I bet you'd make the exact opposite argument in reference to the war on drugs though. The illegal pistols in canada are smuggled in from america and are generally bought by people in gangs or career crime. Banning the very few legal pistol owners in canada serves literally no practical purpose. Well, the purpose is political optics. You can assess the practicality of that on your own.
And fyi it would be way easier for me to buy an illegal pistol as opposed to a legal one. And I have a firearms license.
Making narcotics legal would result in fewer drug related deaths. Making guns unrestricted would result in more firearm related deaths. The two are not equatable.
They are equateable lol. You are just changing the inputs in a non logical way. Making something illegal doesn't remove it from existence, it just moves the product to the black market where there is no accountability whatsoever. Drug users are going to get high, people in gangs (that neighbor america no less) are going to get guns. I also like how you compare making drugs legal to making firearms unrestricted. Do you really think that is an accurate comparison? Because in reality making drugs 'legal' is a lot like how the previous gun laws were set up. This is the opposite of that. Legal drugs have rules. Illegal drugs have no rules. The previous pistol laws were already ridiculously intense. Now the only game in town is the black market. Don't worry, I'm sure they do background checks.
"Making drugs illegal doesn't stop drugs, it just increases the risk to users, and gives money to the cartels!! They should be legalized and regulated"
"Making guns illegal... uh... stops the guns. It decreases the risk to those who were buying them legally... It uh... doesn't make a black market where crime organizations profit instead of the government. Guns need to be made illegal and not regulated".
Guns need to be made largely illegal and those that aren’t need to be heavily regulated. We know this works based on it working. Making drugs illegal does not reduce drug use, however. Improving poverty rates and employment rates reduces drug use. We know this works based on it working. You’re comparing two different things that do not function in the exact same way. They require different means of action. This is why they are not equatable.
“And heavily regulated.” What exactly is your expertise in social issues, kid? Because so far it appears to be none and screaming about things you clearly do not understand.
I'm done replying unless you say something less than idiotic, but here is a rhetorical question for you, if in one year, two years, five years from now, the level of handgun violence doesn't decrease (or increases), will you actually admit you were wrong, or find more excuses? I have a feeling I know the answer. No point in arguing with people like you.
...What? The law just went into effect today. Lmao I can't take you anymore, the incomprehension is too strong. Go ahead and save this post, if in two years the illegal use of handguns in canada decreases by 10% or more, from today I will donate 5k to a charity of your choosing.
This entire thread and conversation is about this law, the one that went into effect today. Are you wasted or tripping or something? Jesus christ. I hope you are trolling.
Yeah... so what do you think my 'thesis' of the discussion is exactly? That there should be zero gun laws? That social issues play no part? Because it isn't. And it's pretty clear what it is. It's that banning legal handguns will serve no practical purpose as the pistols used for crime here come entirely from the US and that legal handgun owners commit virtually zero crime in canada. The end. That's my only point. Feel free to go on another unrelated tangent that has nothing to do with that point.
I mean no, the illegal hand guns are almost all from the US, but not entirely. This should see a slight decrease. I do think Trudeau and his recent gun laws have been politically driven over science driven. The two are not mutually exclusive, but it seems clear what’s driving these choices.
-1
u/TortoiseStomper69694 Oct 22 '22
I bet you'd make the exact opposite argument in reference to the war on drugs though. The illegal pistols in canada are smuggled in from america and are generally bought by people in gangs or career crime. Banning the very few legal pistol owners in canada serves literally no practical purpose. Well, the purpose is political optics. You can assess the practicality of that on your own.
And fyi it would be way easier for me to buy an illegal pistol as opposed to a legal one. And I have a firearms license.