Does Criminalization Of Drugs Reduce Drug Use Does Criminalization Of Guns Reduce Gun Use

Why would legalizing drugs, prostitution, and gambling reduce crime but legalizing guns doesn't have the same effect? Why don't countries with strict gun control have more illegal gun markets like strict alcohol drug laws created more crime?

Why would legalizing drugs, prostitution, and gambling reduce crime but legalizing guns doesn't have the same effect? It will.Why don't countries with strict gun control have more illegal gun markets like strict alcohol drug laws created more crime? They do.Legalizing drugs etc is a good way to reduce crime. It makes whole classes of crimes no longer crimes, which will reduce crime rates by first order effect. Then the lack of demand for an illegal market, illegal suppliers, etc, will reduce crimes related to doing so. Walgreens and CVS don’t shoot each other over who gets to own a particular corner store, and a legal prostitute can go to the cops if her boss beats her up without worrying about getting arrested as well.Legalizing guns is a different issue, though. Gun ownership, unlike drug use or prostitution, is only considered a crime by moonbats. Legal gun ownership doesn’t have the same second-order effects; the illegal gun trade doesn’t generally have the same turf war issues as the drug trade. Guns are a means to an end, not the end themselves, and aren’t generally something a person needs a new one of every couple days.Illegal guns aren’t much harder to manufacture than some of the more complex guns. The chemistry skills required for drug production are similar in level to the machining skills needed to make an advanced firearm (something simple like a slamfire shotgun could be churned out by a sufficiently trained chimp). Fun fact: it’s actually easier to make a magazine-fed weapon fully automatic than it is to make it semi-auto.The needs for a gun market, combined with the manufacturing requirements, tend to make for a much smaller and looser marker than the illegal drug markets you see in the US, but they still exist.

By tackling gun-crime by reducing poverty, drugs and gang violence via legislative means; how would we do it without needing more gun control?

I’m going to be brutally honest here and most people will be “triggered” simply because we have been doing this since the early 1900’s and it has not done much 83 years laterFor many years now DRUGS have been outlawed, poverty has had trillions of dollars thrown at it and people still kill people. What has been established in law has not worked and we have Eighty plus years to look back at it and see it was costly in lives and dollars and simple has not worked.The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934.Was written and put into law because of early gang activity ( Think 1920 Gangsters) . There is not much to say on the overall effect to crime itself but up until this point most Americans could enjoy firearm ownership of all types including machine guns.Granted the three examples clearly define how much money has been spent to reduce poverty and eliminate illegal drugs. The NFA was the least cost of the three to implement and was supposed to be specifically for organized crime or Gangs. None of these were successful in quelling any of the primary reasons. Adversely the NFA and continued gun laws have stripped Rights of the common man rather than eliminated organized crime or gangs.The War against poverty.In his January 1964 State of the Union address, President Lyndon Johnson proclaimed, “This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” In the 50 years since that time, U.S. taxpayers have spent over $22 trillion on anti-poverty programs. Adjusted for inflation, this spending (which does not include Social Security or Medicare) is three times the cost of all U.S. military wars since the American Revolution. Yet progress against poverty, as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau, has been minimal, and in terms of President Johnson’s main goal of reducing the “causes” rather than the mere “consequences” of poverty, the War on Poverty has failed completely. In fact, a significant portion of the population is now less capable of self-sufficiency than it was when the War on Poverty began.War on Drugs.Granted this is just an example site that generalizes the war but it has cost us Billions and untold amount of lives in the process.Nixon and the Start of ‘The Drug War’ (1969-1974) - SmartDrugPolicy

What is the best way to reduce gun related crimes in the USA?

