Which are more dangerous: Guns or Drugs?

[ApocalypseKurtz]

I realize there are many threads open on both firearms and illegal drugs, but I just wanted to get a rough estimate as to which one people see as being more dangerous.

I read recently that one of the reasons the Bush Admin. gave for opposing the Nat'l fingerprints records is: (quoting White House spokesman Ari Fleischer) "How many laws can we really have to stop crime, if people are determined in their heart to violate them no matter how many there are or what they say?" I find this quite amusing and contradictory given the Administration (and, to be fair, the previous 5 Administration's) zero-tolerance stance on drug policy.

Drugs are a substance used primarily by people looking to have fun, without harming anyone else. Friends like to do various "substances" to put themselves in a different, usually more subdued mindstate. Drug dealers to not "force" their drugs upon anybody. If people want to try these substances, fine; if not, thats fine too. No matter what the laws, people are going to do them. It is unwise to spend billions of public dollars to lock up people who just want to use these recreational substances. But these drugs are illegal and thats just the way it is.

Yet guns (even sniper rifles!) are legal to buy, with the possible hindrances of a small waiting period. Now I realize that the majority of people who buy guns will be using them for either hunting or "protection." Yet the statistics show there is a much greater possibility of death in a household with a gun than one without a gun. Let me just say one more thing: I support the fundamental right to own a gun. A government that disallows its citizens this right is tyrannical and will have a good chance of turning authoritarian. I just think guns are extremely dangerous and there should be gun control laws (not gun elimination laws) to make the world a safer place.

MODS: I ask you to not delete this thread even though there are numerous other gun and drug related threads because I am interested to see the results to my poll. I think it is possible that a case may be made that drugs are more dangerous than guns; I just have not heard it yet.

 

[bobgote]

I said Guns are more dangerous, mainly because the damage caused is on someone else, whereas drugs you do the damage yourself. Both are very dangerous, and drugs probably cause more problems, but I think in terms of lives that guns are worse

 

[amadeus]

Drugs.

With guns, there's a purpose to own one - defense.

Drugs, there's no purpose.

 

[Greadius]

Depends on whose hands they are in.

Teenagers with hard drugs are more dangerous than responsible gun owners.
A working guy that enjoys marijuana on the weekend is less dangerous than a teenager with a semi-automatic rifle and a grudge.

Apples & oranges.

 

[Neomega]

Both are completely inanimate objects. Therefore both are equal. It is how they are used that counts.

Guns and drugs are as harmless as rocks, nuclear missiles, and dandelion seeds.

 

[Fez_Monk]

What Neomega said.

 

[The Troquelet]

Illegal drugs don't always kill. Illegal guns usually do. That's why they're illegal, because they are so lethal.

 

[scorch]

If you get killed with drugs its your choice (with the RARE exception that it gets forced into you), if you get killed with a gun then its the other guys fault (with the exception of suicide).

"With guns, there's a purpose to own one - defense.

Drugs, there's no purpose."

Oh right, so that sniper is defending himself is he?
The purpose of drugs is for a good time FYI.


THe purpose of guns is to kill, whether it is for hunting, terrorists, police, or gang members, the point of them is to kill.
Drugs is just soe peoples way of having fun.

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Taking a sample combined from my life experience and my legal career, drugs appear to be many times more dangerous than guns. I have been aquainted with two persons killed and none lesser injured with guns. I have aquainted with over 20 killed by drug abuse, and well over a hundred seriously injured by them. Take a count in your own life, unless you are in a military outfit which suffered some disaster, the number of drug tragedies you among thoses you know will almost certainly except the number pf gin tragedies.

 

[The Troquelet]

That's demographically. Sure. But ONE gun is more dangerous than ONE drug dose.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Both are dangerous in the wrong hands.

Both are banned in my country.

 

[Case]

Seeing as guns can be more easily used to inflict harm on others, I'd say guns for sure.

 

[Neomega]

Originally posted by The Troquelet
Illegal drugs don't always kill. Illegal guns usually do. That's why they're illegal, because they are so lethal.

Whatever dood, most guns are illegal because of the way they look, or how many options they have on them.....

In the State of Washington, a gun may only have on of these on it, or it is considered an assault weapon....

pistol grip,
bayonet,
grenade launcher,
banana clip....

ok heres the deal, if you have a pistol grip and a bayonet it's an assault weapon.

