If the legalization of drugs reduces crime, why can't the same be said about the legalization of guns?

Submitted ⁨⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨tigerjerusalem@lemmy.world⁩ to ⁨[deleted]⁩

Please please PLEASE: this question is made from a place of pure curiosity, with no political biases intended. I’m asking because restrictions and prohibitions puts a pressure on the market since the demand never ceases, and someone interested in supply for that demand will do it for massive profits - no matter what. Wouldn’t it be the case for any product, be it drugs, alcohol and guns?

source

Comments

Sort:hotnew top

RBWells@lemmy.world ⁨16⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
Drugs don’t physically harm anyone other than the user, so if they are decriminalized it reduces crime (as using isn’t criminal) even if it increases use.

Decriminalization of guns would reduce arrests for illegal carrying but increase the rate of carrying and when a gun is used, or stolen, it will usually result in a crime. Because people aren’t just shooting at themselves, right?

source
infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Drugs are generally a thing that people use consensually on themselves, generally taking care as to any consequences.

Guns are something you typically use non-consensually, on someone else, often when the consequences be damned.

I’m personally against gun prohibition, but the logic differentiation between guns and drugs is pretty basic.

source
x00z@lemmy.world ⁨24⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
It’s a bad comparison. The better comparison would be murder by poisoning with drugs, which would indeed also be higher because of easier access.

source
z3rOR0ne@lemmy.ml ⁨31⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
Australia’s legislation around guns might be of interest, as it pertains to this discussion.

source
ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
In the USA we have an extrodinary abundance of guns and people who defend having a personal arsenal as ‘stopping a bad guy’.

Thing is that you exchange one black market for firearms for the ability for potentially anyone to kill at scale and range with little notice or chance to avert it. The ‘good guy with a gun’ theory only serves a trivial role when you create a situation where mass availability makes any unstable person with a will much more likely to have access to one

source
- Omgpwnies@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Problem is, the good guys with guns tend to leave their guns safely locked up at home, because being good guys they are responsible firearm owners.
  
  source
  - unitedwithme@lemmy.today ⁨32⁩ ⁨minutes⁩ ago
    Sometimes. You should look up the stats on gun ownership to who has their conceal carry license ratio, and I think now 28 States offer constitutional carry too aka permitless carry.
    
    source
  - ShellMonkey@piefed.socdojo.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
    That too, but usually when I think of the sort that use such slogans I picture the ones who think they need 3 handguns on them to got to Walmart.
    
    source
trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
The difference is how they’re used. Drugs are mainly used recreationally, the crime is either in obtaining or making and selling the drugs. Weapons are mainly used as tools to commit crimes with, with a few exceptions for hunting, but most weapons like handguns aren’t very suitable for hunting anyway.

source
- LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  Estimates are around 8-12 billion rounds used in the U.S. annually. With 115,000-120,000 people being shot annually, that means the highest estimates of bullets being used on other people is around .0012%.
  
  So I would have to conclude that people highly underestimate the amount guns are used recreationally in the U.S. The “few exceptions” are the 99+% usage.
  
  I excluded ammunition for the military hoping it wouldn’t distort those numbers.
  
  source
czl@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
If drugs are legal, the parallel market for them ceases to exist. If you can buy a drug at a store, a shady dealer doesn’t need to fight for territory with the next guy over. This is a crime that ceases to be committed.

If a guy buys some weed and heads into a crowd, at most he can inconvenience some people with the smell.

If guns are legal and that same guy has a mental issue, that crowd can get shot. This is a crime that can more easily be committed by that legality.

And before armchair experts can come at me, just look at every other country where guns are not legal, and measure the amount of gun violence compared to that one where they are.

source
- ji59@hilariouschaos.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
  I would also add that legalizing light drugs like weed decreases interest in more harmful drugs like crack. This doesn’t work with guns.
  
  source
lunatic_lobster@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
This is kind of an interesting thought experiment around laws in general. If you made guns illegal tomorrow you would certainly increase guns crimes because anyone who doesn’t give up their guns is now committing a crime. Similarly all sales of guns would now be illegal and the demand for illegal guns would go way up resulting in more black market trade.

But the framing of the question leads to that conclusion. If what you are actually after is something more akin to “if legalizing drugs decreases violent crime then shouldn’t legalizing guns also decrease violent crime?” This is more interesting in my opinion.

Now let’s assume for a second that legalizing drugs does decrease violent crime (I do believe there I’d research that supports this). What crime is reduced? It is likely that crime around the drug trade itself is what is mostly reduced: you do not have as much cartel, gang, mob, and other organized crime entities around who are committing much of the violent crime. Drug users themselves are probably committing less of the crime than the actual distribution as using drugs is often times not an inherently violent act.

For guns the gun itself is a tool of violence. You cannot use a gun without committing a violent act. Now not all violent acts are violent crime, as target practice is not exactly illegal, but it is still violent. If you make manufacturing of guns illegal less will be manufactured which means less will be in existence therefore there is inherently less access to tools of violence. I’m sure the drug smuggling trade would introduce more violence as it would increase drastically. However the increase there may be smaller than the decrease of just having less guns in the world.

I guess the key difference is that guns are a tool of violence much more frequently than the use of an illicit substance is most likely.

source
disregardable@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
It’s a crime to have drugs. It’s not a crime to have guns. When you make something that is a crime not a crime, that’s less crime.

source
KC_Royalz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
I’ve been around guns most of my life I just choose not to have them around anymore every time I’ve had one I’ve just had in my head what I considered close accidents mental lapses and I just decided it’s not for me. put guns in people’s hands that have that same capacity just results in tragedy

source
socsa@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
It’s one of those “critique of pure reason” things. The “logic” here is informed by epidemiology, not hypotheticals or dialectics or anything like that, so those methods of discovery may not be effective in refuting such evidence. In reality it’s not as simple as legalize or don’t legalize as a binary issue - theres an entire policy framework which comes with those things.

source
balsoft@lemmy.ml ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I actually agree with you in principle: both should be legal and regulated. The extent of legality and regulation needs to be decided according to the use value/danger/harm of the item in question. Guns are generally much more dangerous than “party” drugs and so need to have stricter regulations.

source
yesman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨hour⁩ ago
If you want to understand guns, I’d recommend sociology not economics.

source
einkorn@feddit.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
Simply put, the crime from drugs arises only from society criminalizing the supply. People want to have a good time and where there is a demand a supply follows. But the demand doesn’t go away because of the criminalization, just as you said. The substitute for illegal drugs (cocaine, heroin, …) are legal drugs (alcohol, nicotine, …). But as many users will tell you illegal drugs provide a whole different level of high. The substitute therefore is imperfect and we get to the situation we are at today.

Thinking about guns: Which demand do they satisfy? Security? Every nation on earth operates a police force that is trained in and tasked with upholing law and order (to which extend they do is a different debate). Therefore the average citizen does not need a weapon for self-defense. Skillfull competition? There are many other fields people can compete in. If it has to be loud and make a bang there is i.e. rocket assisted model aviation just to name one. Guns can therefore be reasonably substituted by other means.

source