guns

[velomoto]

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

Yikes, talk about a quickly changing forum... In a couple of days we've moved from crucifying anyone who should question the wisdom or logic of carrying a gun, to a kiss and makeup session complete with a giant group hug.

 

I suppose it's only appropriate that we've moved onto the merits of legalizing various recreational drugs.

[tallman]

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?

 

Why yes.

I feel that we should reduce the posibility of shoulder injury by firing our log guns in a different position.

Also, I find this position rather uncomfortable and will no longer use it.

But, I will continue to employ this technique.

[Fugu]

But, I will continue to employ this technique.

 

Somebody needs to pelt that guy in his exposed parts with an airsoft. He's more exposed than he is behind cover.

[Paul_Burkett]

I was thinking the same thing, learn to shoot with either hand, it only takes practice.

[tallman]

It's a home defense clone, why worry?

[Fugu]

It's a home defense clone, why worry?

 

When home defense clones are outlawed...

[tallman]

A clone has to know its limitations.

[DavidEBSmith]

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

 

Y'know, this morning I had a revelation. I was wrong, you gun guys were right. I do need some guns around the house. In fact, I figure I need one handgun for each of the cars, one handgun for the nightstand next to the bed, and then one downstairs handgun. To deal with the multiple-intruder threat, I think I'll need a couple of pump shotguns (one upstairs, one down) and a case of 00 shells. Then, for when things get really bad, which I know they will, I should probably have at least one assault rifle and a couple thousand rounds of ammo.

 

Unfortunately, I can't legally possess many of these weapons in the City of Chicago, so I'll have to move out to the suburbs, Unfortunately, it's a requirement of my job that I live in the city, so I'll have to quit my job so I can move out. Because I'll have no job, to afford the guns I'm gonna have to sell something, and that will be the motorcycles. So anybody who's interested in giving me a really good price on the RT, let me know - it has a lot of relatively new parts. And because I'll be selling the bikes, I won't be visiting this discussion board much anymore, except this forum to check on the latest gun news, so it's been nice knowing you all. But it'll be worth it to know I can be safe and secure and on constant alert for that thief in the night that Jesus was talking about.

 

Anybody know where I might find a great place to buy guns online? With great prices?

[SageRider]

David,

Glad to see that you've seen the light (and of course, April fools has nothing to do with it!)

[HexHead]

I think all anti-gun types should be forced to wear the universal "no gun" symbol sewn to their clothes. That way when the shooting starts, those of us that carry a) know not to protect them and b) can use them as human shields.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Lets_Play_Two]

"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."

 

We already control the way opiates (percocet, roxycodone, oxycontin) and benzos (xanax) are sold, yet there is a hugh street market for it. In fact, many people who get hooked on pain medication turn to heroine because it has the same effect on them and it is cheaper and much easier to get.

[Paul_Burkett]

Well I'll say this, don't move near me, you're a GUN NUT.

[MotorinLA]

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.

 

Some issues with legalizing certain ‘illicit’ drugs:

1. DUI is a huge problem in our country, allowing greater access to ‘illicit’ drugs will likely only contribute further to this problem.

2. Alcohol is legal and it is the most widely abused drug in our nation, legalization of ‘illicit’ drugs is likely to increase the problem with abuse.

3. Many ‘illicit’ drugs cause the users physical harm, which in turn costs the taxpayer money for their later care.

4. Habitual users of drugs such as rock cocaine and methamphetamine are usually unable to maintain a ‘normal’ life, with respect to maintaining employment and a stable residence. Legalizing these drugs would not change this fact. Even if rock cocaine was cheaper, the user would still need to obtain the money to buy it. Needing money and no job = crime.

 

Truth of the matter is that legalizing drugs does not magically change our society for the better. Look at Amsterdam if you think I’m wrong.

[Dave McReynolds]

Some issues with legalizing certain ‘illicit’ drugs:

1. DUI is a huge problem in our country, allowing greater access to ‘illicit’ drugs will likely only contribute further to this problem.

2. Alcohol is legal and it is the most widely abused drug in our nation, legalization of ‘illicit’ drugs is likely to increase the problem with abuse.

