Guns VS Drugs. Round 1... FIGHT!

don't punish the law-abiding citizens for the acts of CRIMINALS
banning guns won't stop criminals if they are already committing crimes

If guns were ONLY used for suicides this might make sense.

Are you trying to suggest that impaired drivers have never gotten bystanders killed, or that the bath salts face eating incident and incidents of the like have never occurred?

I'm sure it happens....not nearly as often as homicides by guns or under the influence of alcohol.

" In 2013, 10,076 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes." -CDC.gov
That's not taking into account other drugs, drug-induced violence, and the crossover of drug-impaired firearm use. So... you were saying...??

I was saying thanks for proving my point. Guns & Alcohol kill way more people than drugs (in terms of OTHER people not self inflicted deaths from accident or OD)

Thanks again!

-_- Alcohol IS a drug, and anyone who doesn't think hypocritically of it chocks it in with any other drug when they refer to "damage done by drugs." One can assume if you are in favor of legalization, you are in favor of the current legal status of alcohol.

Sure...if alcohol is legal and pharmaceutical drugs like oxycontin are legal...why not everything? In the same vein...why aren't bazookas and stinger missiles legal? They're arms after all

1. Alcohol is already a hard drug, very comparable to other hard drugs when in a non-diluted state, or when imbibed heavily enough in its diluted state. It is also as habit forming as other hard drugs.
2. Bazookas are legal, with restrictions (Class III weapons license)
I've no objection to the legal status of anything that doesn't objectively infringe on the rights of others, as long as the restrictions have some relative proportion to the character/reliability of the person owning them.

"One NHTSA study found that in 2009, 18 percent of drivers killed in an accident tested positive for at least one drug—an increase from 13 percent in 2005 (NHTSA, 2010). A 2010 study showed that 11.4 percent of fatal crashes involved a drugged driver (Wilson, 2010)." Compared to about 30% credited to alcohol, and taking into account there are very few roadside tests which accurately test for various narcotics, which means some of the alcohol accidents credited solely to alcohol when the driver is on multiple substances.

But, yeah, like I implied--- I'm pro-freedom. I think outlawing things in a country like ours whose culture does not respect law will not accomplish much--- and legalizing them in a country that does respect law will not make a real difference. Therefore, I think more things should be legal. That may result in additional bystander deaths, but in principle alone, I am not willing to trade freedom for comfort. Just in case you weren't aware of what stance I'm arguing from, I wanted to elaborate on that for you.

Drivers killed tested positive.....how many OTHER people are killed by people under the influence of alcohol? Or illegal drugs? Or prescription drugs (prescribed or not)?

I'm not sure, but feel free to research. I'm a little tired from researching these questions.

Me too. So I'm gonna end with "then I'm right because proof"

Oh, blow.