Are Guns the Left's Drugs?

Back in the 80's I remember reading a column by William F. Buckley in favor of drug legalization. In it he admitted that in the 60s the drug war was appealing as a way to strike back against "the counterculture" and that many backed it for no other reason than as a way to stick it to the hippies.

Could it be that the knee-jerk reaction among some liberals against guns is the mirror image of that? A way to stick it to the rednecks?

involved in JFK assassination --

The revolution of the 1960's wasn't simply about "sex" -- in most part it was about
overturning discrimination against anyone -- changing our medical system to something
more humane - anti-war ... natural, healthful foods . . . childbirth at home.

As far as I see the gun issue . . . it's the GOP's NRA . . . just as it's the
GOP's "pro-life" murderers -- and the GOP's fascist anti-health care rallies.

NRA has certainly targeted many Democrats over the years -- successfully!

...but, based solely on personal experience, I think the knee-jerk reaction is based on the same things EVERY knee-jerk reaction is.

Fear and ignorance.

many of the arguments the left makes against gun rights are eerily similar to arguments that many on the right make against some other civil liberties, and especially when it comes to ignoring the constitution.

i grew up in a liberal household. I lived basically on a college campus (a liberal east coast institution). gun control was a GIVEN. i personally heard the way people talked about those who believed in gun rights and it IS a cultural thing. especially among urban liberals, guns are associated with all sorts of (generally) false stereotypes about southerners, rural residents, etc.

after college, i spent years as both a firefighter and a cop. i also (for the first time in my life) became exposed to ACTUAL firearms rights proponents (not caricatures), real life everyday people who carried concealed and/or owned firearms. i saw tons of street crime as well, but it was almost always thug convicted felons (already prohibited by law from carrying) and not licensed CCW'ers.

i did a lot of constitutional research, and soul searching. and changed my mind. i am honest enough to admit that even though i like to think of myself as being ruled by rationbality, if i was unlucky enough NOT to be exposed to REAL people with guns and other personal experiences, i might to this day discount gun rights and gun rights advocates just like so many on the left currently do.

anti-drug laws also have much in common with anti-gun laws. they both have a history of strongly being influenced by racist ideas (with dtugs, it was fear of black culture (mj smokin black jazz musicians for example) that became the impetus for many anti-drug laws for instance).

many TRUE conservatives are strongly against the drug war. buckley as you mentioned, and national review magazine (the conservative flagship) have advocated for legalization/decrim for DECADES. it's sad that the "mainstream" of both major political parties are equally terrible in regards to the drug war.

again, in regards to my views on drugs, my experiences play a part. i spent YEARS working deep undercover (mostly drugs, but also weapon and general intel investigation). it was my experience in law enforcement and amongst REAL druggies that helped convince me that the "throw em in jail" approach is simply bad policy.

it really disgusts me, especially in this economic environment that politicians won't consider decrim'ing and TAXING marijuana, and moving towards a harm reduction approach for "hard drugs" vs. expensive and counterproductive punitive approaches.

all one has to do is spend 5 minutes looking at the posts of the anti-gunners in this very forum to see that much of the arguments about gun rights involve ad hominem attacks on gun rights advocates (gun loves, penis substitute references, redneck references) as well as blatant logical fallacies, etc. it's so sad that so many anti-gunners can't see what perfect comparison can be made between many of them and the freepers that they so condemn.

how much of the gun violence you saw as a cop could be attributed to drug prohibition?

but i would say a "significant portion" of it.

recall that back in the 80's , when we were suffering as a nation, a MUCH higher violent crime rate than we have now, a very significant portion of that crime had to do with crack dealers establishing territory, taking out competition, etc. this made its way into popular culture (new jack city) etc. and is just inarguable.

it wasn't CRACK that caused it. it was primarily crack dealers (and to a lesser extent users) engaging in violence either to procure drugs, procure territory, etc.