3. Many ‘illicit’ drugs cause the users physical harm, which in turn costs the taxpayer money for their later care.

4. Habitual users of drugs such as rock cocaine and methamphetamine are usually unable to maintain a ‘normal’ life, with respect to maintaining employment and a stable residence. Legalizing these drugs would not change this fact. Even if rock cocaine was cheaper, the user would still need to obtain the money to buy it. Needing money and no job = crime.

 

Your underlying assumption in making these statements is that legalizing drugs will increase the abuse of them. Which is probably correct; I don't see how legalizing them will decrease the abuse of them. The question is, how much will it increase the abuse?

 

Legalization of drugs would reduce or eliminate the huge social and economic cost of arresting, convicting, and incarcerating drug dealers. Compare it with alcohol before and after prohibition. During prohibition, there was a lot of law enforcement activity devoted to the criminal distribution of alcohol. Now, there is almost none. Once legal channels of distribution were established, I would assume the same thing would happen with drugs.

 

So the real question is, will the increased social costs due to the increased abuse of legalized drugs be more or less than the savings due to lower costs of law enforcement and increased tax revenue to be collected on them (which, incidentally, will free up additional human resources and funding to deal with any increased and/or existing abuses)?

 

If the model of alcohol applies, I don't think there is any question that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

[ghaverkamp]

"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."

 

We already control the way opiates (percocet, roxycodone, oxycontin) and benzos (xanax) are sold, yet there is a hugh street market for it. In fact, many people who get hooked on pain medication turn to heroine because it has the same effect on them and it is cheaper and much easier to get.

 

Yes, but the control is that they're not available without a prescription. In other words, they're not available to everyone who may want them.

 

That's different from, say, the regulation of alcohol and tobacco sales.

[ghaverkamp]

1. DUI is a huge problem in our country, allowing greater access to ‘illicit’ drugs will likely only contribute further to this problem.

 

Maybe it will. Maybe we could get serious about managing the situation.

 

2. Alcohol is legal and it is the most widely abused drug in our nation, legalization of ‘illicit’ drugs is likely to increase the problem with abuse.

 

Why should we believe that abusers will come in force once they are legalized? Did people stop abusing alcohol when it was criminalized?

 

3. Many ‘illicit’ drugs cause the users physical harm, which in turn costs the taxpayer money for their later care.

 

Motorcycle crashes cause people harm. Fatty foods cause people harm. Slippery bathtubs cause people harm.

 

4. Habitual users of drugs such as rock cocaine and methamphetamine are usually unable to maintain a ‘normal’ life, with respect to maintaining employment and a stable residence. Legalizing these drugs would not change this fact. Even if rock cocaine was cheaper, the user would still need to obtain the money to buy it. Needing money and no job = crime.

 

Legalizing drugs would add money to education and treatment programs.

 

Legalizing drugs would decrease the cost of drugs.

 

While legalizing drugs might lead to more petty crime -- if we accept that abuse and addiction will increase -- it would diminish many other crimes. It would wipe out a whole batch of criminal behavior.

 

Truth of the matter is that legalizing drugs does not magically change our society for the better. Look at Amsterdam if you think I’m wrong.

 

What am I supposed to see from Amsterdam? Is it crime-ridden?

[lawnchairboy]

Some issues with legalizing certain ‘illicit’ drugs:

1. DUI is a huge problem in our country, allowing greater access to ‘illicit’ drugs will likely only contribute further to this problem.

2. Alcohol is legal and it is the most widely abused drug in our nation, legalization of ‘illicit’ drugs is likely to increase the problem with abuse.

3. Many ‘illicit’ drugs cause the users physical harm, which in turn costs the taxpayer money for their later care.

4. Habitual users of drugs such as rock cocaine and methamphetamine are usually unable to maintain a ‘normal’ life, with respect to maintaining employment and a stable residence. Legalizing these drugs would not change this fact. Even if rock cocaine was cheaper, the user would still need to obtain the money to buy it. Needing money and no job = crime.

 

Your underlying assumption in making these statements is that legalizing drugs will increase the abuse of them. Which is probably correct; I don't see how legalizing them will decrease the abuse of them. The question is, how much will it increase the abuse?

