Is being against the drug war but in favor of gun control hypocritical?

[King]

"Criminalization of drugs only makes the problem more difficult to control." vs. "Making guns illegal reduces gun crime."

Discuss.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. How could it be?

[Vepres]

No. How could it be?

Because if government is not effective in controlling drugs, why would they be effective at controlling firearms?

[Хahar 🤔]

No. How could it be?

Because if government is not effective in controlling drugs, why would they be effective at controlling firearms?

Because drugs are not firearms, perhaps?

[Hatman 🍁]

No. We're discussing apples and oranges here.

[Vepres]

No. How could it be?

Because if government is not effective in controlling drugs, why would they be effective at controlling firearms?

Because drugs are not firearms, perhaps?

How would enforcement be any different?

[Franzl]

I don't think you can compare the two very well, as they are two separate issues in principle. The only way to equate them would be to argue that drugs themselves are the problem, as opposed to drug related crime. I guess there are people that would agree with that sentiment, but there were people that supported prohibition as well, after all.

Guns, at least handguns and the like, serve no other real purpose than killing human beings....whereas drugs aren't made for the purpose of killing others. Sure drugs can kill...but so can a lot of things.

People that say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" aren't wrong per se, but the argument is terribly oversimplified. Access to a gun makes it a lot easier to kill someone, and I do believe that people are more likely to kill someone if they can do it by just pulling a trigger.

So what I mean to say is that the motives behind opposition to guns and opposition to drugs, at least "smart opposition", are based on entirely seperate backgrounds. Therefore I would say that opposition to one but not the other is not inherently hypocritical.


(Please note: I am generally supportive of gun rights.)

[Vepres]

I don't think you can compare the two very well, as they are two separate issues in principle. The only way to equate them would be to argue that drugs themselves are the problem, as opposed to drug related crime. I guess there are people that would agree with that sentiment, but there were people that supported prohibition as well, after all.

Guns, at least handguns and the like, serve no other real purpose than killing human beings....whereas drugs aren't made for the purpose of killing others. Sure drugs can kill...but so can a lot of things.

People that say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" aren't wrong per se, but the argument is terribly oversimplified. Access to a gun makes it a lot easier to kill someone, and I do believe that people are more likely to kill someone if they can do it by just pulling a trigger.

So what I mean to say is that the motives behind opposition to guns and opposition to drugs, at least "smart opposition", are based on entirely seperate backgrounds. Therefore I would say that opposition to one but not the other is not inherently hypocritical.


(Please note: I am generally supportive of gun rights.)

However, it is hypocritical to say that the drug war isn't working but then to advocate for gun control as if it would work any better (because enforcement-wise they aren't so different). I know the motives behind it are different.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. How could it be?

Because if government is not effective in controlling drugs, why would they be effective at controlling firearms?

Because drugs are not firearms, perhaps?

How would enforcement be any different?

You can't see how guns differ from drugs? Really?

[President Mitt]

No. Just because the Government can control X successfully doesn't mean they can control Y successfully.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

No. You are assuming that the argument of one has the same reasoning behind it as the argument for another (which it often does in America, but not always).

[Franzl]

I don't think you can compare the two very well, as they are two separate issues in principle. The only way to equate them would be to argue that drugs themselves are the problem, as opposed to drug related crime. I guess there are people that would agree with that sentiment, but there were people that supported prohibition as well, after all.

Guns, at least handguns and the like, serve no other real purpose than killing human beings....whereas drugs aren't made for the purpose of killing others. Sure drugs can kill...but so can a lot of things.

People that say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" aren't wrong per se, but the argument is terribly oversimplified. Access to a gun makes it a lot easier to kill someone, and I do believe that people are more likely to kill someone if they can do it by just pulling a trigger.

So what I mean to say is that the motives behind opposition to guns and opposition to drugs, at least "smart opposition", are based on entirely seperate backgrounds. Therefore I would say that opposition to one but not the other is not inherently hypocritical.


(Please note: I am generally supportive of gun rights.)

However, it is hypocritical to say that the drug war isn't working but then to advocate for gun control as if it would work any better (because enforcement-wise they aren't so different). I know the motives behind it are different.