However, if you just have a grenade launcher, it's perfectly legal.

I am confident most states follow this silly kind of logic, and know at least California's laws are similar.

Illegal weapons are as lethal as legal ones, it all depends on the driver.

And to drugs, a man with meth in his brain and a knife in his hand can be a deadly combo..... However once again, it's not the drug, it's the driver...

Or as Frank Zappa put it, "drugs are not bad, it's when people using them thinking it gives them the license to be an as5hole, that is when drugs become bad"

In fact, I hate to put words in his mouth, but replace drugs with guns, and the logic remains steady.

Both are inaanimate objects... it is the people who are dangerous.

What's more dangerous, a 40 oz or a stiletto?

 

[VoodooAce]

Grenade launcher?

Uh, yeah, if that's legal, with or without any other options, I'd call that a silly law.

What, in God's name, are you going to hunt with a 'nade launcher?

Oh, nevermind, I see. Simple logic. You can get yourself 3 or 4 rabbits per shot, hehe. And them kind of vittles ain't nuttin' to be laughin' at!!!

 

[Le Petit Prince]

Agree with

Teenagers with hard drugs are more dangerous than responsible gun owners.A working guy that enjoys marijuana on the weekend is less dangerous than a teenager with a semi-automatic rifle and a grudge

but > 90% of the times you choose to do drugs...
and > 90% you do NOT choose to being shot by a gun

Since you can kill other people with guns I would say guns... Give a morphine seringe to that guy in Washington...Give a sniper to a drug addict...Which is the most dangerous?...

 

[HotDog Fish]

Originally posted by Neomega


Whatever dood, most guns are illegal because of the way they look, or how many options they have on them.....

In the State of Washington, a gun may only have on of these on it, or it is considered an assault weapon....

pistol grip,
bayonet,
grenade launcher,
banana clip....

ok heres the deal, if you have a pistol grip and a bayonet it's an assault weapon.

However, if you just have a grenade launcher, it's perfectly legal.

I am confident most states follow this silly kind of logic, and know at least California's laws are similar.

Illegal weapons are as lethal as legal ones, it all depends on the driver.

And to drugs, a man with meth in his brain and a knife in his hand can be a deadly combo..... However once again, it's not the drug, it's the driver...

Or as Frank Zappa put it, "drugs are not bad, it's when people using them thinking it gives them the license to be an as5hole, that is when drugs become bad"

In fact, I hate to put words in his mouth, but replace drugs with guns, and the logic remains steady.

Both are inaanimate objects... it is the people who are dangerous.

What's more dangerous, a 40 oz or a stiletto?

Here here, Neomega!...you are perfectly correct, in my opinion, both are inanimate objects and dpends on who's using it

 

[Suppersalmon]

with a gun the person being shoot dosnt have the choice
With the drugs the person using them has the choice

 

[Richard III]

I have to admit, even speaking as a bit of a hawk (by Canadian standards) on private gun ownership...

grenade launchers?

I can see the need for a "well-regulated militia," and a weapon to defend your house. But a grenade launcher? Never in my wildest dreams did I ever even fantasize about owning my own personal 40mm/5.56 combo.

R.III

 

[gr8ful wes]

Both require humans to abuse them before any harm is done.
Abused drugs, particularly alcohol, cause countless social ills. They hurt families, individuals, and communities. Gun incidents are very isolated, drug abuse occurs in every city, small town, rural area. Communities spend immense amounts of tax dollars to fund treatment, and enforcement. The Drug abuse problem is immensely more significant.

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by Richard III
I have to admit, even speaking as a bit of a hawk (by Canadian standards) on private gun ownership...

grenade launchers?

I can see the need for a "well-regulated militia," and a weapon to defend your house. But a grenade launcher? Never in my wildest dreams did I ever even fantasize about owning my own personal 40mm/5.56 combo.

R.III

I'd want to really see the law and other associated before assuming that guns with just a gernade launcher are legal.

Also, banana clip? What about a drum of 100 bullets?

I suspect that gernade launchers are out-lawed under other laws. This one only defines assault weapons. A gun with just a gernade launcher is just a gernade launcher, not an assualt rifle. Likely it is still illegal, but classified as a different type of weapon.