 

Legalization of drugs would reduce or eliminate the huge social and economic cost of arresting, convicting, and incarcerating drug dealers. Compare it with alcohol before and after prohibition. During prohibition, there was a lot of law enforcement activity devoted to the criminal distribution of alcohol. Now, there is almost none. Once legal channels of distribution were established, I would assume the same thing would happen with drugs.

 

So the real question is, will the increased social costs due to the increased abuse of legalized drugs be more or less than the savings due to lower costs of law enforcement and increased tax revenue to be collected on them (which, incidentally, will free up additional human resources and funding to deal with any increased and/or existing abuses)?

 

If the model of alcohol applies, I don't think there is any question that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

 

Good question on costs... I have to wonder how much more money and time we will spend treating the victims of overdose and or operating motor vehicles and or the results of general misadventures because of intoxication in our trauma centers. Only one (insured or uninsured) victim of an MVC can be an enormous resource drain on a trauma center... multiple blood volumes transfused, prolonged trauma ICU inpatient stay, rehabilitation costs. I have to think that in some cases, even a jail sentence of a couple of years would be less costly for the taxpayers (assuming we are paying for the medical care also) when compared with the treatment of one catastrophic injury related to intoxication.

[ghaverkamp]

I have to wonder how much more money and time we will spend treating the victims of overdose and or operating motor vehicles and or the results of general misadventures because of intoxication in our trauma centers. Only one (insured or uninsured) victim of an MVC can be an enormous resource drain on a trauma center... multiple blood volumes transfused, prolonged trauma ICU inpatient stay, rehabilitation costs. I have to think that in some cases, even a jail sentence of a couple of years would be less costly for the taxpayers (assuming we are paying for the medical care also) when compared with the treatment of one catastrophic injury related to intoxication.

 

You're treating these as if they're new costs. However, they are costs that we pay for today, without any income received by volume. What's more, your scenario would assume that every prisoner no longer in jail becomes a junkie (not everyone arrested for using or selling drugs is a user) and that they all end up requiring taxpayer-funded medical care.

[lawnchairboy]

"in some cases"...

 

yes, we are paying these costs now, and yes, revenue from the regulation of legalized drugs would help offset the costs of medical treatments...

[taters]

atta boy . now you are getting the message, same thing happened when katrina hit new orleans. congrats on waking up, you need all the firepower you can get your hands on when the police cant't get to you.. taters

[Lawman]

Unfortunately, I can't legally possess many of these weapons in the City of Chicago,

 

Sit tight. I'm hoping the Supreme Court will fix that.

[tallman]

How did we get from the Shootout at the OK Corral to the smokeout on the corner?

Stopping the war on drugs and legalizing them, collecting revenues, and saving money by letting drug criminals out would free up and create huge sums of money,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for some legislative body to squander.

[MotorinLA]

And how exactly would Sav-On get their hands on methamphetamine and rock cocaine?

 

Legalization is one thing, organizing legalized sales is a completely different animal all together. Do you think the drug dealer on the corner will go away, just because you can get a prescription for crack at Rite Aid? And do you seriously think that he's going to pay taxes to the government just because his drugs are now legal? If you believe these things I've got some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota...

[Matts_12GS]

If you believe these things I've got some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota...

 

Once the global warming kicks in that's gonna be valuable. I'd hold on to it....

[ghaverkamp]

And how exactly would Sav-On get their hands on methamphetamine and rock cocaine?

 

They'll buy it from whomever legally manufactures it. That's hardly a problem once it's legal.

 

 

Legalization is one thing, organizing legalized sales is a completely different animal all together. Do you think the drug dealer on the corner will go away, just because you can get a prescription for crack at Rite Aid? And do you seriously think that he's going to pay taxes to the government just because his drugs are now legal? If you believe these things I've got some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota...

 

You're considering a post-legalization environment colored by views that assume it's still illegal. You're taking the position that they remain controlled substances, whereas I am suggesting a lightly regulated regime. There are no prescriptions, though there may be age requirements.

 

What would be the motivation to be a drug dealer on a corner? There would be none. When a person can buy want they want from reputable vendors, there's no need for the shady drug dealer who wouldn't pay taxes. Legitimate business would enter the trade, and tax evasion would be treated as it already is.