look at marijuana, for instance. NOBODY, not even the most ardent critic of MJ, would say that MJ encourages violence. MJ encourages people to laff at dumb jokes, eat cheezy poofs, and make statements that they think are profound, but are actually hippy stoner philo-quackery :)

but it CERTAINLY doesn't cause violence. in fact, imo, it arguably DETERS violence. "mellow" people don't go out and shoot other people.

but marijuana prohibition has resulted in LOTS of violence. dealers taking out other dealers, growers in california defending their grows with booby traps, etc. now certainly mj dealers and the MJ trade (at least inside the US) is not nearly as violent as the crack trade was, but there's more than a fair share of dead people due to violent MJ trade concerns.

again, i can't give a #, obviously, but i suspect (disclaimer: wildly educated WAG (wild assed guess) here) that we would see AT LEAST a 20% reduction in violent crime if we decrim'd marijuana and moved towards a harm reduction philosophy in regards to "hard drugs".

:thumbsup:

the idea that guns and drugs can be equated in any way is offensive to me

accidental firearms deaths are at an ALL TIME HISTORICAL low, and are not even NEAR the top of the list in regards to accidental deaths by kids.

more kids die from drowning than die from firearms accidents.

more kids die playing school sports than during school shooting, btw.

don't tell em drugs don't kill kids. one of my good friends was killed by a drug overdose when i was in high school.

do you realize how rare accidental shooting deaths of kids are? very rare. when you see how many kids are kiled in auto accidents, falls, drowning, etc. it's not even close.

guns and drugs have many similarities. when misused/recklessly used, they can be quite dangerous. but they also have many benefits.

what is amazing is that considering the lethality OF guns, and the fact that they are so widely owned (and there are over 200 million in the country in civilian hands), that accidental child gun deaths are SO rare. they are at a historical low. why? good education (like eddie eagle, an NRA program), and responsible gun owners.

for example, just the sport of football at the high school and junior high level sees an average of 52 deaths a year.

that's JUST one scholastic sport and just high school and junior high.

The gun grabbers really don't like facts.

when a group argues emotionally instead of factually, their ideas are suspect.

there are few areas of political discourse where i see more emotional argumentation than amongst anti-gunners.

so you are right they aren't equal but I won't hold it against casual drug users (that includes legal drugs).

in the evening, my opinions of gun policy are more shaped by the 60+ gun related homicides that have occurred in my city this year than they are by any feelings I have towards rural people I rarely encounter.

OK - good point. But does your area not have laws to prevent or restrict gun ownership?

If you favor draconian gun laws, you'll find such laws effective against honest citizens but useless against criminals and especially criminal drug gangs.

Many gun laws are only "feel good" legislation designed to make citizens feel their politicians are actually doing something to combat crime. The solution to criminal drug gangs is very complicated and expensive and may involve legalizing some drugs.

"ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.
The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000.
The study, done by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the first comprehensive international look at gun-related deaths. It was published Thursday in the International Journal of Epidemiology...

The study found that gun-related deaths were five to six times higher in the Americas than in Europe or Australia and New Zealand and 95 times higher than in Asia.
Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Northern Ireland 6.63; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05."

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

It makes me puke when gun nuts root for the Taliban, Al queda, Baathists and other repressive assholes as proof the 2nd misamendement is good for democracy. The whole gun culture here and abroad seems to revolve around repressing women.

Racial epithets are not called for.

Appalachians are a race? Good for them, I suppose.

to make a point. Has no other place here or anywhere else. White people are a race, calling white people rednecks is racially intolerant toward white people.

For all the calls of racism against freepers, you would think we could be tolerant ourselves.

Friend, I am a Southern, gun owning white man who drives a pick-up built during the Carter administration. When we say redneck around here, it ain't (isn't) a reference to white people.

It is clearly a word that is clearly ethnically insensitive. I'm not going to call you epithets about your white southern heritage, I don't expect you to denigrate me over mine.

Despite my guns, my truck my Scots-Irish lineage and my love of fried food - I do not consider myself a redneck.

