guns

[Matts_12GS]

Please don't interrupt the heated argument he's having with his strawman.

[Flyer5]

Here's a perfect example of an innocent person being injured by an untrained common person who some say should not be allowed access to a gun.

 

Oh that's just terrible. They should have asked the armed man to wait for the police to arrive so he could be arrested and be given a fair trial.

 

The poor home invader... first he's got to be armed to protect himself from gun nuts, then these people were so self centered as to resist his efforts to improve his own financial situation. I'm sure they had insurance, they should have just let him have the stuff and hoped he didn't harm them in return. Just because he forced his way into their home while armed they assumed he was a bad guy. I'm sure he was just turning his life around.

 

Yea! What a pity . He could have been reformed and educated in prison . So then he could just be a smarter criminal .

[DavidEBSmith]

Yeah, if only this guy had been armed . . .

[HairyCannonball]

Yeah, if only this guy had been armed . . .

 

If only that guy didn't live in a pollyannaish fantasy land. Probably time he embraces reality before he gets hurt.

[Lawman]

Yeah, if only this guy had been armed . . .

 

I agree..

He would have been been in a much better position to protect himself in the event the kid took his kindness as vulnerability and tried to stab him. Not that I believe anyone would actually do that sort of thing of course.

[DavidEBSmith]

If only that guy didn't live in a pollyannaish fantasy land.

 

He lives in the Bronx, which is pretty far from fantasy land. And he did this in the real world, and it worked for him. So . . .

[HairyCannonball]

If only that guy didn't live in a pollyannaish fantasy land.

 

He lives in the Bronx, which is pretty far from fantasy land. And he did this in the real world, and it worked for him. So . . .

 

The fantasy land is in his head. Kind of disturbs me I have to explain this.

[DavidEBSmith]

Kind of disturbs me I have to explain this.

 

Why does it disturb you that a bad guy learned the error of his ways through non-violence?

 

What would you preferred to have seen this person do?

[HairyCannonball]

Kind of disturbs me I have to explain this.

 

Why does it disturb you that a bad guy learned the error of his ways through non-violence?

 

What would you preferred to have seen this person do?

 

 

It doesn't disturb me that someone learned the error of their ways through non-violence. What disturbs me is that you drew this conclusion from what I posted.

 

It also, although this was not indicated in my last postings, disturbs me that you seem to be implying that this is the correct way to act when being assaulted. If you believe that this will work in any but the rarest of circumstances, then you too live in a polyannaish fantasy land..that exists in your head..(and makes no reference to the physical place you live just so we are clear here) because in the real world the results tend to be far less favorable.

 

You asked what I would have preferred this fellow to do. I wasn't there to see how the situation actually played out so I can't possibly answer this question. It obviously worked out for him. This once. In this situation. Just don't expect me to help you carry the big screen out and then take you to dinner and a movie after you break into my house.

[HairyCannonball]

And again, we are getting way off base here. As was so eloquently posted by Fugu earlier, the right to be armed isn't about stopping crime.

[Lawman]

"Just don't expect me to help you carry the big screen out and then take you to dinner and a movie after you break into my house."

 

[DavidEBSmith]

It also, although this was not indicated in my last postings, disturbs me that you seem to be implying that this is the correct way to act when being assaulted. If you believe that this will work in any but the rarest of circumstances, then you too live in a polyannaish fantasy land..that exists in your head..(and makes no reference to the physical place you live just so we are clear here) because in the real world the results tend to be far less favorable.

 

Luke 6:29

 

If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

[HairyCannonball]

It also, although this was not indicated in my last postings, disturbs me that you seem to be implying that this is the correct way to act when being assaulted. If you believe that this will work in any but the rarest of circumstances, then you too live in a polyannaish fantasy land..that exists in your head..(and makes no reference to the physical place you live just so we are clear here) because in the real world the results tend to be far less favorable.

 

Luke 6:29

 

If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic.

 

If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed

Exodus 22:2

 

But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into.

Matthew 22:43

 

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Luke 22:36

 

 

I could go on...

Are you really sure you want to start using quotations from the Bible to support an argument for pacifism?

[ShovelStrokeEd]

That's one violent book, what with patricide, matricide, filicide, infanticide and lots of slaying and slewing, not to mention all the smiting going on.

