A ton of guns v. a ton of drugs: what's worse?

Forums: Politics, Guns, Drugs, Social Problems, Social-Political Attitudes
Email this Topic • Print this Page

This would be a terrible social experiment if it was actually carried out:

What if you brought a ton (2000 lbs) of guns and ammunition into a city, along with a ton of street drugs of all varieties, including lethal quantities of fentanyl.

Which would cause more death, destruction, and other harm? Don't forget to include financial harm, broken homes, lost jobs, educational failures, etc. etc.

Assuming the drugs would result in more harm, why do people who fear and loathe guns and devote significant effort to gun control not fear and loathe drugs and put so much effort into fighting drugs?

I suspect it is because left-wing ideology has created very different narratives for guns and drugs. Guns are regarded as threatening, not appropriate for contemporary society, and morally offensive; while fighting drugs evokes a defensive attitude, arguing against it as a moral/criminal issue, narratives about not blaming addicts, etc.

It would be hard to imagine liberals taking the same attitude toward guns as they do to drugs, i.e. advocating support for gun-addicts who are driven by fear due to the threat of crime, or arguing that gun ownership shouldn't be criminalized because doing so would only cause it to grow and hide itself more.

Likewise, what liberal would approach drugs with the same degree of moral condemnation as guns, inequality, sexism/racism, or any of the other social problems they don't feel guilty for moralizing against?

In short, why do liberals treat drugs differently from other social problems? Why do they always argue in favor of users in the case of drugs, while they preach condemnation for every other social problem? Could it be that they are generally biased against seeing the social problems surrounding drugs because they see intoxication as a right and thus become willing to downplay all the problems that come with it?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 2,702 • Replies: 11

No top replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

...ton of guns...

...ton of street drugs...

The two cannot be compared without more information.

The guns could be of any type and harm level would vary accordingly. They would too vary depending upon the accuracy of persons firing the said weapons. Additionally, one needs to take into account where the death missiles hit in each body and the physical health of the recipient.

When attempting to decide about drugs; here too, there is no definitive answer. People have different tolerance levels.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

Quote:
...ton of guns...

...ton of street drugs...

The two cannot be compared without more information.

The guns could be of any type and harm level would vary accordingly. They would too vary depending upon the accuracy of persons firing the said weapons. Additionally, one needs to take into account where the death missiles hit in each body and the physical health of the recipient.

When attempting to decide about drugs; here too, there is no definitive answer. People have different tolerance levels.

I'm not assuming all the guns/ammunition or drugs will be used.

The only assumption is that one ton of each will be available.

Many people own and shoot guns for target practice and defense but never fire them offensively, though some do so to commit violent crimes.

Some people probably try to use recreational drugs without causing harm to themselves or others, financially or otherwise; but they always do because, if nothing else, recreational drugs are a waste of money.

Of course, you could say that guns and ammunition are also a waste of money.

But are there any uses of recreational drugs that aren't harmful? Only if you are the type of person who denies harm because you like them.

Ultimately, I think there's also a case to be made that guns are like a type of recreational drug, like video games; but they do have a defense-function, and deter crime to some degree, so they are actually beneficial in that sense.

Recreational drug use, on the other hand, has no benefits because sobriety is in no way deficient as a state of consciousness.

0 Replies

I never said that they'd all be used. Neither did you say they would not.

Again, there is no way to compare without more information.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Sturgis wrote:

I never said that they'd all be used. Neither did you say they would not.

Again, there is no way to compare without more information.

You have to subjectively estimate what would happen if one ton of each was brought into the same area and made available to the public.

Some people would try to quickly horde as much as possible and then resell.

Those they resold to would have various reasons for buying, and gradually the harm would ensue.

Probably some of the guns and ammunition would end up in the hands of some of the drug personnel and users and there would be battles over money and turf wars to control market territory.

You can go on considering further possible scenarios that would emerge under different circumstances and/or in different areas.

0 Replies

Are they polymer guns or steel?

0 Replies

@livinglava,

The question is an interesting one, even though it is irrelevant. There is very little in common between guns and drugs (other than the fact that they both kill people when misused).

Dropping 2000lbs. of drugs into a city may actually have beneficial effects. It will lower the price of street drugs. I doubt LivingLava will start taking drugs just because they are more readily available... I certainly wouldn't.

The danger, I think, would be access for kids who wouldn't otherwise experiment with drugs. The benefit is that drug users would have an easier time getting their drugs which could lower the incentive for crime.

Dropping 2000 lbs. of guns would be stupid. It would mean that kids, abusers, drug addicts and people with criminal records would have an easier time just picking up a gun. I think this would be horrifying.

I can't imagine any benefit to having more accessible guns (assuming that currently responsible people with resources can already get a gun if they so choose).

Not knowing anything else... I think the guns would be far more harmful to society.

0 Replies

@livinglava,

Quote:

In short, why do liberals treat drugs differently from other social problems? Why do they always argue in favor of users in the case of drugs, while they preach condemnation for every other social problem? Could it be that they are generally biased against seeing the social problems surrounding drugs because they see intoxication as a right and thus become willing to downplay all the problems that come with it?

In short, why do right-wing, bible-thumping, arm-chair economic luddites treat guns differently from other social problems? Why do they always argue in favor of users in the case of guns, while they preach condemnation for every other social problem? Could it be that they are generally biased against seeing the social problems surrounding guns because they see violence as a right and thus become willing to downplay all the problems that come with it?

2 Replies

@Miss L Toad,

Miss L Toad wrote:

In short, why do right-wing, bible-thumping, arm-chair economic luddites treat guns differently from other social problems? Why do they always argue in favor of users in the case of guns, while they preach condemnation for every other social problem? Could it be that they are generally biased against seeing the social problems surrounding guns because they see violence as a right and thus become willing to downplay all the problems that come with it?

I can't speak for all, but it generally makes sense to me that the right to bear arms is just what it says, the right to BEAR them, the way an animal bears its teeth to ward off attackers. The idea is that if a potential attacker knows that you have strong weapons for defending yourself, they won't attack in the first place.

1 Reply

@livinglava,

Quote:

the way an animal bears its teeth to ward off attackers.

You might want to check a dictionary on this one (you spelled "bare" wrong) Wink

0 Replies

@livinglava,

It's an interesting question.

A % of gun-owners will never use. Another % will use responsibly. Another will sell, with extended results... Another will use for nefarious reasons.

It's not likely that any % of drug-owners will never use theirs (but possible).
Another % will use responsibly. Another will sell, with extended results... Another will use for nefarious reasons.

If children are taught to use either responsibly, it's a wash.

0 Replies

@Miss L Toad,

Miss L Toad wrote:

livinglava wrote:
In short, why do liberals treat drugs differently from other social problems? Why do they always argue in favor of users in the case of drugs, while they preach condemnation for every other social problem? Could it be that they are generally biased against seeing the social problems surrounding drugs because they see intoxication as a right and thus become willing to downplay all the problems that come with it?

In short, why do right-wing, bible-thumping, arm-chair economic luddites treat guns differently from other social problems? Why do they always argue in favor of users in the case of guns, while they preach condemnation for every other social problem? Could it be that they are generally biased against seeing the social problems surrounding guns because they see violence as a right and thus become willing to downplay all the problems that come with it?

People have an actual right to keep and bear arms. Note the Second Amendment.

0 Replies

A ton of guns v. a ton of drugs: what's worse?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know