How can you be pro-gun, but anti-drug?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

But you don't want them to ban guns, when with a single gun you could hurt far more people than any amount of illicit drug. That's my point. If I've got a pound of heroin, how am I going to hurt anyone with it? Throw it up in the air? Spray it from an airplane? Throw the bag in your eye? I could give it to you. Yeah, I could give you a gun too.

I trust you with your gun. I trust you with your drugs. That's all I'm saying. If you want to hurt someone with either one, you will pay the price.

It may be your point, I assure you it is incorrect.
Anyone who has taken even the most basic pharmacology could come up with ways to harm far more people than I could with my single gun. It isn't heroin. $0.02
RN level education could figure this out with prescription level drugs and not even need to get into illicit ones.

[generalmeow]

It may be your point, I assure you it is incorrect.
Anyone who has taken even the most basic pharmacology could come up with ways to harm far more people than I could with my single gun. It isn't heroin. $0.02
RN level education could figure this out with prescription level drugs and not even need to get into illicit ones.

Well, I have heard about people walking into a place and killing 30 people with a gun. I haven't heard about someone walking into a place and killing 30 people with a bag of crack. Sooo...how am I incorrect?

Sorry, I didn't take a pharmacology class. Haven't heard of any of them killing 30 people either.

As a RN, you could walk from bed to bed and hit everyone with a hammer. Or put anti-freeze in their IV's. What do drugs have to do with them being able to kill you?

Someone could put banned drugs in the water supply, or they could put rat poison. How did banning the drugs help protect you?

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Well, I have heard about people walking into a place and killing 30 people with a gun. I haven't heard about someone walking into a place and killing 30 people with a bag of crack. Sooo...how am I incorrect?

Sorry, I didn't take a pharmacology class. Haven't heard of any of them killing 30 people either.

Just because you may be ignorant of something doesn't make your point any better. Google Jonestown. Google "mass poisonings."

As a RN, you could walk from bed to bed and hit everyone with a hammer. Or put anti-freeze in their IV's. What do drugs have to do with them being able to kill you?

Someone could put banned drugs in the water supply, or they could put rat poison. How did banning the drugs help protect you?

Do you REALLY think a nurse could do that for very long? With the double check systems in place, do you really think you could give someone an anti-freeze IV in most hospitals?

You are correct, and it is my point - you could harm far more people with poisons (or drugs) than a single person could with a gun. For whatever reason, you've latched on to 30 and it isn't a high threshold. $0.02

But here is the "logic" you are presenting us with:
It is far more efficient to kill with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Therefore, give us every drug we've ever wanted. Because we can have guns too.
lolwut?

[generalmeow]

Just because you may be ignorant of something doesn't make your point any better. Google Jonestown. Google "mass poisonings."

I'm talking about illegal drugs. You're talking about poison. You've got poison in your house right now.

Do you REALLY think a nurse could do that for very long? With the double check systems in place, do you really think you could give someone an anti-freeze IV in most hospitals?

You said a RN could think of a way to kill people, not me. What does how long they could get away with it have to do with anything? How long could you get away with killing people with a gun?

You are correct, and it is my point - you could harm far more people with poisons (or drugs) than a single person could with a gun. For whatever reason, you've latched on to 30 and it isn't a high threshold. $0.02

Virginia Tech = 32. Poisons aren't illicit drugs. Your example was Jonestown. Give me an example of more than 32 people being killed with illicit drugs in a single instance.

But here is the "logic" you are presenting us with:
It is far more efficient to kill with diesel fuel and fertilizer. Therefore, give us every drug we've ever wanted. Because we can have guns too.
lolwut?

I don't know where you're getting this. I'm saying if you're in favor of banning something because it's dangerous, then why not ban the things that are more dangerous first? What sense does it make to ban something that is less dangerous than things that are readily available. If some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they're not going to use crack, heroin, cocaine, morphine, or whatever.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

I'm talking about illegal drugs. You're talking about poison. You've got poison in your house right now.

You said a RN could think of a way to kill people, not me. What does how long they could get away with it have to do with anything? How long could you get away with killing people with a gun?

Virginia Tech = 32. Poisons aren't illicit drugs. Your example was Jonestown. Give me an example of more than 32 people being killed with illicit drugs in a single instance.

I don't know where you're getting this. I'm saying if you're in favor of banning something because it's dangerous, then why not ban the things that are more dangerous first? What sense does it make to ban something that is less dangerous than things that are readily available. If some nutjob wants to kill a bunch of people, they're not going to use crack, heroin, cocaine, morphine, or whatever.

The point you keep conveniently avoiding is that the line between poison and drug is all in how it is used and unbelievably blurred.
You may be saying things about dangerous substances now and going off on bizarre tangents, but what you asked in the OP was how one might reconcile being pro-gun and anti-drug.

You asked, several have answered. You didn't like the answer and have put forth all sorts of convoluted logic, which is fine.
We're unlikely to convince you, and I assure you that all of the bizarre logic you have put forth is unlikely to convince anyone that "drugs are OK because there are other more available and damaging ways to kill people."

[generalmeow]

The point you keep conveniently avoiding is that the line between poison and drug is all in how it is used and unbelievably blurred.
You may be saying things about dangerous substances now and going off on bizarre tangents, but what you asked in the OP was how one might reconcile being pro-gun and anti-drug.

You asked, several have answered. You didn't like the answer and have put forth all sorts of convoluted logic, which is fine.
We're unlikely to convince you, and I assure you that all of the bizarre logic you have put forth is unlikely to convince anyone that "drugs are OK because there are other more available and damaging ways to kill people."

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.

Absolutely, Sport. Nicely done.


Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls: Your libertarian candidate POV. Please give up on your silly Republican party.

[Bailey Guns]

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.

You're obviously high on some illicit drug. I could just as easily claim, "Yes, he has. You're just a dumbass."

[spqrzilla]

You haven't answered any of my questions, because they are inconvenient to your point of view, so I claim victory.

And yet ... I'm not going to recognize your claim.

You turned "How do you reconcile ..." into "Your arguments dont' convince me". Moving the goalposts is not "victory".