[tallman]

* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.

13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average.

14

1. * Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.

1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.

2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.

 

 

http://www.gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

 

BTW seems interesting that some peolpe think using a radar detector (as a tool) to avoid tickets and break the law by speeding is OK,

yet using a gun (as a tool) to legally protect yourself from a criminal,

is somehow wrong???

Just saying...

[Lawman]

I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection. Why does my choice to carry/own a gun bother the non carry crowd?

[Paul_Burkett]

My thought is that non-carriers/owners a) do not feel the need to carry because the police are there to protect them. B) the press has told us it is too dangerous and mayhem will ensue, 3) Guns are bad, 4) they don't want to.

There are many reasons that people don't feel the need to own or carry a gun, and that is fine with me, I own but do not carry, if I lived in an area that allowed me too, I might,I don't know. But the right to bare arms is my right to choose and that is the crux of the matter to me.

[Agent_Orange]

Now that, is the question!

 

Why do some feel that they just have to force their ways, views, on others?

 

I guess that goes with the times.

[Matts_12GS]

Ed, once you get past all the smiting, fighting and killing there's also plenty of fornication in that bood so keep reading!

 

Great article Tim.

 

Why does my choice to carry/own a gun bother the non carry crowd?

 

Lawman, I couldn't agree more. I think it stems from the whole "armed society is a polite society" thing. Some of those folks who have contrary views can be pretty nasty. Maybe they're concerned their chickens will come home to roost?

[ShovelStrokeEd]

I'll get back to you on that. I know there was a lot of begetting going on.

 

I'm thinking about reading the Koran again as well.

[Dave McReynolds]

"Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die." Gen 27:3

 

Isaac's tastes and mine run along similar lines. Fortunately, I'm not yet so old that I have to rely on quarrelling sons to fetch my venison for me.

[DavidEBSmith]

I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection.

 

Y'know, for not being bothered by those who choose not to carry guns, the pro-gun crowd is expending an overwhelming number of electrons to tell people why they're wrong, wrong, wrong for choosing not to carry. I think if you printed out this entire thread and measured the length of the pro-gun and anti-gun posts, the pro-gun posts would be about 10 times the length of the anti-gun posts.

 

If the pro-gun people aren't bothered by people who choose not to carry, why will there be at least 12 responses to this post citing crime statistics, raving about armed intruders beating down the doors, and suggesting that anybody who doesn't have a burning desire to arm themselves is a fool, a coward, or a communist? I mean, the pro-gun people were even trying to show that Jesus was really pro-gun. (WWJC?)

 

And frankly, the massive over-response has not even been to posts saying "your guns should be taken away." It would be understandable why you would want to respond to that. No, the pro-gunners react almost hysterically to posts that could be summarized as "a gun might not be the necessary response in all cases" or "I choose not to have a gun around". If pro-gunners don't care, why is it that when someone expresses a differing opinion, they're obsessed with showing the world that opinion is wrong?

 

Why does my choice to carry/own a gun bother the non carry crowd?

 

 

Ummm, because it's the people who carry guns who present the risk of shooting others, not the people who don't carry guns?

[Paul_Burkett]

(WWJC?)

[HairyCannonball]

I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection.

 

Y'know, for not being bothered by those who choose not to carry guns, the pro-gun crowd is expending an overwhelming number of electrons to tell people why they're wrong, wrong, wrong for choosing not to carry. I think if you printed out this entire thread and measured the length of the pro-gun and anti-gun posts, the pro-gun posts would be about 10 times the length of the anti-gun posts.

 

If the pro-gun people aren't bothered by people who choose not to carry, why will there be at least 12 responses to this post citing crime statistics, raving about armed intruders beating down the doors, and suggesting that anybody who doesn't have a burning desire to arm themselves is a fool, a coward, or a communist? I mean, the pro-gun people were even trying to show that Jesus was really pro-gun. (WWJC?)

 

And frankly, the massive over-response has not even been to posts saying "your guns should be taken away." It would be understandable why you would want to respond to that. No, the pro-gunners react almost hysterically to posts that could be summarized as "a gun might not be the necessary response in all cases" or "I choose not to have a gun around". If pro-gunners don't care, why is it that when someone expresses a differing opinion, they're obsessed with showing the world that opinion is wrong?

