- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
How come? Leaving yourself at the mercy of a government or populace while remaining outspoken against deeply held popular opinion couldn't possibly go wrong! Just look at our allies, the Saudis! Wait... Shit... Bad example...
Glad to see we're not alone out there. Keep fighting the good fight.
No one here claimed to be in a foxhole. So I don't know what point you're trying to make here by resorting to name-calling rather than legitimate arguments. What you are is the boy who cried Socialist- do it to everyone that has even the slightest disagreement, and people stop listening to the shit that comes out of your mouth (not that, clearly, you even understand what a socialist is any more than the left wing retards that cry "Nazi" without any understanding of the Third Reich.) So you don't like Atheists? I don't give a shit. Until you come up with arguments that are at least coherent and based on something resembling logical thought process, have yourself a pleasant day. Somewhere else.
Says the guy who prefers to kill people with melee weapons to hear their last breath. I'm not sure if you fall into the camp of thinking "it's time to have a rational discussion about firearms", but dehumanizing opposition isn't going to get you that conversation unless what you actually want is an echo chamber. If that's the case, I recommend you look for it somewhere else, if you're stuck in the mindset that you can make undesirable elements of society stop existing by wishing and legislating it away.
Second, if you had bothered to at least look at the link, what you wouldn't see is NRA statistics. What you would have seen is my own work explaining why slapping a ban on a victimless crime is not the same as banning violent crime and often leads to greater problems. The first of two main reasons is that ownership and use of an object is inherently victimless (despite your personal fears of that object) while violent crime such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. is not; the second being that a ban on an object can do little to slow the supply and demand of economies surrounding goods and services. I'll ask that if you to attempt to excuse yourself from forming a logical response that instead of your own deflection you simply be honest and respond TL/DR.
Third, I have been nothing but patient and objective. If you continue to simply ignore inconvenient arguments or opinions that fall outside of your view of what is acceptable and resort to personal attacks I will have you banned from the discussion.
And finally, I have a job. I'm an aircraft mechanic successfully putting food on the table and a roof over the heads of a wife and kid, not that it's any of your business.
Made another debate on that subject just yesterday. Don't feel like typing it out again, you'll see why. Here's the link: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
For the record, I do support the legalization of bombs. I like explosives, I use them every so often (tannerite, mixed on site, perfectly within current legal confines). I just don't support murdering people with bombs.
Mind if I ask what your plan is to keep them out of the hands of idiots and terrorists, specifically, and how to look into folks without either violating fourth amendment practices or lumping a bunch of people who have no violent intent into a 'no gun' list?
I mean, my opinion on the subject is that someone with no regard for human life isn't going to have regard for the law, nor are they as limited in weapon choices no matter what the law is. If I'm going to respond to a violent situation defensively, there's no such thing as "overkill" until there's unacceptable collateral damage. There's underkill, and enough kill. If my intent is enough kill, my options are limited to a ranged monodirectional weapon with sufficient continuity of fire in case an attacker doesn't get the idea from the first few holes in him (look up police body cam footage, this happens more often than you might think. Some people can soak up a lot of bullets before they go down). Therefore, I can't defend my home or family with a $40 IED from home depot, and I can't stop a mass shooter at the mall with a flamethrower. Someone without regard for human life isn't limited to monodirectional arms, so they can use IEDs all they want. Look at the Boston bombers, Timothy McVeigh, 9/11, the Tokyo sarin gas attacks. I'll happily give a terrorist an AR if it means they won't bother to get creative. They're easier to stop if everyone else has a gun too.
What we've learned since the beginning of the war on drugs is that it's impossible to shut down supply. It's an endless game of whack-a-mole. Kill Pablo Escobar, another more ruthless drug lord takes his place with a new cocaine empire. Implement security measures to make it harder to smuggle something on board a ship and they'll start using submersibles. Start targeting submersibles and they'll leak information about one sub with two tons of coke so that you'll be distracted from the dozen subs that made it to shore carrying twenty tons of coke each. The one fundamental difference between drugs and firearms, if firearms were an illegal economy, is that it's much easier to establish a machine shop than a marijuana nursery or a coca field- no environmental requirements and much smaller size. If there's a buck to be made, people will capitalize on that market- not only that, but many people are willing to enforce their position in the market with violence. After all, if you move a market entirely into the illegal spectrum the market vacuum will be taken over by those who already have no respect for the law, and have little reason not to hire kids as mules or settle disputes with bullets. If you give no incentive not to commit violence, then for the sake of market domination, the cartels and gangs that end up on top are the ones that are the most ruthless. Therefore, the only way to shut down the illegal product market is to remove incentive, to make it so the illegal market is no longer profitable. Going to war with cartels hasn't worked, because cartels are able to drive up prices on their product to cover expenses, and users keep paying them. Indirectly, whenever the Coast Guard blows up a sub, the cost of that loss quite literally goes up someone's nose. So in an effort to make the market no longer profitable, we can attempt driving down demand. Unfortunately this hasn't worked either. Every year in school kids are exposed to anti-drug curriculum, we have anti-drug and anti-smoking and anti-drunk driving ads, and if anything, this has led to an increase in drug use among adolescents- a natural rebellion likely brought on by parading an inherently victimless crime as contrary to overly rigid moral values. Frankly, this can hardly come as a surprise- if your plan to drive down demand involves expecting everyone to suddenly and magically conform to your subjective version of morality, prepare to be disappointed. Reality doesn’t work that way.
