This is a discussion on Why Not A War On ILLEGAL firearms? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by Kerbouchard AgentX, Ok, I see where you are coming from, now, and I can agree with most of it. It stealing a ...
Bad guys have guns because they steal them, buy them from other scumbags who stole them and have even been known to kill police officers to get their guns. The only way to stop them is if they are caught with a gun 20yrs if they commit a crime with a gun 50yrs no parole on the gun charge. If they kill someone with a gun the death penalty FAST not 20 years later. These people deserve nothing they give up there so called civil rights when they choose to break the law. Guns arn't illegal the crooks are!!
dcb188---Do you drive??? have you ever got a ticket??? so to prevent you from breaking the law (speeding ticket) we will have a war on cars--take your car away and you won't get a speeding ticket.
I rather doubt if (truckloads) of guns are coming up I-95 just to sell to BG's, some manufacturers can't keep up with demand to legal purchases, let alone illegal purchases.
You seem to think we can prevent crimes, by your posts it seems that you have a background in law/court, so you should know you can not punish for something that has not happened, the ONLY prevention we should do is NOT LET THEM BACK OUT.
An ounce of lead is worth 200lbs of cop.
You know, I still remember when I first heard that criminals that used a gun to commit the crime were really gonna get slammed I thought "brilliant" idea and I still think it would do an amazing job of deterring alot (of course not all) of crimes committed with a gun. So when are they going to start?
A firearm cannot commit an illegal act. Only people can, and there is no 'war' on people committing illegal acts; it's more like a hockey game, where when they are caught they get a warning or 5 minutes in the penalty box.
"If we loose Freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the Last Place on Earth!" Ronald Reagan
Given the success of the "war on drugs" I'm surprised this is actually a question...
We are simply not willing to do the hard work and make the hard choices to eradicate the drug problem. And make no mistake, it is a huge problem.
OK, I'll weigh in... first of all, there is very much a war on "illegal guns" only we call it a war on crime.
There is not an official "war on illegal guns" because no first lady declared one... and it would be silly to because guns are not illegal, only a few types are. Those are so rare on the streets, (besides ghetto modified shotguns) it isn't worth calling it a war. Almost every state has stiffer penalties for gun crimes or if you bring a gun to the crime you are committing. There isn't a whole lot more we can do besides actually following through with the judicial side of things.
War on Drugs... Yes, its a war that will never end, but we certainly are not losing it. It was never meant to rid the country of illegal drugs, that would be impossible. It is simple meant to keep a lid on things... and that it has.
"Just blame Sixto"
We now have dangerous drugs that didn't EXIST before the "War on Drugs" began. Crack cocaine is the best example of this. A whole lot of potency in a small package.
Crack cocaine is to the War on Drugs as ultracompact semiauto pistols are to the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Unintended consequences.
Want to "keep a lid on things"? You know those knuckleheads who want to waste their OWN lives by using one drug or another? Some of them haven't hurt anyone, or stolen/damaged anyone's property, and yet they're taking up prison space that could be used for THOSE WHO HAVE.
I mean, we're still locking up the VIOLENT criminals, but even their sentences are becoming shorter due to the perceived need to incarcerate drug offenders. Parole boards operate under pressure to parole prisoners unless there's a damn good reason not to, instead of NOT paroling them unless there's a damn good reason TO do so.
How many recognized exceptions to the search warrant requirement have arisen since the beginning of this "war"? One day, those exceptions could be used to justify warrantless searches for OUR GUNS.
As I said earlier......truth is always the first casualty of war.
I've spent the last two years of my career doing nothing but drug work, and I know for a fact we keep a lid on things... sure it will flare up again, then we make a hit, the area goes dry for a few months... its an endless cycle. A good part of my stint was spent posing as a drug user/dealer... I knew when things were dry and why they went dry.
In my area, I have yet to see a drug offender that hasnt hurt anyone take up prison space... jail space maybe, but not prison. Perhaps in other states they do, but Ohio is pretty tolerant of non violent offenders.
Crack would have came around with or with out a war, they only difference would be price. Same as Meth... but, without the war, heroin would be king...
"Just blame Sixto"
Crack cocaine, a federal ban on needle exchange (increased incidence of new HIV cases), these are as Sgt. Mac described the unintended consequences of the "war on drugs" that has proven to be only marginally more successful than Prohibition and only because a greater percentage of people drank alcohol during Prohibition than use illicit substances during this "war on drugs".
Please tell me what tactic is going to change how economics works.
SIXTO was right in that the best that can be done is containment, but for what, and at what cost to society and to taxpayers?
SelfDefense, the folly of a "war on guns" as the original poster described is exactly the same as that of Prohibition and the War on Drugs, but with a tiny caveat: unlike alcohol or drugs, firearms are constitutionally protected.
Prohibition is not really comparable, due to the power of the drug involved.
Anyway, the cost to the taxpayer is minimal compared to the costs that would arise from letting the drugs go rampant.
Have you ever spent any real time in a crack house? How about dealing with an addict on a day to day basis? How about just driving through a rough part of town? There is a reason why it is what it is, and the same reason why I feel we need to do what we can to contain it.
"Just blame Sixto"
Oh I don't think it's the same thing, but it's a very, very similar thing. The exact same forces are in play, just to differing degrees; like I said, there were more drinkers in that day than there have been drug users since this "war on drugs" came around.
What do you think would happen if we switched gears from prohibition to regulation? Why do you think rough spots in town are rough? Why do you think crack houses are as they are? What happened to the violence involved with Prohibition after .gov decided for a change of pace? What happened to the violence involved with illicit substance use/abuse when .gov decided to lay the smack down on it?
So, you think crack towns would be nice? As long as drugs cost money, no matter if its cheap or not, there will be violence that goes along with it.
Alcohol is legal... do you know how many violent crimes that alcohol plays a role in? Almost all... its drugs or alcohol. Any cop will tell you that 90% of their workload is alcohol related. If drugs were legal, that wouldn't change a damn thing except that it wouldn't be hidden as much.
Drugs would take on the same role as alcohol, only the ingredient is far more powerful.
Then again, maybe we can legalize it... then we really will have the zombie invasion we fantasize about.
"Just blame Sixto"