 

Why does my choice to carry/own a gun bother the non carry crowd?

 

 

Ummm, because it's the people who carry guns who present the risk of shooting others, not the people who don't carry guns?

 

You clearly do not understand many things, David.

We are not bothered by those that choose to not carry. We are bothered by those that tell us we can't carry (or own, keep, use etc.) either. Big difference. I can explain it further if you need, as this seems a most difficult concept for you to grasp, and once you do, perhaps you will see things from a different perspective.

 

You posted an out of context quotation from the Christian Bible in support of an argument for pacifism. When rebutted with further quotations from the same source you post this: "I mean, the pro-gun people were even trying to show that Jesus was really pro-gun. (WWJC?)"

Well, you were trying to show that Jesus was a pacifist.

At least have the integrity to accept a rebuttal given in like kind to the one YOU started.

 

What you are characterizing as a massive over response is because the anti gun crowd really does want to take all the guns away. We firearm enthusiasts do not want this to happen. We feel that there are too many laws restricting gun ownership on the books already. Some of us believe that freedom is a more important value than absolute safety. Perhaps you need to do some more research to find out how serious the anti-gun people are about there intentions.

[Lawman]

I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection.

 

Y'know, for not being bothered by those who choose not to carry guns, the pro-gun crowd is expending an overwhelming number of electrons to tell people why they're wrong, wrong, wrong for choosing not to carry. I think if you printed out this entire thread and measured the length of the pro-gun and anti-gun posts, the pro-gun posts would be about 10 times the length of the anti-gun posts.

 

If the pro-gun people aren't bothered by people who choose not to carry, why will there be at least 12 responses to this post citing crime statistics, raving about armed intruders beating down the doors, and suggesting that anybody who doesn't have a burning desire to arm themselves is a fool, a coward, or a communist? I mean, the pro-gun people were even trying to show that Jesus was really pro-gun. (WWJC?)

 

And frankly, the massive over-response has not even been to posts saying "your guns should be taken away." It would be understandable why you would want to respond to that. No, the pro-gunners react almost hysterically to posts that could be summarized as "a gun might not be the necessary response in all cases" or "I choose not to have a gun around". If pro-gunners don't care, why is it that when someone expresses a differing opinion, they're obsessed with showing the world that opinion is wrong?

 

Why does my choice to carry/own a gun bother the non carry crowd?

 

 

Ummm, because it's the people who carry guns who present the risk of shooting others, not the people who don't carry guns?

 

If you think I'm bothered that you choose not to carry you are sadly mistaken..

[Tony_K]

[philbytx]

Yeah! And it's from NPR......Hmmm! One story about a nice guy does not an argument make.....

[4wheeldog]

That's one violent book, what with patricide, matricide, filicide, infanticide and lots of slaying and slewing, not to mention all the smiting going on.

 

But not one gun. Lots of edged weapons, though......Edged weapon forum NOW!

[DavidEBSmith]

You clearly do not understand many things, David.

We are not bothered by those that choose to not carry. We are bothered by those that tell us we can't carry (or own, keep, use etc.) either. Big difference. I can explain it further if you need, as this seems a most difficult concept for you to grasp, and once you do, perhaps you will see things from a different perspective. . . . You posted an out of context quotation from the Christian Bible in support of an argument for pacifism.. . .Some of us believe that freedom is a more important value than absolute safety. Perhaps you need to do some more research to find out how serious the anti-gun people are about there intentions.

 

Like I said, a fool, a coward, or a communist. The pro-gun tactics are so predictable: insult your opponent's intelligence, insult your opponent's manhood, or insult your opponent's patriotism.

 

I scoffed at the statement "I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection." Your immediate reflexive response was "We are bothered by those that tell us we can't carry . . the anti gun crowd really does want to take all the guns away."

 

The pro-gun people seem to be constitutionally unable to understand that not-pro-gun is not necessarily anti-gun. It may be indifferent-to-guns. But pro-gun people insist upon treating everyone who is not one of them like an enemy.

 

Obviously you are bothered by those who don't choose to carry, because you lump them in with the anti-gun forces. Someone choosing not to carry somehow becomes an attack on your right to carry. That's wrong as a matter of elementary logic, and it's wrong as a matter of political strategy.

