How to discuss guns with a gun banner

[Ben Cartwright SASS]

There are several people that I know who are big "gun banners" if we ban guns there will be gun crime!

I recently found a new argument that actually made them stop and think.

I asked them do they think we have a drug problem in this country, heroin and cocain and more? They all said yes we do, it is out of control!
I then said "how can that be? Because we banned drugs in the 1930's there CAN BE NO DRUG PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY ARE BANNED! After all you are telling me if we ban guns there will be no gun problem, correct?"

They all said to me, "I never thought of it that way"

I try to explain to them that making a law doesn't mean criminals will obey it, after that is why they are criminals!

[Pasifikawv]

Great logic!

We need no new gun control. All that is needed is to enforce and impliment the control and regulation measure alreay in place. In some areas, outrageous rectrictions should be scaled back...

Also following your logic is a group of former and present law enforcement, DEA, judges and procesutors who have served on the front lines of the drug wars who say all out prohibition and banning of drugs is a total failure. It leads only to criminal enterprise with criminals controlling the black market and making money hand over fist. Drugs are too dangerous to leave in the control of criminals. These cops say regulation and control is better than an all out ban. They say we spend billions of dollars on eradication and criminal efforts only to see the rate of drug use remain largely unchanged, but drug availability increase!

They cite the alcohol prohibition and related crime sprees and gangsters/smugglers as a paralell to today's drug prohibition and suggest a method of regulation and control that is reflective of alcoholic beverage control laws and on-the-books gun control measures as the example to follow for drugs.

Just as all-out drug prohibition has lead to a large criminal enterprise of black market smugglers and dealers making tons of money selling to anyone they want wherever they want, banning guns would only lead to an expanded criminal enterprise with more smugglers and dealers controling a larger black market of guns: a black market that has no "rules of the road" and certainly no age restrictions or background checks.

I never would have considered any such line of thought in regards to drugs until I came across this group of former cops and prosecutors telling it like it is. They have swayed me to at least consider alternatives to our all-out drug ban in favor of controled regulation that takes the drug market away from the criminals. I am not totally sold, but they make a good point and they are certainly not liberal pansies: these are the front-line warriors who have kicked in the doors and made tons of drug arrests over the years.... They have me thinking....

LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs

YouTube - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition

[Spotteddog]

Yup,
Defacto "legalization" is currently being tried just south of the border.
Any insights as to how that's all working out?

[Pasifikawv]

I don't want to turn this 2A board into a debate of other things - merely to draw the comparison that all out prohibition, be it booze, guns or drugs, can/does/will lead to a thriving black market controlled by criminals with no regards for the safety of their product, to whom they sell, or where they choose to make their contraband sales. Gun banners are just asking for another criminal enterprise to stem from thier prohibition policies that make gun ownership illegal.

However, I do not want to misrepresent the LEO's who oppose all out drug prohibition as being for "decriminalization" or "defacto legalization." They are not for decriminalization or an unspoken, unregulated and unpunshied marketplace that follows "look the other way" decriminalization. Instead, they are for (as I understand it) controlled, regulated legalization as a means to address the effects of the unregulated and uncontrolled black market and the criminal and violence issues that are inherent in contaband markets.

These LEO understand that controled and regulated distribution will address only drug crime and drug violence issues inherent in prohibition policies, but does nothing to address the issue of addiction rates- which have remained constant for nearly a century despite prohibition policies and billions of dollars in eradication measures. Any end to prohibition must also be partnered with drug abuse, education, counseling, etc and paid for with the profits (and/or taxes) from a regulated and controlled marketplace. Currently, all funding from prohibition sales ending up funding criminal enterprises rather than efforts to reduce drug addition and abuse.

Again, I am not sold, but when cops make the point, I'll give it honest and thoughtful consideration...

[Spotteddog]

While it's only an opinion. I'd say the level of chaos financially as well as socially we may be staring down the barrel of may make it a mute point? If law enforcement can no longer be paid for, you may very well get your wish to try out the idea! Just be advised, it may well and truly turn into a "free market" when it unfolds. If the government is foolish enough to follow the path, the decision may be but among other blunders it's made out of haste or in naivete. I'd talk to some street cops before coming to a conclusion on wanting to try it out. You might be surprised at the responses you get from some people at the pointy end of the issue.
Again JOMO?

[Pasifikawv]

Oh, I am certainy not sold. Let's say there was a controlled and regulated market for substances currently under phohibition - not unlike the controled and regulated market for prescription drugs and firearms.

1) A controlled and regulated market for prescriptions has not worked to stem prescription drug abuse. I have seen the increase in abuse of prescription pain killers increase over the years and addicts turn to illegal heroin or other hard narcotics to satisfy their addiction. How would ending prohibition for a regulated market differ from the heavily regulated prescription drug market? Wouldn't the same concerns and issues exisit as it does now with prescription drug abuse and criminals peddling illegally obtained pain pills?

