that of 15 police officers fatally shot in Canada during the last decade, 13 were killed with rifles or shotguns. Moreover, he says, long guns are used two times more frequently than handguns in spousal homicides and five times more in suicides.

Being able to identify ownership of firearms can be crucial in investigating and prosecuting suspects, he said.

For instance, Momy said a registered rifle found at the scene of the 2005 murder of four RCMP officers in Mayerthorpe, Alta., was part of the evidence that ultimately led to the arrest and conviction of two men for manslaughter.

Link

These aren't the statistics that you're looking for, but they are interesting arguments.

[Thorgnor]

If we were serious there would be a life sentence for the possession of an illegal gun, period, no parole, no bullshit arguements, no mitigating circumstances, and regardless of whether it's been fired off or not. If it's not registered, you're done, dude. If it's registered and you keep your paper work in order, you're good to go.

If every weapon purchased in Canada were registered, during raids or house calls the police would be obliged to account for the weapons. If they're not found, boom, the weapon has entered the "black market". If we know the point of entry, we can begin a search for the weapon, and those who allowed the weapon into the underground/illegal market can be punished, whether it enters through theft, or the illegal sale of firearms.

Smuggling is an entirely different issue and it's not helpful to conflate the two problems. You get caught smuggling as mush as a a firing pin, life sentence. You get caught taking a bribe as a border guard or cop, you should get real time, not time off with pay.

A hunting rifle is one thing, but anything else can stay at the range under lock, key and the watchful eyes of very well paid security.

Why don't people get this fired up about having to register a vehicle?

Edited April 24, 2009 by Guest

[phishtaper]

If we were serious there would be a life sentence for the possession of an illegal gun, period, no parole, no bullshit arguements, no mitigating circumstances, and regardless of whether it's been fired off or not. If it's not registered, you're done, dude. If it's registered and you keep your paper work in order, you're good to go.

If every weapon purchased in Canada were registered, during raids or house calls the police would be obliged to account for the weapons. If they're not found, boom, the weapon has entered the "black market". If we know the point of entry, we can begin a search for the weapon, and those who allowed the weapon into the underground/illegal market can be punished, whether it enters through theft, or the illegal sale of firearms.

Jack Bauer: Chloe, I need a live feed from the satellite and crosscheck it with the fbi, cia, nsa and interpol databases for left-handed perps who limp and have recently traveled to africa or south america.

Chloe: I'm on it Jack. Will have it in 30 seconds.

[Birdy]

Thanks Hamilton. I think i agree with PT on this one, in that it's the implementation and the structure of the gun registry that turns me off the most. I don't know though if there is a way to make the process more efficient, as I really don't know what goes into it, or exactly what the problems are. All i do know is that i've read so many articles to the effect that it is a structural disaster and a huge waste of money, which for me is a major turn-off as that money could be used more efficiently somewhere else, i'm sure.

That and it really does penalize law-abiding gun owners. Some of whom I personally know and who have gotten rid of their guns in protest of the registry.

All that said, it's hard to ignore the arguments above and I won't. But like PT said earlier, I wonder how many cops go into a raid trigger happy with guns ready, knowing what is on the other side. That's a scary image in itself.

I'm kind of the opinion to get it right, or as close to right as possible if we are to do it. This middle ground stuff with loopholes and inefficiencies kind of defeats the purpose of a registry in the first place, or so I seem to think.

Lord knows i'm against controlling people, but i'm inclined to think requiring people to take stock and account for their possessions to be stored in a federal database is exactly that, on a more polite scale.

[Birdy]

If we were serious there would be a life sentence for the possession of an illegal gun, period, no parole, no bullshit arguements, no mitigating circumstances, and regardless of whether it's been fired off or not. If it's not registered, you're done, dude. If it's registered and you keep your paper work in order, you're good to go.

If every weapon purchased in Canada were registered, during raids or house calls the police would be obliged to account for the weapons. If they're not found, boom, the weapon has entered the "black market". If we know the point of entry, we can begin a search for the weapon, and those who allowed the weapon into the underground/illegal market can be punished, whether it enters through theft, or the illegal sale of firearms.

Smuggling is an entirely different issue and it's not helpful to conflate the two problems. You get caught smuggling as mush as a a firing pin, life sentence. You get caught taking a bribe as a border guard or cop, you should get real time, not time off with pay.

A hunting rifle is one thing, but anything else can stay at the range under lock, key and the watchful eyes of very well paid security.

Why don't people get this fired up about having to register a vehicle?

I do. I'm pissed come my birthday every year when I have to spend $70 for new stickers.

Dude, your description above sounds like a police state.

[Thorgnor]

Any state where the police have the final say is imo "a police state". So I think we live in one right now, just to be clear. That said, if we're gonna pay'em, we should pay'em well and ensure that they are exactly the kinds of people we want in the positions.

If we were to be rigorous in all of our duties, including citizenship, I don't think we'd have a problem with an efficient system. And I am sensitive to the fantasy that I outlined, but efficiency isn't necesarily the answer I guess.

education, medicine, police, military, science, political parties, architecture... they're all forms of social control.

[Esau.]

But Momy notes that of 15 police officers fatally shot in Canada during the last decade, 13 were killed with rifles or shotguns. Moreover, he says, long guns are used two times more frequently than handguns in spousal homicides and five times more in suicides.

How would a gun registry have any effect on thngs like this? I find statistics and arguments like these misleading, much like the marijuana issue.

I can understand a lot of the pros for the registry, and in essence I think it could be a good thing, for many of the reasons stated in previous posts by ya'll. But as mentioned already, people who have these guns for the sole purpose of crime will not regsiter them and in the end, registered or not, if someone decides they are going shoot themselves, or kill someone having their name in the registry doesn't mean it will prevent, or deter anything.

I think money could be better spent, or at least for starters spent in other ways, like making the availability much tougher, tighter screening processes (criminal/psych etc), having the serial numbers registered at time of purchase** for all firearms and limits to the number a person can legally own. Perhaps, create some new gov't jobs and have the sale of firearms controlled by the gov't (like alcohol via LCBO/beer store).

** re: registering at ToP: It may be that way now, I dunno exactly, but at one time all you needed was an FAC to buy a rifle it was up to you to register it.

Of course, like a registry none of these things could be considered a deterrent to murders, crime, suicide etc but then again, taking drivers tests/courses, registering a car doesn't deter people from being irresponsible drivers.

I grew up in a home that had many rifles (firearms in one cabinet, ammo in a different cabinet, both locked), my father, little brother & I all hunted, my brother and I both owned rifles (with FACs) at the age of 16. We also took hunting & gun courses before our father would even let us fire them. Proper education is important.

Personally, I'm not for or against a registry, at least for the moment anyway, but at the same time I think a lot the reasons and arguments given for it are pretty weak, overall.

For the record, after my father passed away in 97, I took advantage of the turn in program at my local police station since I knew I wouldn't be going hunting again and honestly don't have a need for one now.

[Thorgnor]

But Momy notes that of 15 police officers fatally shot in Canada during the last decade, 13 were killed with rifles or shotguns. Moreover, he says, long guns are used two times more frequently than handguns in spousal homicides and five times more in suicides.

So in the case of any domestic disturbance police should come in prepared for gun violence, but it's easier to know how to adjust tactics based on the idea that you know there is a rifle present, or else they have no idea what to expect in any case.

I'm for a registry, but not one that is periodically drained of it's funding (=efficiency). I think you (all) make some really good points against though too. It has been a "waste of money" the way it has been run so far.