Which is why, after legalizing pot, each state saw 0 increase in weed smokers. After all, it was virtually worthless.
Edit: I guess it makes sense if you think about it. When the US banned fully auto guns, the sale of fully auto guns didn’t move. Everyone kept doing it.
?
Ummm… People smoked weed regardless of its legality. Are you agreeing with me?
Not even a little lol. Before and after numbers on weed smoker count doesn’t really support the “banning anything is virtually worthless” line.
Like 85-95% of guns used in crimes are already illegal (banned).
I don’t follow.
Steroids are illegal. People use them. Weed is still illegal in many states. People still smoke weed. Crack is illegal and people still do crack. Automatic weapons are effectively illegal and there’s an entire black market for them. Alcohol was illegal and it led the rise of organized crime in the United States.
When people want things, they get tend to get them, pretty much regardless of the law.
Did you mean 85-95% of gun owners that commit a crime can’t legally carry them?
I’d like to see support for this stat whichever way it falls.
Many less people do both of these purely because it’s illegal. When you make something illegal overall usage drops.
Which is why fully auto weapon usage remained constant after banning them, right?
Not even that far. I mean not legally owned. Numbers vary pretty widely because it’s hard to get a true number, but I’ve seen research suggesting that between 18 and 3 % of crimes are committed with legally owned guns. Here’s a paper on the high end of that number: View of Gaps continue in firearm Surveillance: Evidence from a large U.S. city Bureau of Police
Can you actually back that? N=1, I’m not gonna start smokin weed when MD legalizes it at some point…
What was the usage before the ban vs. now?
This particular case is a bit different. There are enough alternatives/workarounds that it doesn’t really matter. It would be like banning the iPhone to stop smartphone usage. Everyone just switched to Samsung, ie, it’s virtually the same thing.
I’ll try to find the before and after numbers from when it was initially legalized for medical.
Then why don’t we see more crimes with fully auto weapons?
This feels like apples and walnuts to me. Banning a target brand isn’t what’s being suggested in any sense right?
But let’s take it a step further. Let’s say all smartphones are banned. You now WANT a smartphone, and you’re going to do it anyway. Do you think the number of potential sellers is going to remain constant? Will the sellers before be willing to risk prison time to sell it to you?
Seems like it’s a direct shot at supply and demand to me.
I mean, I’m not surprised usage has increased for medical purposes as a treatment option, lol, I meant recreational usage.
Could be a number of reasons. Why would you go through the hassle finding a black market dealer if you can buy an AR-15 legally and a bump stock legally and essentially get the same result?
You’re banning a feature. Auto v. Semi-auto. It’s just a selector switch…
If my example is apples to walnuts so is this.
Hard to say, but I don’t think there’d be a large drop. It’ll just be different sellers.
That’s what they thought during prohibition too. That’s the underlying concept behind the war on drugs. Has drug usuage gone down?
Here’s college students:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/drug-alcohol-use-in-college-age-adults-in-2016
Here’s prescription drugs:
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/infographics/abuse-prescription-rx-drugs-affects-young-adults-most
Here’s a bunch of stuff:
Maybe one of our resident Doc’s can help us answer that:
How about, it would be like banning tablets like an iPad or Surface Pro. Bummer, guess I’ll have to go back to my laptop or desktop to get stuff done…It’s not as convenient, but does the exact same thing.
First off, my main point was that Shapiro says he only uses facts and reason, which he does, but doesn’t readily admit that he also speculates and makes leaps in logic. So even if it were a fact that the Founders wanted some citizens to own “military grade” weapons THEN it does not follow that they would have wanted people to own them NOW. So his statement is a (possible) fact followed by speculation disguised as fact. Had he said they may have wanted people today to own these types of weapons it would have been one thing but he states his opinion/interpretation/conclusion as fact. So the point YOU claim he is trying to make, that at that time the Founders did not differentiate between weapon types is only half the point Shapiro is trying to make. He added a “therefore” in there in order to make a point about today since he was talking about modern weapons.
Second, some of the Founders owned slaves but we don’t own slaves today. So why do we have to look at guns from their point of view, during the time they lived in order to make decisions about what we do today? What they thought about guns then is OK for today but not slavery? Why differentiate between the two? Are we accepting their fallibility as humans? Also, did the Founders themselves accept their fallibility and recognize that times and societies change? Again, we do not know what they would have thought about guns today. Shapiro’s opinion, in this case, is really no different that Kimmel’s. Shapiro may be a better speaker but that doesn’t make his opinion correct.
Finally, to answer your question, yes they did. So the answer that Shapiro gave is neither fact nor opinion but simply wrong. You don’t think the Founders differentiated between a musket and a cannon? A naval warship and a fishing boat? And if they differentiated then, I suppose we could speculate that they would do the same today.
There’s a reason why Shapiro chooses to speak at colleges; the grownups aren’t as easily fooled.
The founders allowed private ownership of weapons far more powerful than even automatic rifles.
The founders purposefully didn’t include slavery in the bill of rights. You are comparing 2 dissimilar things. The founders were largely against slavery and purposely wrote the document so that it could be done away with. The bill of rights was written as fundamental basic human rights. There are plenty of strong reasons to use their opinion on arms and not on slavery.
You are aware that private ownership of artillery and warships was not only allowed, but promoted by the founders, right?
Banning drunk driving has not been worthless. Police actively look for impaired drivers and stop them when they see them, preventing possible deaths and injuries. It has not stopped all dui deaths but how many more would there be if no one bothered to even try and stop it? How many potential drunk drivers think twice now?
Look at bans regarding child porn and sexual abuse. Do they stop all of these sick crimes, no. But if we didn’t try how many more children would be victims? How many predators would not face justice?
Banning smoking in public places is something that I personally find worthwhile.
The language being used is misleading. It isn’t about banning but LAWS that ban. And when you think of it that way most laws are about banning something. So if you have a problem with bans you have a problem laws.
See, I know you are trying to be clever but you missed a very important word in there: differentiate. I did not say they did not allow people to own this or that but that they DIFFERENTIATED between the two.
And on your point about slavery, you only proved the point even more than I tried. We don’t take their word as gospel.
how did they differentiate? Legally, you could buy and own a fishing boat or a warship.
You don’t think they recognized that the purpose of a warship was different than a fishing boat? In other words: differentiated.
Right, but we do take the bill of rights as pretty important.
Not legally or by regulation, no. I really don’t know what you are talking about.
If by we you mean you and I then I would agree. But that is not the point. I am discussing gun control, pro or con, but simply taking Shapiro to task for flawed reasoning.