2) There already is a black market for criminals to obtain firearms even though the sale of firearms is heaviliy (and sometimes overly) regulated. Some are serious criminals and others just don't like the paperwork that accompanies a regulated sale. For whatever reason, a black martek exists even with a controlled and regulated firearms market place. Wouldn't folks also want to aviod paperwork in a controlled and regulated market for narcotics and wouldn't it just be criminals that filled the role of "under-the-table" salesman?

In these top two example, enforcement is key rather than instituting new controls or regulation. But there are other issues of concern:

3) Small police dept with limited fundings are helped by the value of the assets they acquire from drug arrests: be it cars, guns, dollars. Our local PD and Sherrif's office just sold a confinscated vehicle for which they will share some of the value to better equip and fund their deptartments. Would they be better served from tax revanue from controlled sales of prohibited substances or better served by assset confiscation? I dunno...

My point, however, lies more in the concept of over-regulation and prohibition naturally leading to a black market. If gun banners have their way, I forsee an expanded black market in firearms that would be controlled by criminals and exhibit many of the same criminal and violence issues associated with prohibition. The original posters arguement against gun banner logic follows this type of analysis - often simply stated on bumber stickers: If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Just as drugs are more available now than in years past despite prohibition, guns would also be readily available even if banned to those who are willing to break the law.

[N_itis]

I like the logic of the original post. Making something illegal does nothing to eliminate it.

As for the merits of changing our drug policy, that is an ongoing discussion in which almost everyone participating boisterously proclaims to have all of the answers. Why should the opinions of "current and former law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges" in favor of somehow altering current policy hold favor over the opinions of the numerous "current and former law enforcement, prosecutors, and judges" who oppose legalization, decriminalization, or "regulation?" Why? Because the opinion of one group supports the objectives of those citing it. The honorable people involved in the legal/judicial process are no different than any other group of people in that there are a variety of opinions within their ranks...which are no more or less valid than the opinion of any informed citizen.

With that said, here is my relatively well informed opinion on "regulation:" it is a fool's errand. How can you effectively "regulate" something that anyone can grow in their garden? Sure, there are other drugs that require some sort of chemical alteration or controlled manufacturing process (ie. pharmaceutical drugs), but the government already has a devil of a time controlling all aspects of their manufacture and distribution, how they are prescribed, dispensed, and consumed, etcetra. The only option when it comes to addressing the drug issue is to criminalize it or allow it. Anything "in the middle" is ultimately an attempt to accomplish one of those outcomes. Sure, criminalizing drug use and possession has not eliminated it. I doubt any rational person ever believed it would. That is not the question. The question is: do we really want to legalize it just beacuse we cannot completely eliminate it? I suggest applying the same questions and logic to other crimes and determining it's soundness.

[Hoptob]

Thought criminals were banned from possessing firearms already. So, they don't have any guns, right?..

[JWiley]

Everyone misses the point. It's not about (insert the name of an inanimate object) control. It's about CONTROL.

The people who think they can run your life better than you will use any method to do so.

[oldRoger]

It seems to me that we are in a slow de facto and in some places de jure process of decriminalization of marijuana now. I think the decriminalization lobby has the upper hand in the “blue states” and is forging ahead.
Whether this is a good thing or not may be beside the point.
Cocaine usage among the entertainment and athletic elite seems to be common enough so that no one is surprised when a “star” is found to be involved, nor is there any negative consequences, just the typical rehab.
Did we see widespread problems due to our POTUS admitting to use while younger?

Given the celebrity worship common in this country, I would not be surprised by moves to decriminalize cocaine as well.

I think we are headed down the road willing or not.

As for control, it seems to be dependent upon who and what is to be controlled. The elites will never be satisfied with their control of us bitter clingers.
Roger.

[cmort666]

I used that argument years ago. Strangely, they think it's easier to bring in cocaine from Central America than it is to use domestic sheet metal to build cheap automatic weapons. Of course ignorance is an absolute keystone of anti-gun advocacy. It's like Holocaust denial in that regard.

I always use the Socratic Method when dealing with anti-gunners. They REALLY hate it too. It's one thing for me to demonstrate they're idiots, but for me to make THEM do it is intolerably humiliating for them.

[speedshooter]

It is about control...if they can control anything, even your voice...even if it's just a little bit,, they have control of you and the masses..once there it never goes away and is open to "interpretation" and can be modified as deemed fit.Then it opens the door to a whole new venue of "control". But, maybe i'm just one of those bitter people hanging on to my guns and religion..and freedom of speech..the right of search and seizure regulated..and well you get the idea.

[MTKTM]

I have found that logic is of little use in discussing guns and individual rights to "keep and bear arms" with gun banners.

My approach in recent years has been to invite them to join me for a trip to the range. Occasionally one will accept the invitation. More often than not they discover, to their considerable surprise, that they love shooting, and often their positions will moderate somewhat. I find that I catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.