Gun Ownership

Ambient said:

Found it, finally.

Yes, in a situation like a mugging defending yourself with a firearm can escalate things further than they would have it you just hand them your wallet. That is why you must use your best judgment and keep a cool head. If the criminal looks benign then throw him your cash and tell him to screw while you back away toward other people. That is easier than getting into an altercation and having to get an attorney, etc... But if he comes at you after you toss him your cash you have a big decision to make. People who rob you automatically are not the most level headed, and I would rather be the guy with the bigger stick, so to speak.

Another solution is to only carry plastic. I don't carry more than $20 in cash unless I plan on spending it that day. But usually I use plastic and carry cash for highway robbery, er, I mean, tolls. Take away the cash element and muggings will go down, but home invasions may go up Backing down from criminal elements should be avoided by any society looking to actually fix a problem.

Click to expand...

How often do they just want your cash? I've never been robbed or burglarized, so can't speak from personal experience. I'd think they would want the whole wallet/purse, since there would be a better chance of getting all your money, not just the $20 bill you offer. It's not like they are panhandling. With your wallet, they know where you live, and can find you later if needed before any trial. The information most people carry, is good enough to steal an identity. Besides the cash, you get to waste time and more money replacing your identification and plastic, and a piece of animal hide.

It depends what their motives for robbing you are, true. But you are going to have a credit card in your wallet anyways. At least this way they won't make off with as much cash. Do muggers really look at your license anyways? I guess some would, but there are much safer ways to steal your identity than robbing someone nowadays. I figure if they are going to take my wallet anyways, why not make sure they don't get enough cash to have made it worth it?

Mikebits said:

Ca has a 29% car accidents related to DUI as compared to Ma 35%. You really should do your homework before you spew blanket statements.

Click to expand...

That is why I said "probably". I was specifically speaking about DUI's, though. You have a lot more people than we do. I wasn't thinking in terms of population vs drunk drivers, just the total number. The data that I did find says the number of DUI's is increasing, which says to me that maybe the punishment is not enough of a deterrent? Yes, population increase plays a part, but at the same time shouldn't we be trying to reduce it anyways, not keep it at a steady percentage of population?

Sorry guys, no more blankets! I am all out.

I think of it as just another one of those issues that gets stirred up to polarize people and make them look past more important issues. The extreem of either end on any issue is just ridiculous. Like how half the people you meet think war is always wrong, and the other half never question it. Or abortion, most people either say no way, never, no matter what, and the other half dont seem to consider that there might be times when it shouldent be allowed. Like those issues, there is a reasonable way to handle gun ownership laws. They can be limited, but theres no way to get rid of them. So I agree with you full support of banning them or not regulating them at all is insane, and extreemists need to stop taking over the conversation on everything in politics. Look at george bush jr. We elected a total moron because he was against gays and abortion, two issues which on the whole hardly effect us as a nation at all and arent really what the president is there to deal with.

I hear you. In my opinion the Pres should only be concerned with our defense, not all the little issues that we should vote on or have our Reps vote for. He is the Commander and Chief of the Military, and should not be meddling with internal affairs so much. He can't and shouldn't avoid internal issues, but I feel that his priority should be defense. We have a lot of things to deal with outside the country, let alone inside.

The progression of this topic is getting interesting!

This debate is always interesting, I am not sure at this stage I want to pin my colours to the mast as it were on this issue but I can tell you that both Myself and my wife are both licensed shot gun holders.

To get the license, we had to:-
1. Get forms signed and countersigned by people of "respect" (Doctors, Vicar, Senior work colleagues)
2. Demonstrate to the local constabulary that the guns were housed in a secure storage (ours is a steel cabinet bolted to the house with 10 inch bolts.
3. Demonstrate to the local constabulary that the ammunition that was kept in the house was "Away" from the Guns.
4. Tell the local constabulary the purpose of the guns (Clay pidgeon shooting) and where I would generally be using them.

Now thats not all. I was informed that the local "plod" in my area are well within their rights to do spot checks on license holders to ensures the guns are safe - and they have!

Do I think these measures are appropiate? actually for the UK it is.

Yeah Ambient, because our prison system could instantly handle the increased inmates...
People thought zero tolerance for even small amounts of marijuana was a good idea, now the entire legal system is FLUSH with 'stupid' people, not criminals.