Using that argument, couldn't you also claim the government shouldn't ban anything because they aren't effective at stopping drug usage?

Again, I don't think banning guns would be a good idea, and thinking it would solve our gun problems is dumb....but I don't see the hypocrisy here.

[Earth]

No. Just because the Government can control X successfully doesn't mean they can control Y successfully.

+1

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It is far easier to control guns than it is to control drugs.  Coca, opium, cannabis,and tobacco require little capital investment to make besides some seeds and a backyard to grow them in.  The manufacture of firearms and ammo for them is a bit more problematic.

[Derek]

"Criminalization of drugs only makes the problem more difficult to control." vs. "Making guns illegal reduces gun crime."

Discuss.

No I wouldn't say hypocritical but you can't really go against the 2nd amendment. I think drug laws are just an excuse to lock more people up and make more money for the state.

[Franzl]

"Criminalization of drugs only makes the problem more difficult to control." vs. "Making guns illegal reduces gun crime."

Discuss.

No I wouldn't say hypocritical but you can't really go against the 2nd amendment. I think drug laws are just an excuse to lock more people up and make more money for the state.

The state MAKES money?? I've never noticed that...

[Eraserhead]

It could be but it depends on the arguments that the person is putting forth.

[Vepres]

I don't think you can compare the two very well, as they are two separate issues in principle. The only way to equate them would be to argue that drugs themselves are the problem, as opposed to drug related crime. I guess there are people that would agree with that sentiment, but there were people that supported prohibition as well, after all.

Guns, at least handguns and the like, serve no other real purpose than killing human beings....whereas drugs aren't made for the purpose of killing others. Sure drugs can kill...but so can a lot of things.

People that say "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" aren't wrong per se, but the argument is terribly oversimplified. Access to a gun makes it a lot easier to kill someone, and I do believe that people are more likely to kill someone if they can do it by just pulling a trigger.

So what I mean to say is that the motives behind opposition to guns and opposition to drugs, at least "smart opposition", are based on entirely seperate backgrounds. Therefore I would say that opposition to one but not the other is not inherently hypocritical.


(Please note: I am generally supportive of gun rights.)

However, it is hypocritical to say that the drug war isn't working but then to advocate for gun control as if it would work any better (because enforcement-wise they aren't so different). I know the motives behind it are different.

Using that argument, couldn't you also claim the government shouldn't ban anything because they aren't effective at stopping drug usage?

True, but as Eraserhead said, certain arguments can make one be hypocritical.

[Vepres]

No. How could it be?

Because if government is not effective in controlling drugs, why would they be effective at controlling firearms?

Because drugs are not firearms, perhaps?

How would enforcement be any different?

You can't see how guns differ from drugs? Really?

Oh wise and all-knowing Xahar, please explain to this lesser being why government would be better at enforcing a gun ban than a drug ban?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh wise and all-knowing Xahar, please explain to this lesser being why government would be better at enforcing a gun ban than a drug ban?

I'm not Xahar, but:

It is far easier to control guns than it is to control drugs.  Coca, opium, cannabis,and tobacco require little capital investment to make besides some seeds and a backyard to grow them in.  The manufacture of firearms and ammo for them is a bit more problematic.

Indeed, the few successes in the War on Drugs have come against drugs that require more effort to make than the mainstays of the drug culture.

[Хahar 🤔]

No. How could it be?

Because if government is not effective in controlling drugs, why would they be effective at controlling firearms?

Because drugs are not firearms, perhaps?

How would enforcement be any different?

You can't see how guns differ from drugs? Really?

Oh wise and all-knowing Xahar, please explain to this lesser being why government would be better at enforcing a gun ban than a drug ban?

Ernest gave an answer.

But basically what you're saying is that it's hypocritical to support control of something while opposing a ban on anything else. Cool story, bro.

[Bo]

No (D). Drugs and guns are two totally different things.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I think we can argue that cause A (criminalization of drugs) can lead to effect B (uptake in gun violence).

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

 The State doesn't have the right to ban or regulate drugs or guns. Of course it's hypocritical to create an exception for one or the other.

[Earth]

The State doesn't have the right to ban or regulate drugs or guns.

Since when?


But then again, this discussion, like many others, doesn't come down to rights.