 

I've personally not advocated taking away anyone's existing gun rights in this discussion. I actually went back and re-read this whole thread to make sure of that. I've questioned many of the assumptions that gun owners have as to the need to carry and as to their own efficacy in a crisis situation, and I opined that gun owners can be their own worst enemy as far as public relations. For that, I've been assumed by the pro-gun forces to be some sort of anti-gun lunatic. I've been called "idiotic" - no wait, that was Greg who was called idiotic. I was called an "anti-gun nut". Because everyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is your enemy.

 

And I made the point that every time you say to a pro-gun person, "I'm not sure that I agree with you on this point", the response is "OMFG! You want to take away our guns! You stupid San Francisco liberal pacifists, the criminals are outside my door right now!"

 

And you proved my point. Whenever the discussion turns to guns, the pro-gunners turn it to killers coming through the door and liberals taking away their guns. Every single time. Just like if somebody mentions Harleys, somebody will have to insult the riding ability of Harley owners.

 

Yes, and now the response will be "but you just don't understand how the anti-gun forces want to take away our rights." It's really another side of the obsessiveness, the fear of the home invaders outside every door and the fear of the gun grabbers in everyone who doesn't march in lockstep with the NRA.

[smiller]

Personally I don't think that you are a fool, a coward, nor a communist (or if you are then I am as well as we seem to agree on most things.) I do think that you are painting 'pro gun' (for lack of a better term, and there surely is a much better term) opinion holders with a rather broad brush. Sure, there are a lot of poorly thought-out and defensive arguments to be had on that side, and from what I see an equal number of groundless and hysterical reactions from the anti-gun position. I'm not sure that either camp has a lock on this.

 

Regarding what you consider to be unwarranted concerns about loss of liberties, I know that you understand how easily this can occur. One only has to glance around to notice many American's newfound acceptance of increased government surveillance, extra-legal renditions, etc., in the name of increased public security. Ten years ago it probably would have been difficult to convince someone that these practices could come to pass so quickly.

[HairyCannonball]

David, none of the pro gun people that I know propose any legislation to force you to carry. Meanwhile there have been numerous bills proposed, passed, and enforced to restrict my rights to carry, own, and bear arms. You yourself, by your own admission, support an amicus brief that is in favor of keeping very restrictive gun legislation in place."Not to mention that since my employer filed an amicus brief in the case, I obviously agree with everything in that brief" #1011561 - Tue Mar 18 2008 08:21 PM DavidEBSmith

 

Although you consistently deny being anti gun, your posts and your support of this brief seem to indicate otherwise. I rarely believe what people say they do, I believe what they actually do. In this case I would find it very hard to believe that you don't support very restrictive gun ownership laws despite what you may say, and you are certainly within your rights to argue for what you believe in.

[tobyzusa]

Why does my choice to carry/own a gun bother the non carry crowd?

 

Purely concern for your well being. I'm afraid you'll shoot your big toe off .

[HairyCannonball]

Furthermore, David, you indicated offense that your intelligence was being questioned. Consider this statement made by you:

"I scoffed at the statement "I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection." Your immediate reflexive response was "We are bothered by those that tell us we can't carry . . the anti gun crowd really does want to take all the guns away."

 

You are questioning the integrity of the person who said I'm not bothered at all by those who choose not to carry/own a gun for self protection. You are further questioning my integrity by referring to my response as "reflexive"

My response was carefully considered and is what I truly believe.

Pardon me that you feel your intelligence is being questioned, after you question my integrity, as to why you have difficulty understanding a simple statement such as "I am not bothered by those that choose to not carry" It seems pretty understandable to me, yet you seem to reach a different conclusion from this statement. What I am questioning is not your intelligence but how you can reach such a different conclusion from this statement than its intended meaning.