The same applies to a lesser extent to prostitution and abortion due to the localized nature of the service- it is, of course, ridiculous to mass-produce prostitutes and abortion doctors to smuggle them all over the world (it does make sense to mass produce a drug that would result in a chemical abortion, until you realize this would be in far less demand than a regular recreational drug, making risk/reward and cost/benefit ratios much too high). The same rules of supply and demand apply here as anywhere else. Illegalize clinics, and desperate people will still have demand, too often resorting to dangerous measures. Illegalize prostitution, and people will still want to hire prostitutes, therefore people with no regard for the law will provide prostitutes- often with no regard for endangering the women involved, either. Shutting down the supply end is likewise impossible. Arrest one illicit back-alley abortion doctor, arrest one pimp, and you've cut off the head of the snake for all of five minutes. Not only do thousands of them remain in the country, but now there's a local market vacuum that will be picked up where the last guy left off.
So, if a government can't kill supply, and they can't suffocate demand, then frankly, these economies are going nowhere. Realistically, we have to learn to live with it, and we have to mitigate the negative effects as best we can. So how can we do that?
Simple: take control of supply through legalization, regulation, and taxation.
In terms of goods as opposed to services, this would mark a massive shift in manufacturing as marijuana, cocaine, etcetera are being manufactured by American workers under American standards, enforced by the FDA and OSHA. This would happen in much the same way that it already does with tobacco and alcohol. In this way, strict controls on purity and manufacturing process can be maintained. Dealers would be required to have an established place of business, licensing, and to card for minors (of course, this won't keep drugs out of the hands of minors so much more efficiently than the current system- demand among minors can't be suffocated either, as evidenced by my own underage drinking- but between an established business that won't sell to a minor for fear of losing their license and the illegal dealer down the street who does not care about the age of their customers, I'll take the former). Meanwhile, we can tax it. A lot. By far, the biggest factor driving up the cost of drugs is how much it costs to smuggle it over the border (cost being measured in both money and violence, on both sides). Cost of manufacturing is comparatively almost nothing. Tax drugs heavily, and without having to send them over a border, you'll still be able to provide a legal alternative to cartel-sourced drugs, at competitive price. If people can buy from a legal source, at comparable price, secure in the knowledge that nobody was killed to get this into their country, the illegal market is going to become obsolete almost overnight- if not enough people buy your product, it’s no longer either profitable to take it across the border nor engage in warfare to secure your ability to do so. Taxation could then be used to cover education, rehabilitation and healthcare, and to pay down national debt- at no cost to those who choose not to partake.
Meanwhile, as far as services go, abortion clinics can be forced to run in such a manner that procedures are of no greater danger to the mother than childbirth. Prostitution, if legalized, will be run by businesses that are required to test their employees, and treat them according to normal standards of an employee/employer relationship. I don't have any reason or desire to use prostitutes, but if they're going to be out there anyway, I'd rather they be licensed and practicing out of their own free choice to do so, rather than being kept addicted to heroin and under threat of violence should they attempt to leave, as is too often the case today.
In short: there is a better way to handle the negative effects of undesirable elements in our society that to exacerbate the problem and introduce unnecessary violence. It is better to have taxed, domestically manufactured and violence-free drugs than cartel wars uncomfortably close to our southern border. It is better to have everyone armed than only the people with no regard for the law. It is better to have abortion doctors who will perform procedures in such a manner that women are safe and able to conceive again if they choose to at a later time than to have back-alley services and desperate home remedies. And it is better to have women choose of their own free will to be prostitutes, than to be conscripted and effectively enslaved through human trafficking or forced addiction (often both). Carefully consider the consequences of new legislation before passing a bill, whether it helps or hinders your cause, whether your cause is based on idealism, and the role of government in modern society. (Hint-the role of government is not to try to protect you from yourself.)
If anyone has actually read all of this, I thank you for your time.