Odd choice of Member for Committee to Regulate Guns in the US (Page 3)

OCD_OCD: Those whatever they are called tech 9's or uzis, or whatever they are called, are not for protection, sport or hunting unless you are the owner of the local meth lab.

davesdatahut: Or a drug dealer with a lotta turf to protect. Those are a couple of them - the ones that can squeeze off a lotta rounds in a short period. NO need for people to have those. A regular old pistol will do just fine if you need self-defense.

LiptonCambell: >>>Again, view the history of Prohibition and how the mob was largely taken out of the booze business.

The two are not comparable

You seek laws that control how much drugs someone can possess. Such is not the case with alcohol. Anyone can buy as many beer, liquor, and wine as they please. They can go out and buy every Keg in town, and no one would stop them and say they aren't allowed "that dosage"

You also seek strong taxes for these drugs- and with alcohol, the taxes are actually quite reasonable. But you seek to pay for education with these taxes- in the United States, the budget for education is $972 billion. If you wanted to "increase" education by 5% so people would "know better", that would be an increase of $48 Billion- If you sold a pack of joints for $50, and taxed them 10%, then 9,600,000,000 pack of joints would have to be sold to cover your costs

>>>We have no reason, based on this history, to believe the same would not happen with drug legalization is to ignore history.

No reason? You comparison is completely inadequate!

>>>. I am ALRIGHT with that.

Thats great- but you utterly failed your intended goal.

>>>We can thank the devils in the NRA for that.

Are you suggesting that you cannot stop nuts from getting guns, but the NRA can?

>>>But the drug violence claims far more victims.

I agree. But your refusal to give people control over their own lives only ensures that drug violence will continue. You lack the courage of your convictions.

>>>We need to at least try new things....

But background checks aren't new!

davesdatahut: Lipton, at what point did I seek laws that control how much drugs someone can possess? I never suggested that. If my suggestions indicated that, then my intent was misunderstood. I suggest no such thing. I suggest legalizing all drugs and controlling dosage levels - meaning the strength of the drugs sold. Same as with alcohol, which has dosage limits, as well.
Therefore, Prohibition IS a prefect corollary. You may not want to acknowledge it. But it is the best corollary we have.
And who said anything about covering the US education budget??? I'm talking about using the tax money to educate people about the dangers of drugs. Cmon, Lipton. Read what I write.
And I am still willing to take the 70 percent discount on drugs controlled by criminals, even though the cigarette comparison in Canada is a bullshit comparison. My intent is to reduce gun violence, as I am now saying for the fourth or fifth time. I am ready to take a deal that will cut that by 70 percent. Let's DO it.

davesdatahut: While we debate the merits of drug legalization as a way to control gun violence, I cannot help but heap uncontrolled praise on the NRA for being such utter and complete douchebags following the Connecticut shootings, and marginalizing themselves like no outside force could hope to do. First, with calls for teachers to carry guns and then with an ad that cynically seeks to make Obama's kids part of the issue, the NRA leadership exposes itself for what it is: mouth foaming dangers to civil society. This is manna from heaven for those of us who see the NRA leadership as a gaggle of crazed fanatics more concerned with arming society that addressing its problems. Let the rest of step aside and allow them keep blasting themselves in their own two left feet.

LiptonCambell: Lol I love how you insist that education be the cornerstone of gun-free solutions- and yet, in every instance where gun ownership isn't under increased control? Suddenly people have no idea how guns work, or how to handle them.

If the stance is anti-gun, then all education is possible, and educated people is the solution. If the stance is pro-gun, then all education is useless, as people will misfire and shoot themselves in the foot everytime.

You make it seem as if the issue is guns being misfired, not....you know....massacres in areas where people are not legally allowed to arm themselves, or gang violence.

It's a sad day when people are intelligent until they disagree with you- because in your world, someone cannot be intelligent with a gun.

davesdatahut: Oh Lipton, please, will you stop? You know that wasn't my point at all. You are an intelligent person. So cut the shit and respond to what I write as opposed to what you are doing.
At no time have I said anything about educating people on how guns work or how to shoot them. At no time have I suggested that intelligent people don't own guns. (I have strongly opposed letting everyone and his brother run around with guns because in an emergency situation, where they are shooting at someone who is shooting at others, a lot of bad things can happen because they might hit the wrong person as they blast away.) I believe there are many many smart and good people who use guns for legitimate self-defense. The NRA leadership may be dangerously nutty, but plenty of good folk own guns for reasonable reasons. When it comes to education, I am for educating people on the dangers of DRUG ABUSE, just as we have made progress educating people on the dangers of alcohol abuse. I am for legalizing drugs, taxing them and using the money to better educate people about drug abuse. Got it? Capiche? Am I making myself clear now?
The point you also aren't answering is that I am prepared to take the deal of legalizing drugs, even if 30 percent of the trade remains illegal. Because that means 70 percent of the drug trade is taken out of the hands of criminals. And with that goes a lot of gun violence.
Your view?

LiptonCambell: >>>At no time have I said anything about educating people on how guns work or how to shoot them.

Why not? Numerous times you've stated that, if more people will have guns, then people will misfire their guns. Wouldn't being educated how to handle a gun resolve this?

>>>At no time have I suggested that intelligent people don't own guns.

Please- get real dave- you talk about misfirings, and people shooting themselves in the feet. Clearly you think that the people who own guns don't know how to handle them.

>>> (I have strongly opposed letting everyone and his brother run around with guns because in an emergency situation, where they are shooting at someone who is shooting at others, a lot of bad things can happen because they might hit the wrong person as they blast away.)

Exactly my point. You think pretty poorly of the people who own guns. You cannot conceive a world where people understand how to handle guns.