 

Tim

[smiller]

David, none of the pro gun people that I know propose any legislation to force you to carry. Meanwhile there have been numerous bills proposed, passed, and enforced to restrict my rights to carry, own, and bear arms. You yourself, by your own admission, support an amicus brief that is in favor of keeping very restrictive gun legislation in place."Not to mention that since my employer filed an amicus brief in the case, I obviously agree with everything in that brief" #1011561 - Tue Mar 18 2008 08:21 PM DavidEBSmith

I think some here may inadvertently be helping to make some of David and Greg's points regarding the tone of the discussion. Neither of them has proposed additional gun control legislation (and I think you need to read David's comment about his support of his employer's amicus brief again, this time with tongue in cheek), nor does it even matter what their personal views might be within the context of an open discussion. They are merely trying to make points that are a legitimate part of the debate and a more compelling response would be to address those specific points rather than the individual making them.

 

People who are opposed to gun rights are not basing their concerns on the potential of being 'forced to carry', rather a belief that a large number of firearms in circulation leads to more gun-related crime, and that society has a compelling interest in reducing the crime by reducing the number of guns in circulation. One can certainly argue as to the correctness of that belief (or even its relevance given the purpose of the Second Amendment) but it is not an unreasonable assertion per se. It is best addressed with a logical counter argument.

[Lawman]

Seth,

If the point of the anti gunners is to reduce crime by reducing the number of guns in circulation I wish they would say so..So long as it's voluntary surrender by those who wish not to carry I would not object whatsoever..I wonder if we should try to reduce traffic accidents by reducing the number of cars on the road through legislation..

I think a much better way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of criminals in circulation...but that's a whole nuther thread...

[ghaverkamp]

I think a much better way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of criminals in circulation...but that's a whole nuther thread...

 

That'd be easy. We just need to decriminalize drugs. Our prisons would stay empty, and we'd decrease gun violence and much of the illegal gun trade. And increase personal liberty at the same time!

[smiller]

I wonder if we should try to reduce traffic accidents by reducing the number of cars on the road through legislation..

Hmmm... since it was your analogy, would reducing the number of cars on the road reduce the total number of traffic accidents?

[HairyCannonball]

I think some here may inadvertently be helping to make some of David and Greg's points regarding the tone of the discussion. Neither of them has proposed additional gun control legislation (and I think you need to read David's comment about his support of his employer's amicus brief again, this time with tongue in cheek), nor does it even matter what their personal views might be within the context of an open discussion. They are merely trying to make points that are a legitimate part of the debate and a more compelling response would be to address those specific points rather than the individual making them.

 

You are correct. Point taken. I was somewhat defensive when the meaning of my post was being questioned when it seemed so clear to me.

 

People who are opposed to gun rights are not basing their concerns on the potential of being 'forced to carry', rather a belief that a large number of firearms in circulation leads to more gun-related crime, and that society has a compelling interest in reducing the crime by reducing the number of guns in circulation. One can certainly argue as to the correctness of that belief (or even its relevance given the purpose of the Second Amendment) but it is not an unreasonable assertion per se. It is best addressed with a logical counter argument.

But when one presents evidence that runs counter to this belief one is labeled a "gun nut", or worse. It has already happened in this rather lengthy thread

 

When I expressed an opinion that pacifism is probably not the correct strategy in all circumstances when assaulted, I was presented with a quotation from the Christian Bible that supported pacifism. When I, purely in rebuttal, presented quotations from the same Christian Bible that indicated something quite different than pacifism, I was accused of using Jesus to support gun rights, when I wasn't even the one that brought Jesus into the discussion in the first place. If we are to have a purely non-emotional discussion it must be kept to just the facts on both sides.

 

Tim

[HairyCannonball]

I think a much better way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of criminals in circulation...but that's a whole nuther thread...

 

That'd be easy. We just need to decriminalize drugs. Our prisons would stay empty, and we'd decrease gun violence and much of the illegal gun trade. And increase personal liberty at the same time!

 

Greg if you are serious about this, and not being sarcastic, we have found a point that we completely agree on.

[steve.foote]

Tim, I'm not replying to you specifically, but to all of the thread participants in general.

 

After 23 pages of debate, has anyone yet changed their position on guns?

[Boffin]

Tim, I'm not replying to you specifically, but to all of the thread participants in general.

 

After 23 pages of debate, has anyone yet changed their position on guns?

 

I get 34 pages... but perhaps only 23 of them could be classified as debate

 

I have changed position from ambivalence to boredom. Does that count?

 

Andy

[Marty Hill]

Hey Steve,

 

Yup, I just bought 2 glocks. I feel much better now.