 

There is already a thriving trade in harmful substances. Banning these harmful substances does nothing but play to our puritanical histories.

[steve.foote]

We need to think this through. If we legalizing drugs, how would our local police get their new vehicles?

 

[steve.foote]

Once the global warming kicks in that's gonna be valuable. I'd hold on to it....

 

I don't care who you are, that's funny.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What would be the motivation to be a drug dealer on a corner? There would be none. When a person can buy want they want from reputable vendors...

 

...who sell a reputable product, of known strength, at a modest price, in an air-conditioned retail outlet, with no need to look over your shoulder to see if the cops are watching as the deal goes down (at the cash register at the front of the store). Neither party fears getting ripped off or shot at, since both parties have no fear of going to the cops if things go wrong. It'd be a lot like buying beer, whiskey, or cigarettes down at the 7-11.

 

It's worth noting there are no streetcorner beer, whiskey, or tobacco dealers, and not a whole lot of crime associated with people trying to support their alcohol or cigarette habit. Oh sure, there's some, but the problem is not nearly as severe as the crime associated with people trying to support a crack habit at $100 a hit.

[Matts_12GS]

who sell a reputable product, of known strength, at a modest price, in an air-conditioned retail outlet...

 

And they'll probably take your EBT card too so you can avoid the stigma of having to pay "cash" for your drugs...

 

 

We got that going for us...

 

Which is nice!

[HairyCannonball]

If you believe these things I've got some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota...

 

Once the global warming kicks in that's gonna be valuable. I'd hold on to it....

 

Well I was thinking about building a boat..something about 300 cubits long and about 50 cubits wide..Anyone know where I can get some gopher wood?

[DavidEBSmith]

It's worth noting there are no streetcorner beer, whiskey, or tobacco dealers, and not a whole lot of crime associated with people trying to support their alcohol or cigarette habit.

 

Except from 1920 to 1933, a period which sort of proves your point, doesn't it?

[MotorinLA]

And how exactly would Sav-On get their hands on methamphetamine and rock cocaine?

 

They'll buy it from whomever legally manufactures it. That's hardly a problem once it's legal.

 

I'm sure Merck is just holding their breath until the day they will be allowed to manufacture methamphetamine and rock cocaine on a large scale for sale to the general masses.

 

Legalization is one thing, organizing legalized sales is a completely different animal all together. Do you think the drug dealer on the corner will go away, just because you can get a prescription for crack at Rite Aid? And do you seriously think that he's going to pay taxes to the government just because his drugs are now legal? If you believe these things I've got some ocean front property to sell you in South Dakota...

 

You're considering a post-legalization environment colored by views that assume it's still illegal. You're taking the position that they remain controlled substances, whereas I am suggesting a lightly regulated regime. There are no prescriptions, though there may be age requirements.

 

What would be the motivation to be a drug dealer on a corner? There would be none. When a person can buy want they want from reputable vendors, there's no need for the shady drug dealer who wouldn't pay taxes. Legitimate business would enter the trade, and tax evasion would be treated as it already is.

 

There is already a thriving trade in harmful substances. Banning these harmful substances does nothing but play to our puritanical histories.

 

I think your view of how this would be implemented is seriously over-simplified, JMO. Sales of alcohol and cigarettes to under-aged individuals is a known problem, why would these new drugs be any different? Personally, I'd rather have my 15-year old smoking cigarettes than rock cocaine.

 

By the way, the number of individuals in prison (not jail) for drug use alone in California is near zero , that is what Prop 36 is for...

 

So, no, legalizing drugs would not magically correct our prison over-crowding problem, at least in this state.

[HairyCannonball]

Personally, I'd rather have my 15-year old smoking cigarettes than rock cocaine.

 

If you properly educate your 15-year old, he wont be smoking rock cocaine no matter how available. If you don't, he will get it through the black market anyway. JMO

[tallman]

A truckload of 500 cartons shipped from North Carolina to Michigan could net a smuggler an $8,000 profit. North Carolina's tax is 35 cents per pack, and it doesn't require a tax stamp, which makes counterfeiting much easier.

