The war on drugs shows why more gun control is retarded

[TomHansley]

In all of America, hard drugs like crack are illegal.

Yet its still pretty easy to get a hold of... if you drive down to the sketchiest part of town, you could probably find someone to sell you some crack in about 15 minutes.

So if criminals can still get a hold of illegal things, HOW IN THE HELL WILL MORE GUN CONTROL STOP THEM FROM GETTING ILLEGAL GUNS?

Criminals will get illegal guns even if they was a total ban, just like can get crack now. Firearms are pretty old technology, and could either be smuggled into the country (like crack) or made in even the most basic machine shops. Sure, they'll be more expensive, but there will always be a DEMAND for firearms from criminals, so there will always be people running illegal firearms into the country to SUPPLY them.

So the honest, law abiding citizen gives up the right to defend themselves because they don't want to break the law.

The criminal, already intent on breaking the law, won't care about any type of firearm ban and will have an easier time preying on a defenseless populus.



I'll give up my firearms the day there's no more drug addicts in America... I'm not gonna hold my breath for that!

[iverglas]

1. oh look

It's an original thought.

Nought.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=169346&mesg_id=169559

[varkam]

2. Welcome to DU!

Coule of points:

First, I don't think most GC advocates are calling for a total ban on firearms, but merely for tighter restrictions. There are some who are calling for a total ban, but I do not think that they are in the majority.

Also, there will always be a black market - in this country and other countries - set up to offer goods and services that are prohibited by the mainstream. For example, there is a black market for child pornography, but simply because there is such a market does not mean that there should not be laws prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, or possession of such material.

Finally, there's one straw man in your post that is quite common in the context of this debate:

So the honest, law abiding citizen gives up the right to defend themselves because they don't want to break the law.

No one, and I mean no one, is arguing that people should give up the right to defend themselves. There are many people in this country who do not own firearms, though they still have the right to defend themselves should they be attacked. The ownership of firearms and the right to self-defense have little to do with one another.

:toast:

[pipoman]

3. Unless you happen to need to defend yourself against

a gun wielding intruder.

The ownership of firearms and the right to self-defense have little to do with one another.

Have you ever heard the phrase, 'never take a knife to a gun fight'? It goes for baseball bats, rolling pins, and golf clubs too..

[varkam]

4. Nonetheless, you still have the right to defend yourself.

:shrug:

[bossy22]

5. in this country

atleast

[pipoman]

6. Though less effectively than

the intruder may likely be armed. Not to mention if confronted by 2 or more, or are weaker than the intruder. I choose to defend myself and my home by the most effective means, the equalizer, a firearm.

[varkam]

8. All well and dandy, but as I've said...

you have the right to defend yourself, firearm or not. People who do not own firearms still have the right to defend themselves, correct?

[pipoman]

9. It depends where you live

in some places your decision to defend yourself comes with much more scrutiny than others. Scrutiny in this case = legal defense. If after the defenders split second decision actions are, after days, weeks or months of scrutiny, determined by others who were not there to have been excessive, criminal punishment is forthcoming.

People who choose not to defend themselves with firearms in most parts of the US are free to choose that option, I should be free to choose the most effective option for myself.

[varkam]

10. You're free to choose whatever you like, so long as it follows the law.

All I'm saying is that if you didn't have a firearm, you would still have the right to defend yourself. Firearms are merely one method of doing so - it is not the right in and of itself.

[bossy22]

7. better yet

getting into a physical altercation with an intruder isnt good- the outcome is more against you than him- most likely he will havve some form of a weapon (baseball bat, knife) or will overpower you- this is especially the case if their are multiple intruders

Firearms are the most effective tool for self defense- pistols especially- thats why our nations police are issued pistols

People that are on an adreneline rush have been shown to be unaffected by pepper spray, tasers, and blunt force- but one thing they havent been shown to be impervious to is a bullet

at worst with a firearm- you are equal
at worst without a firearm- you are unequal

btw it might be added that i own firearms for self-defense not because im afraid of amred intruders- but statistics tell me that most home intruders arent armed with a firearm- giving me the upper hand

[maxidivine]

11. Pistols

Are really not the most effective means, light rifles and shotguns are much, much better, and still fail to stop an assailant as quickly as needed quite often.

Our police are issued pistols because that's what they use to get to the rifle in their cruiser, should they be unable to end the confrontation with their badge, spray, pistol, baton, or taser.

[spin]

12. While shotguns and rifles have more stopping power...

they're awkward to handle in a close encounter such as would occur in a house. If the bad guy rushes you and gets closer then the muzzle of your weapon, he has the advantage. He can also grab the barrel of your weapon and take control of it.

I prefer to drop a snub nosed .38 revolver in my pants pocket if I suspect an intruder in the house. If it's just someone visiting one of the other people who live in rather large house, I avoid scaring the shit out them. If indeed it is a bad guy who decides not to run from the encounter, I already have my hand on the gun in my pocket. I can quickly draw and fire if he decides to attack. Five .38 special +P rounds may not be as effective as a shotgun blast, but they will inflict a considerable amount of damage. The small size of the revolver makes it difficult to grab and gain control of.

Of course, that's merely my opinion and applies to my current situation.

Rifles for home self defense:

For most self defense situations a person is likely to encounter, a long barreled rifle is not the weapon of choice. Intended primarily as an offensive armament, its greatest drawback in a defensive situation is the fact that it may be too long and too bulky to quickly deploy and maneuver in a close quarter, cluttered, or confined environment. A rifle is designed to produce long, accurate shots. Hence, it may pose a threat to innocent people from over penetration or excessive range.

On the positive side, a rifle possesses better stopping power, presents a stronger visual deterrent, and provides greater accuracy than any handgun. Recoil will be tolerable and manageable with the preferred urban defense rounds such as .223 Remington, .357 Magnum, or .44 Magnum. These latter two revolver cartridges benefit significantly from being chambered in a carbine, even more so than their autoloading counterparts, 9 mm and .45 ACP.

A short barreled rifle such as an AR-15 by Colt or one of its various derivatives or clones by other quality manufacturers, a Mini-14 by Ruger, or an autoloading or lever action carbine is preferred for personal protection.
http://www.internetarmory.com/rifle_defense.htm

Shotguns for home self defense:

The ideal home defense shotgun would consist of a short barreled model, 18- to 22-inches, chambered for 12- or 20-gauge. Recommended action would be pump or autoloader.

Models worth considering include the Remington 870 pump action series, including the Police model and the nickel plated Marine Magnum; the Mossberg 500 Special Purpose, 18.5-inch barrel pump action; the Beretta 1201 and the Benelli Super 90 autoloaders; and the Winchester pumps: Defender, Camp Defender, and Stainless Marine.

High quality pump action shotguns offer a distinct advantage over autoloaders in the sense that their operation tends to be mechanically reliable, even under the worst of adverse conditions. They often represent the best choice for a home defense application because they can be stored or carried in a relatively safe condition: magazine loaded, chamber empty, safety on, hammer down.
http://www.internetarmory.com/shotgun_defense.htm

[spin]

13. Very good points...

If you do encounter an intruder who is not armed with a firearm, he may decide to flee when he sees yours. (Make damn sure you keep a fair distance between yourself and the bad guy if you decide to merely point a weapon at him. An close individual with some training can take the gun away from you before you can react.)

If the intruder flees...no one harmed, no damage done, no legal problems. A win win situation for everybody.