Why do you feel it belonged in the OP?

You wouldn't even consider using such bigoted terms when describing asians, latinos, or african americans. It is degrading to a whole people.

it morphs into 'ethnic'.

It's not degrading term in the least, but seem not to be able to grant it even one, stable meaning.

It is racially bigoted against white people in general. It is ethnically against Appalachians and southerners.

It is obviously meant to degrade a people. Look at the context in the OP, it is being used directly to slur a group of people.

It's not racial in least, and Appalachian and Southern are not racial characteristics.

And I know plenty of folks who refer to themselves as redneck, and proudly.

I know some rednecks who are quite progressive and intelligent, some with dreadlocks(we call them dreadnecks) and I know some who are total assholes.

Doesn't mean it is not a intentionally demeaning word. Which is exactly what redneck is, a word to intentionally demean rural white people. It has as little place in civil discourse as N*****.

Redneck is simply not a racially derogatory term.

You simply don't understand the word, that's all.

the rural southerners who worked outside, their necks red from sun. It is an obvious insult.

It is a put down. It is a way to insult southerners and Appalachians, to call them poor and uncouth. Just because a few people describe themselves that way doesn't mean it isn't insulting to everyone else.

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2008/11/sensationalizing_a_sad_case_ch.html

It's not a put down, and I've heard black friends refer to some of their relatives down south as 'rednecks'. Just like there are black cowboys.

You're looking to joust at a windmill, and I'm not interested.

Out.

I'm not sure what that link was supposed to go to, but it doesn't explain the origin of redneck. So I'm supposed to just take your word for it? It without question started as a way for urbanites to insult and demean rural, mainly southern whites.

Black people call themselves and each other N**** all the time. Even white people use the word about themselves and each other. It is still inappropriate.

If you can't handle rational discourse without resulting to ethnic slurs and bigotry then I'm done. You should be ashamed of yourself. Next time some freeper insults Obama with racial or ethic slurs, realize that is exactly what you are doing.

And, by the way you've been being so irrational, especially in terms of stating that I have, then yes, you appear 'done'.

A. That link was the wrong one. This one http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=redneck goes to to the origins of the word. If you can't be bothered to read, it's not my problem
B. You have supplied absolutely zero evidence, other than your opinion, as to the origins of the word
C. You haven't demonstrated at all that you actually understand what it means, or how it is used.

Go ahead and have the last word. It seems to me you're not interested in discussing this honestly.

Shame, if there is any here, is completely on your side.

That seems to be his problem. He seems to think the word means something it doesn't.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

if I wanted to engage in Appalachian bigotry I would say "hillbilly" not "redneck." Hell upstate rural Minnesota is one of the most redneck places I have ever been - so is the north of England.

*all* classes of guns must be available everywhere, without restraint, etc.

Ad hominem attacks ensue -- "gun grabber," "prohibitionist," "Brady Bunch clown," etc., etc. -- the moment one suggests that a complex, mature society might want some shades of gray to its gun policies, as opposed to entirely black, or white.

The NRA supports:
The NFA system for automatic weapons, Short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and destructive devices.
The NICS system which requires a federal background check to buy guns.
Restricting felons from having guns.
Restricting the mentally unfit from having guns.
Restricting the sale of guns that can be easily made automatic.
The NRA is the single largest provider of firearms safety.


Why don't you at least make some sense? I've heard "ban all guns" plenty on DU, I've never heard "*all* classes of guns must be available everywhere, without restraint, etc".

any Repub. over a Democrat, even when the Dem. is good on their issue.

they should support the same reasonable restrictions the NRA supports.

I'd like to see which districts a pro-gun republican was supported over a pro-gun Democrat. I'm sure since you are making that claim that you already have this data.

They've supported Dems with a higher rating than Reps on their issues. The fact that fewer Dems are rated higher than Reps in any one district or race isn't the NRA's fault, but our party's.

Name the Rep & and the Dem.
I'll pull the NRA scores for you.