First, I reject the idea that reducing "gun related crimes" is a meaningful goal. Our aim should be to reduce violent crime, period, regardless of the weapon used. A measure that reduces crimes involving guns while increasing crime overall is not a reasonable trade-off.With that understood, according to John Lott, in order of significance, the measures that act to reduce violent are certainty of arrest, certainty of conviction, and lawful carry of firearms by civilians.The more likely a perpetrator is to be prosecuted and convicted, the less likely he is to commit a crime.  The more likely he is to encounter an armed victim, the less likely he is to commit a crime.Now Lott used his findings to argue that we should make carry permits more available, because it was by far the cheapest of the three measures to implement. Over the last 25 years, we have done exactly that, the number of citizens legally permitted to carry has increased dramatically, and the number who are now allowed to carry without a permit has increased even more.  And during this time violent crime has decreased significantly.Despite the decrease, though, we still have violent crime. To reduce it further, we may need to address the more expensive possibilities - increasing the arrest rate, and increasing the conviction rate.One of our biggest problems is that we have federal laws that impose severe penalties on the possession of firearms by prior-convicted felons, that are almost never enforced.Every time a felon is picked up by police while carrying a firearm, which is something that happens tens of thousands of times a year, it should be a slam dunk conviction with a five-year minimum in a federal pen. But the federal prosecutors aren't interested in these cases, and only a couple of dozen are prosecuted each year.It's been clearly demonstrated that when we take these people - prior-convicted felons caught carrying firearms - out of circulation, violent crime drops significantly. It's a fairly small group of people, but they are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime.So, in my mind, the best thing we could do is to get the federal prosecutors to actually prosecute violent criminals for criminal possession of a firearm.

Why do some people assume legalizing drugs will reduce organized crime? Won't cartels simply switch to trafficking guns and people?

What do you mean switch? My dear, you are so precious you wring my heart. The cartels traffic drugs and guns and people and heaps of other things besides, and the United States government lets them do it.You must understand, the Mexican cartels are not just some street gang. The Mexican cartels run shit in Mexico. They defeated the Mexican government. A lot of that was bribery, but still. Think about that. The drug cartels bribed the Mexican government right out from under itself.The Mexican cartel is the Mexican government is the Mexican cartel is the MexicYou get the idea, si?So think about what that means for the United States. I mean, we share a border with Mexico. Therefore, we have to interact with Mexico because we can't get away from Mexico. Our authorities have to work with their authorities. The cartels are their authorities.It's nice to think that the United States government is this scrubbed clean, shining symbol of moral integrity. It really is so nice to think so, isn't it? But the government is not interested in being the Good Guy. The government is interested in Fuck You, You Can't Have That Because It's Mine, and What's In It For Me? Just like every other government ever.My guess would be that “organized crime” in general would find a way to flourish in spite of the legalization of drugs in the United States. If you think about it, organized crime has been around since long before it became a thing to go around criminalizing plants and shit - I'm looking at you, pirates.Once upon a time, getting high was not some profound moral failing. To commit a “crime” one had to harm some innocent party in the interest of personal gain. Things aren't so simple now. Militaries do exactly that on a large scale and call it “collateral damage” instead of “crimes against humanity” because their status as a social structure gives them immunity from any of the sort of consequences that individuals or smaller organizations would expect to face. But does that mean their actions are any less criminal?So really, from there this answer crumbles into a black hole of arguments over what counts as a crime and what exceptions there are and why and in the meantime, crime keeps on happening.Organized crime is probably here to stay. That's my guess.But! It's a nonissue anyway, because elephants will roost in trees before the United States decriminalizes recreational drug use.

Will the legalization of drugs lead to a decrease in violent crimes?

I think things like murder by means of a deadly weapon would decrease. Same with whatever other crimes are commonly associated with drug dealers, and, worse yet, traffickers.Sometimes drug addict commit small crimes to fund their addiction, so that would probably increase a bit, especially if this really is ALL drugs we’re talking about.Also, if companies didn’t need to account for liability when selling “dangerous” drugs (because they’re all legal now so they can’t “fall into the wrong hands”), the price of those drugs would come down to some extent. There also wouldn’t be the inflated black market prices anymore, although I’m sure that people would make the excuse that drugs should all be taxed like crazy similar to the way nicotine is taxed and how weed is taxed where it’s legal.A lot of the impact this kind of change would have on crime would depend greatly on how it’s done. If drugs are legalized but nobody is allowed to sell them, like with weed in Massachusetts, nothing will change. There will just be fewer police incidents regarding drug possession because they would only be able to go after dealers now.Also, if the dealers could continue selling at cheaper prices than the government sells those drugs for (or, more likely, how much the government ALLOWS those drugs to be sold for since, like cigarettes, there would probably be minimum prices imposed for the more addictive drugs).In the end though, there would definitely be fewer violent crimes and any crimes that increase would likely be crimes related to addicts trying to make money to get their drugs. But addicts are usually not in the best health, or the clearest mental state. I’d much rather be at the mercy of an addict than a drug dealer - the addict just wants drugs, and probably isn’t going to go to jail for too long if they’re caught stealing or doing drugs. But a drug dealer could be put away for life. They’re under a lot more pressure to shut someone up for good if they saw something they shouldn’t have.