Drug legality. Theres another whole subject that could be interesting to bring up here!
I am personally very against drugs. (except prescription happy pills!)
But unfortunately I have had a few longer term work situations were I had to work with known and open pot and meth users.
The strange part for me was after getting to know these people and work around them. Many were actually nicer people and darn good workers when they were loaded out of there minds!
Seriously! They were calmer and far more sociable when they were stoned or worse.
I am still against drugs and very against people on drugs having guns!

But not against good law abiding people having guns. I am definitely not against anyone having a gun when the druggies started to come down while still at work!
Now thats some scary sh!t.

During prohibition Alcohol was illegal as drugs are. The prison system became overwhelmed as the prison cells filled with inmates. Alcoholics were now criminals. Many deaths ensued as the police waged a war on alcohol, much like the war on drugs.

The sale of spirits became profitable for the gangsters as they would defy the law and find venues to sale their elixir. Gang wars spurred over trafficking turf. Violence grew in a fight to control the spirit pie. This compounded the prison overcrowding problem even further, much like today.

The law enforcement would now find themselves devoting much of their time and resources, along with tax payers money to combat this problem. Alas, the law makers recognized the futility in prohibition.

I thought history was supposed to be used as a tool of what not to do. Maybe not.

I am not an advocate of drugs, but some laws need to change as they do not work, our prison systems are full of non violent offenders and the burden on the tax payer grows.

Triode:

"We elected a total moron because he was against gays and abortion, two issues which on the whole hardly effect us as a nation at all and arent really what the president is there to deal with."

So you console against taking an extreme stance on issues but then take an extreme subjective stance on the previous President. Not saying he was a great President, but to say he was a total moron is just subjective noise that doesn't help carry your arguments, just like the extremist on both sides do with the hot button issues of our day. But I suspect you won't see that connection.

Lefty

Mikebits said:

During prohibition Alcohol was illegal as drugs are. The prison system became overwhelmed as the prison cells filled with inmates. Alcoholics were now criminals. Many deaths ensued as the police waged a war on alcohol, much like the war on drugs.

The sale of spirits became profitable for the gangsters as they would defy the law and find venues to sale their elixir. Gang wars spurred over trafficking turf. Violence grew in a fight to control the spirit pie. This compounded the prison overcrowding problem even further, much like today.

The law enforcement would now find themselves devoting much of their time and resources, along with tax payers money to combat this problem. Alas, the law makers so the futility in prohibition.

I thought history was supposed to be a tool of what not to do. Maybe not.

I am not an advocate of drugs, but some laws need to change as they do not work, our prison systems are full of non violent offenders and the burden on the tax payer grows.

Click to expand...

Mike, I agree with you. However I feel that virtually no politician would ever run for an elective office with a platform of drug law reform/repeal, certainly not enough to be able to pass such changes. Just like no President could be elected at this time without stating that he believes in God. It will take a lot of time, decades or most likely centuries, for these to change fundamentally IMHO.

Lefty

Leftyretro said:

Mike, I agree with you. However I feel that virtually no politician would ever run for an elective office with a platform of drug law reform/repeal, certainly not enough to be able to pass such changes. Just like no President could be elected at this time without stating that he believes in God. It will take a lot of time, decades or most likely centuries, for these to change fundamentally IMHO.

Lefty

Click to expand...

The thing that makes it tough to legalize drugs, is that most stay your system for days or weeks. If there is an accident or issue, how could you be sure it wasn't do to drug use, or just leftovers from the weekend. People already have a tough time deciding whether they are impaired, and shouldn't be operating machinery. Hell, most people don't even have sense enough to put down the cellphone when driving. With alcohol you have an odor, or some foolish attempt at masking it.

If legal, an employer wouldn't be allowed to screen employees the way they do now. Maybe for some jobs, but doubt they would be able to turn away, or fire people because of a test positive.

Harvey it's not so much about making them legal as it is reducing the barbaric penalties for minor possession. I'm not talking about crack or meth mainly Cannabis. It's a buzzword that catches news in papers every now and then with a few politicians here and there wanting to de-criminalize the possession of small amounts.

So you console against taking an extreme stance on issues but then take an extreme subjective stance on the previous President. Not saying he was a great President, but to say he was a total moron is just subjective noise that doesn't help carry your arguments, just like the extremist on both sides do with the hot button issues of our day. But I suspect you won't see that connection.