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of moonshine are produced annually in the U.S. The illegal production is highly profitable and continues because of the heavy taxation of legally-produced distilled spirits. Taxes constitute well over half the price of a typical bottle of spirits.

 

While not the problem, in regard to dollar value, law enforcement time spent enforcing laws on not taxed, illegal sales, of tobacco and alcohol, are significant.

$8,000 a truckload is a fairly good run.

[steve.foote]

$8,000 a truckload is a fairly good run.

 

At today's diesel prices?!? Think a gain.

 

Aw crap, now I done gone a did it.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

A truckload of 500 cartons shipped from North Carolina to Michigan could net a smuggler an $8,000 profit. North Carolina's tax is 35 cents per pack, and it doesn't require a tax stamp, which makes counterfeiting much easier.

 

How often does it happen? There's a fair bit more to it than that, since you'd have to have a distribution network up here to spread that many cigarettes around, especially if you were going to do it on a regular basis. Some people are willing to buy illegal lung rockets, but most won't, since they can get them at the corner store for a little extra cash and avoid any risk of legal consequences.

 

I expect this happens from time to time, but I bet it's not real widespread like the thousands of tons of illegal narcotics that enter this country every year.

 

Hundreds of thousands of gallons of moonshine are produced annually in the U.S. The illegal production is highly profitable and continues because of the heavy taxation of legally-produced distilled spirits. Taxes constitute well over half the price of a typical bottle of spirits.

 

While not the problem, in regard to dollar value, law enforcement time spent enforcing laws on not taxed, illegal sales, of tobacco and alcohol, are significant.

 

"Significant" in comparison to what? Hundreds of thousands of gallons of moonshine is a drop in the bucket when Jack Daniels alone is producing nearly 10 million cases of whiskey per year (anyone know how many gallons in a case?). But if you shut down JD and other legit mfrs, moonshine production can be expected in increase, along with the cost of enforcement.

[tallman]

Mitch,

I already said it wasn't a large volume compared to the illegal drugs and reulated alcohol.

But it is significant, involving tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars, particularly factoring in police/investigation/prosecution costs.

There is a Black market for guns too.

Is it bigger than the legal one? (Talking civilian mode)

When you move into military mode, the ante goes up, considerably.

 

For distribution of the cigs etc... there are markets, customers, and in some cases, perhaps many, the wind up in regular retail stores.

[DavidEBSmith]

How often does it happen? There's a fair bit more to it than that, since you'd have to have a distribution network up here to spread that many cigarettes around, especially if you were going to do it on a regular basis. Some people are willing to buy illegal lung rockets, but most won't, since they can get them at the corner store for a little extra cash and avoid any risk of legal consequences.

 

I expect this happens from time to time, but I bet it's not real widespread like the thousands of tons of illegal narcotics that enter this country every year.

 

It happens a lot. There are networks set up to transport cigarettes from North Carolina and Virginia to northern cities - largely the northeast, Detroit and Chicago - put counterfeit tax stamps on them, and distribute them to small independent stores, gas stations, and to people on the street. The networks are organized by the various ethnic mafias and groups with ties to terrorist organizations. The profits are huge - according to the WaPo article, as much as $2 million per truckload. We see cigarettes without tax stamps or with fake tax stamps all the time in poorer parts of the city.

[ltljohn]

Anybody in here know where I can buy a gun cheap but legal? Is there a website?

[Flyer5]

Here is another one saved by carrying . He took responsibility for his own protection . http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080401/NEWS/80401028

[Flyer5]

Anybody in here know where I can buy a gun cheap but legal? Is there a website?

 

Local gun dealer .

[Tony_K]

THREAD ENDER

[Les is more]

That's a particularly unflattering picture of you, Tony!

[Gary in Aus]

I'm still trying to work out the connection between his pose and the guitars ?

 

This photo works on so many levels !!!

[tallman]

I've got more firepower in my tankbag.

[90%angel]

That's a particularly unflattering picture of you, Tony!

 

ooh, right in the coin purse...

(guess I could be talking about the picture or Les' comment to Tony!!)

[SageRider]

Tony,

Shooting yourself in that head won't get the job done.....

[notacop]

Dude, are you ever overdressed!