The biggest problem isn't the guns themselves- its you. People CAN be educated safe gun handling so they can defend themselves without killing themselves or other innocents, regardless of your own refusal to believe it.

Clearly you believe in the effectiveness of education on society- So apparently you think gun owners are incapable of being educated, but drug addicts are.

>>>The point you also aren't answering

I find it hilirious that you are whining about me not addressing your points....meanwhile, I asked you the same question twice in a row, and you completely ignored it yourself.

Why should I treat you better than you treat me?

>>>30 percent

Why do you keep using that number? That number was never meant to represent what you use it for. You wave it around like it's your answer to the question, but since it has to do with an entirely different issue, the number is arbitrary. Why not say 5%, or 50%, or 95%, while you're using arbitrary numbers?

Still, I find it funny- I ask you for specifics, and, like most of my posts, you completely ignore what I say- when I offer a comparison to how cigarettes are sold illegally to avoid tax costs, you make the crass assumption that that is EXACTLY the same amount that would happen with all drugs everywhere, should they be decriminalized.

What use is it to talk to you? You claim you want to control the dosages- but to what degree is this control? You don't say. How much would these drugs be taxed, or changed? You don't say. But i mention that, in Canada, 30% of cigarettes sold are not taxed, and suddenly you act like all these questions were answered....

davesdatahut: Endless assumptions about what I think - this is what you do. You choose to assume what I think instead of dealing with what I say. Or asking me what I think.
Hence and therefore, this debate now comes to end, at least with my participation. Good luck with others.

LiptonCambell: >>>You choose to assume what I think instead of dealing with what I say. Or asking me what I think.

I have asked you, numerous times, to elaborate what you think and offer more specific comments. Instead, you kept silent, and took what I said to mean something entirely differently. Lol and now you claim I never asked anything?

To suggest that only proves you didn't read what I wrote AT ALL.

Little wonder we can't debate anything. You're utterly delusional...

davesdatahut: Lipton, at the risk of further stimulating your superb debating skills, here's the deal: We were having a rational discussion about how to control gun violence. I put forth the idea that you could wipe out a shitload of it in the US by legalizing drugs. You said no way, and put forth your view that the criminal element would still control at least some of the drug trade. You cited the 30 percent of the cigarette trade controlled by the natives in Canada as a case in point. I said, ok, super! I'd be happy with any kind of move that left only 30 percent of the drug trade in the hands of violent criminals who create so much of the US's gun violence. And then you said b-b-b-but you're taking me too literally!! Twisting my words!! Talkin outta yer ass!!
Well, my gun loving adversary, don't put up your words if you don't want em tossed right back at you like so much smelly excrement. That's how it works when you make claims - especially ones easily torn apart - in support of your view. You risk them being used against you!
At this point, I believe it is safe to say that your debating skills - with your assumptions, suppositions and name calling - pose no immediate threat to even the most mediocre minds of the world.

davidk14: .

The issue of guns or no guns is secondary. Mental health is primary. The gunman in the Giffords shooting in Arizona was a well known nutjob to campus police and with the Sheriffs office. However, he did not do anything against the law right up until he shot those folks. They knew he was a nut job ....but.... by LAW they were unable to take any preventative action since he did not break any laws.

I'm sure, there are nutjobs out there that law enforcement know are a "possible" threat.....however...by law...they can not do anything until...the nutjob....breaks a law.

That is the problem.
\
.

LiptonCambell: >>>And then you said b-b-b-but you're taking me too literally!! Twisting my words!! Talkin outta yer ass!!
Well, my gun loving adversary, don't put up your words if you don't want em tossed right back at you like so much smelly excrement. That's how it works when you make claims - especially ones easily torn apart

B-b-b-b-b-b-but I wasn't talking about pot, heroin, crack, meth, or any other kinds of drugs you are attempting to decriminalize, yet regulate. I was talking about cigarettes. The statistics I offered- the very statistics you suggested were false when I presented them- did not reflect the multitude of drugs we were talking about, and, if nothing else, could not be used to determine how much legal drugs would be sold under the counter, as the specifics- which I asked numerous times for you to explain and elaborate on- are completely unknown.

So instead you start making up numbers out of my real numbers, beating your chest, and announcing that you've got it all figured it out. Taking stats from one list of stats and claiming that there would be identical results only has one result- it completely invalidates everything you have to say.

And then you complain- 'Why isn't Lipton asking for me to elaborate on my ideas? Why is he making conclusions on things I never said?"- and the answer is simple- you know it, I know it, and everyone who reads knows it- its because this conversation is going no where with no real facts. I asked you numerous times to elaborate on your ideas- I JUST DID IN THE LAST POST- and yet again, you side step it as completely unimportant.

It's remarkably clear why you do not elaborate on your thoughts- it's because you have nothing further to elaborate. You have no basis for your claims, and conclude that everything you state is self-evident. And when someone actually posts legitimate facts- with a link and everything? You misuse those facts, distort them to mean something else entirely.

When you say "control dosages", what do you exactly mean? What if someone wants something stronger, or buys dangerous amounts? What are these dosages? Whats too much? What if the majority of drug users disagree? What if politicians disagree?

Those few, basic questions are never answered by you, because, frankly, you cannot be bothered to ponder such things. You suggest things that feel good- "Control dosages"- with no understanding of what that statement even means, or the effect it has.

These kinds of blind generalizations- where you misuse comparisons, where you refuse to properly express your ideas past an idle ponder, and conclude that your pondering MUST be true, where you refuse to understand and express the position you have taken- these things makes it useless to discuss such things with you.

How about this dave- why do you insist there be regulation? You assume that regulation is an absolute necessity. Why? Isn't regulation what drove people to the black market in the first place....