It isn’t a ridiculous comparison.
The comparison between guns and drugs is that they are both inanimate objects. Neither of them are capable of doing anything on their own.
To blame a gun for a crime is ridiculous.
To blame a drug for a crime is ridiculous.
People commit crimes. A person decides to do something heinous, and then they do it.
People committed this crime. Meth did not commit this crime.
Now, is it possible that meth use, even a single time, the first time, can influence a person’s thought process in such a way that a crime is committed as a result of that thought process? Yes, it most certainly can. Meth use can cause hallucinations, paranoia and psychosis. It is obviously a very dangerous drug.
Similarly, can a gun influence a person’s thought process in such a way that a crime is committed as a result of that thought process? Yes. Certainly, if a person is angry enough at another person, and then think hey, I’ve got a gun, why don’t I just go over there and shoot that person? Bang, dead. Has happened before, will happen again.
But in either scenario, the responsible party is the person who decided to commit a crime. The meth is not ultimately responsible for the decision, the gun is not ultimately responsible for the decision. The sentient being who knows right from wrong is responsible for the decision. They will answer to God, not the meth, not the gun.
For the record, I do not support the legalization of meth. That is some dangerous, bad ass sh*t. I have never done meth, and I have never known any meth addicts, at least none who told me or revealed to me that they were such.
However, it should also be noted, the the law against meth did not stop these people from using meth or committing this crime, nor did the law against rape or murder, so I really don’t know what the answer here is, or even if there is one. Bad things happen in this world, and some people are really evil.
What a beautiful little girl. God bless and keep her. Man, that picture makes me very sad.
Look at it this way. Let's use inner city blacks as an example to make a point. In the black population, especially in inner cities of our country, drug abuse is very very high. You do realize that children in these homes are witnessing a very high abuse of drugs by the adults around them? They also see guns, violence and ‘thug’ life right? They are inundated with it from a very early age. Don't get me wrong, not all young black children but a large enough amount of them to be concerned, right? But the drugs, the guns and the inherent violence of that lifestyle is there for the little kids to learn by. Those kids in drug abusing and violent homes, whether white or black or whatever by and large end up doing what they witnessed their parents and other adults in their young lives do. In this case many many will turn to the ‘thug’ life style of drugs and violence. Statistics support this.
I'm against drugs because of the little kids who will be influenced by drug addled adults and then turn into those same drug addicted, mentally addled adults themselves. Less drugs, less crazies. I've seen it up close, you haven't. Take my word.
Drug abuse by adults leads to all kinds of very bad circumstances for children. I don't get why libertarians always want to argue that drugs aren't that harmful. Because they are to kids. they are very harmful to kids and another joins the addict list every single day. And I don't even want to hear the stupid argument always trotted out " But alcohol" is just as blah blah blah. It's not nearly as descructive as quickly as drugs.