Right. They're for gun restrictions where appropriate, have no ideological interest in what they advocate, never sue to overturn laws that are popularly supported in the cities where they're enacted, etc. etc...

The sheer predictability of your response, the wind-up-robot-and-repeat nature of it, is exactly the point I was making...

:evilgrin:

What about that don't you understand?
Talk about knee jerk. You have absolutely no idea about what the NRA supports.

They sue to get egregious gun laws removed. They win because the law is on their side. I can't imagine how courts rightly overturning laws could be called a bad thing.

...after recognizing it for the poisonous rightwing lobbying group they in fact are.

You are free to love them, however...

Supporting policies for gun owning Americans, regardless of party.

It is just a shame that the democrates insist on shooting themselves in the foot, by supporting capricious gun laws. Plenty of gun owner supporting democrats get money from the NRA. They should all support the same reasonable restrictions supported by the NRA and they could get that money too.

Good night, now...

Black talon

Forget about the "cop-killer bullet" hysteria. Winchester Black Talons were just another hollowpoint round with a scary name, and hollowpoints are by their nature incapable of piercing kevlar. They're soft and designed to crush and deform inside a target, while kevlar-piercing handgun rounds have steel cores and are designed to retain their shape and pierce through tough material.

I may retract.

Have another glass of Kool-aid, while I shoot some Winchester Ranger SXTs or Federal Hydra-Shoks. All JHP (Jacketed Hollow Point) ammunition meant for self-defense is just as good at stopping someone as those 'evil killer' bullets.

Hollow points are used by cops for the same reason that people use them for self-defense- they transfer a maximum of kinetic energy to the target by expanding on impact. That also reduces the chance of a bullet going through someone and into a bystander or someone in the next block.

p.s. Winchester just changed the color and the name, same round.

I was referring to ordinance capable of penetrating body armor.

AP (Armor Piercing) rounds aren't sold to civilians anymore in calibers less than .308, iirc, though they're not illegal to possess or shoot. (Almost any rifle round > 22lr will penetrate your standard police body armor- they're designed to stop handgun rounds.)

Democracy is not simply a popularity contest (although sometimes it feels like it).

If a law is Unconstitutional then it is Unconstitutional.
The NRA suing against it shouldn't cause you any alarm unless you also accept it is an Unconstitutional law.

Ahh, smell the irony.

There are at least two major differences.

1. Putting fewer restrictions on drugs would probably lower drug deaths, because you'd improve quality. Putting more restrictions on firearms, when they cannot easily be circumvented, would probably lower firearm deaths.

2. The people harmed most by drugs are the people who choose to use them. The people harmed most by easy access to firearms have no choice in the matter.

thanks... I'm lazy this Sunday. Rag weed is kicking my butt. Need sleep

I disagree with the OP's point. I think there are some valid reasons regarding gun regulation, but for some on the forum no regulation against firearms is too much. To those people, you can be Gandhi in everything else in your life, but pick up a gun and you are a small penis having, right wing jerk.

I said "some liberals." The OP never assumes their can't be "valid reasons regarding gun regulation,.."

In that the policy is decided by the loudest advocates who, in the end, tend to have the least actual knowledge about the subject.

They are linked, though: if we wanted to cut gun crime by 2/3rds we could legalize drugs and it would happen in a week.

That's a good night in Atlanta or Detroit. People walk the streets all over that country at all hours and never feel unsafe.

it's a way for us to keep people being shot by instruments designed to kill.

Drugs are not designed to kill, even if some are abused to the point where they kill by OD. There is a distinction. There is no mirror image... more like refraction and bending of light.

It is interesting that we have this coordinated assault against the Second and Fourth Amendments going on in this country right now, often crossing party lines... I mean, you've got your Republican-led Brady Bunch and too many "moderate" Democrats who subscribe to the "war on drugs" as well...

.. you could have replaced the 'war on drugs' with 'war on terrah', but the same result- eroding of the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th.