Lefty

Click to expand...

I said its bad to be extreem about issues, but George Bush being a moron is not an issue in the sense were talking about. Way to assume I'm an Idiot because I disagree with you.

I was wondering when this would morph into a discussion on drugs. The drug war is the main reason hard drugs are so pervasive. They will never win the drug war because prohibition only fuels the profit margins so that someone will always want to sell. The following link is somewhat of a long (but good) read. Its written by a former drug agent...

**broken link removed**

Its true, can you imagine, if they managed to reduce the amount of drugs availible to 1/4 what it is now, how insanely furious the battle would become at the prices that would drive them to?

I am against the total legalization of drugs but yet legalizing the ones that have proven themselves to be less of a danger publicaly would sit okay with me.

But on the other hand, I also feel that personal responsibiity is key to any drug use legal or otherwise.
Legalize hard drugs! You will know who's using them. After a week or two they will be to fried to even come to work and a week or two later they will be most likey dead if alowed to have all they want!

Most of the hard drug users I have been around only limit their own usage because they still have to function well enough to keep a job and get a paycheck so that they can buy more.

Sell all hard drugs for $10 a pound. It will work like a cleaning agent for the human race!
Sick, Definitly! But humans are the only species that puts an active effort into keeping the undesirable and burdonsome members of its species alive!

conversely, can you imagine how far the prices would drop if they were legalized? One may think that is a bad thing, but it would kill any motivation to sell it - and to fight over it. It would also allow the government to regulate it (and tax it for that matter - i'm surprised they're not drooling over that possibility). It's easier for kids to get drugs than it is to get beer - beer is legal to sell - as long as you don't break the rules. The drug dealers don't have any rules.

Certain Drug legalization ?

OutToLunch said:

conversely, can you imagine how far the prices would drop if they were legalized? One may think that is a bad thing, but it would kill any motivation to sell it - and to fight over it. It would also allow the government to regulate it (and tax it for that matter - i'm surprised they're not drooling over that possibility). It's easier for kids to get drugs than it is to get beer - beer is legal to sell - as long as you don't break the rules. The drug dealers don't have any rules.

Click to expand...

The problem now is the drug dealers are the Doctors unknowingly.
(Think about it all those drugs are already legal.) The question revolves around the people who really need the prescription drugs vs those who claim an injury.

The ones who are not using all their prescription maybe who have had their injury decline from a high level of pain to a point where other drugs can deal with the pain and they continue to get prescription for opioids.

Now they have gone to using the drug to get high plus getting their friends high (but) at a cost ? These people are dealing and giving them to other people and getting them addicted one such drug is oxycontin not excluding other drugs these are sold at a high price and are very addictive ( Which I believe is the new Gateway Drug ) it hooks young people who are just looking for a simple high.

They do not know the addictive nature of this drug and how strong it's grasp is on potential users.

Meth is known to be the skinny drug it's use varies on the their idea of why and how to stay awake or to maintain a level of productivity or weight. When used for long periods of time or if they decide they like the high they move to crack or needles to come up with the better high further inflaming the addiction.

In business a way to counter market is to produce a product to the market.

People who need the drug could get education and medical attention. With there own money spent (Rather than letting Drug lords buy guns to kill more people or to get more elaborate ways to smuggle and pay people off.)

Dealing with those addicted might shorten their life expectancy case to case deduction on the matter might give insight, hard to say. Often I see drugs like heroin or crack typically are used by mentally ill people who can't bear to take their own life so they tune in and tune out or self medicate. That to me is the same as killing them selfs to ones reality, of life ?

Maybe after diagnosis a more moderate use of a drug could therefor be prescribed by a Doctor once diagnosed for an illness then (maybe) they could be reformed to (use a drug to target ) their need rather than to tune in and tune out. Maybe something that allows them to tolerate life and not end it.


kv

I think the whole concept or idea of a "Gateway Drug" is a myth. Nothing more than rhetoric created by politicians and parents with the sole purpose of scaring one from ever trying a substance.

It is like saying, a beer drinker will eventually move up to hard alcohol, and later on move to vicodin or demerol.

To call a medical doctor a drug dealer is equally a misguided statement.

Your idea's and misconceptions on this subject are outdated, and it is your type of thinking which has filled our prisons, put an extreme burden on the tax payer, and our law enforcing agencies.