 

Only yesterday I thought guns were bad.

[steve.foote]

I have changed position from ambivalence to boredom. Does that count?

 

Andy, I think I may be ahead of you. I've moved from boredom to outright dread.

 

Marty, good therapy! You may survive.

[smiller]

After 23 pages of debate, has anyone yet changed their position on guns?

I'm going to guess that the number is approximately equal to those who changed their opinion as a result of the global warming thread.

[philbytx]

Regarding what you consider to be unwarranted concerns about loss of liberties, I know that you understand how easily this can occur. One only has to glance around to notice many American's newfound acceptance of increased government surveillance, extra-legal renditions, etc., in the name of increased public security. Ten years ago it probably would have been difficult to convince someone that these practices could come to pass so quickly.

 

I do hope that we are not going the way of the U.K......ASBO's and oppressive government surveillance of EVERYTHING in the name of 'security'.

Orwellian indeed

[4wheeldog]

I think a much better way to reduce crime is to reduce the number of criminals in circulation...but that's a whole nuther thread...

 

That'd be easy. We just need to decriminalize drugs. Our prisons would stay empty, and we'd decrease gun violence and much of the illegal gun trade. And increase personal liberty at the same time!

 

Spending money on education and rehabilitation would be a much better investment. I would be in favor of such legalization with a couple of exceptions......From my personal observation, I don't believe we could in good conscience legalize rock cocaine or methamphetamine. These drugs are so immediately and completely addictive that legalizing them is too nasty to consider.

 

On the other hand, if people could get all they wanted, Darwin would remove them from the gene pool pretty damn quickly.

[ghaverkamp]

Spending money on education and rehabilitation would be a much better investment. I would be in favor of such legalization with a couple of exceptions......From my personal observation, I don't believe we could in good conscience legalize rock cocaine or methamphetamine. These drugs are so immediately and completely addictive that legalizing them is too nasty to consider.

 

On the other hand, if people could get all they wanted, Darwin would remove them from the gene pool pretty damn quickly.

 

Obviously, the non-hard stuff is an easier sell and would have a huge impact right away. Decriminalizing marijuana would have an immediate impact on the number of potential felons running around.

 

But to have the appropriate impact, I think we've got to for the hard stuff, too. We can still treat and educate those folks, we can still control the manner in which it is sold, and we can kill off much of the crime that revolves around it.

[exwingnut]

 

This is the part that I most interested in. If we review history it is pretty obvious that prohibiting the sale of something merely drives up the profit for those willing to take the risk of selling it...the mob and the prohibitation of alcohol sales is a perfect example; The Mafia really profited from our making them the single source and used this profit to their advantage.

 

While it is certainly abhorrent to thinking of subsidizing addiction allowing un-principled others to make such easy profit on the misery of addicts, and in doing this making huge fortunes and then wielding the obvious power that comes from that money, cannot continue if we are to ever get the upper hand.

[ghaverkamp]

While it is certainly abhorrent to thinking of subsidizing addiction allowing un-principled others to make such easy profit on the misery of addicts, and in doing this making huge fortunes and then wielding the obvious power that comes from that money, cannot continue if we are to ever get the upper hand.

 

I would suggest not thinking of it as "subsidizing addiction." It would be cheaper to become addicted. However, what we're really subsidizing now are the traders, who profit, as you said, by the increased risk. We would take in income for treatment and education, with a net effect of less spending. The lower prices wouldn't come from subsidies.

 

Instead of subsidizing the use of drugs, we'd remove the current "subsidies" we have in place that increase the price.

[Matts_12GS]

I would suggest not thinking of it as "subsidizing addiction." It would be cheaper to become addicted. However, what we're really subsidizing now are the traders, who profit, as you said, by the increased risk. We would take in income for treatment and education, with a net effect of less spending. The lower prices wouldn't come from subsidies.

 

Instead of subsidizing the use of drugs, we'd remove the current "subsidies" we have in place that increase the price.

 

It's all true...

 

If there were a 3 tier system implemented like there is for alchohol sales (producer, distributor, retailer) there would be much revenue to be gained.

 

I would hope that there would be greatly increased penalties for any kind of DWI/OUI types of infractions though to further discourage use in public places though.