I know that guns are a weapon of mass distraction for both sides of the issue.

I straddle the fence.

I don't like guns. Have never owned one, don't want one, and don't want to learn how to use one, even though I live rurally and should probably have one. If for nothing more than to scare of coyotes. And I happen to like coyotes. I just don't want them eating my cats or chickens.

I don't think I could ever use a gun to "defend" myself.

All that said, I don't think of gun owners as rabid, brainless animals, either. The mindset that makes people think that the world is out to get them makes me sad, but I understand it, and don't feel the need to cast stones.

I have to admit that the gun "nuts," those whose passion for their guns seem to outweigh common sense, make me uncomfortable, at the least, and, in some cases, offend me.

I DO get angry at all irresponsible handling and use of weapons. Of course, so do most responsible gun owners and users.

I also have enough integrity to know that passionately defending and supporting most of the Constitution, while trying to spin and rationalize the 2nd amendment to mean something that favors my mindset, would be hypocritical on my part.

I'm the daughter of a self-proclaimed, proud red-neck. While I didn't spend much time with him, I spent enough to know that he was, like most of us, a deeply flawed man. He had positive traits as well as negative. His life was a mess of bad choices, one right after another. He did, though, mature. He did grow. He also suffered some pretty devastating blows. While his life wasn't long (42 years,) it wasn't without merit.

I don't need to "stick it" to rednecks. I think one of the reasons that the Democratic Party can't attract the rural vote is because of the assumption that all rural voters are "rednecks," and the refusal to see that issues affect different demographics differently, and that there are no "one-size-fits-all" solutions for some issues that will serve all.

Alcohol and tobacco as examples just like some classes of guns are legal.
Some drugs are legal under certain circumstances (medical marijuana, methadone) and some more dangerous weapons (automatic rifles) are available under heavy restriction.
Some drugs are strictly illegal by general public under all circumstances (cocaine, ecstasy) just as certain arms are never legal for private citizens.

More alike than you think. Well other than the fact that you don't ever lose your right to drugs and you don't need a background check to buy a 6 pack. :)

Allowing the common man to own weapons is very progressive as were many of the ideas in the Constitution. (For example: Freedom of the Press.)

I realized I had set that up right after I posted the OP, then I forgot about it until I just read your post. Bravo.

I'm sure some have but not nearly as many as have gone to prison for victimless drug possession crimes.

Probation, sure. But save the prison space for people with actual victims -- if no other crime was committed, just possession, take away the offending contraband from the offender, but incarceration just doesn't make sense.

However, I agree that it's problematic to lock someone up for what is mostly fear of a bigger crime that they might commit.

proclaim that the GOP/RWers are all gun lovers and therefore all gun owners are RW/Freepers/fascists/idiots and many proclaim this creed loudly and with obvious delight. There is a certain amount of no-brain knee-jerk reaction to all this.
Millions of Democrats and liberal/left people in the US own guns - of all kinds - and many of us carry them or have them to defend our homes.

Funny - neither the right nor many on the left really grasp this - they tend to think guns=GOP.

They are wrong.

mark

Down here there is virtually zero correlation between party affiliation/ideology and gun ownership. Yes, the GOPers are more likely to be NRA types and paranoid that their guns will be taken away - but for the most part, we are all armed to the eyeballs. The liberals I was referring to in the OP would, for the most part, be outside of the South.

are many thousands here with guns in this mostly suburban and rural area, and easily as many Dems as 'Pubs are armed, although the 'Pubs are usually shocked to hear this - they believe their own propaganda that Dems are punks who will just roll over and faint when the mean ol' GOP wears guns outside the courthouse...problem is, many Dems I know carry regularly, and we just ain't buying into the GOP's bullshit.
Rec.
mark

Joe Biden's R.A.V.E. Act anyone? (All sensible legislation forms a catchy acronym, btw!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reducing_Americans'_Vulnerability_to_Ecstasy_Act

imagine that :-)