Heh. Guess my earlier point isn't worth much, then. Ah well.

Say, does the effect of gun legislation on gun homicide rates really matter? I'd think the really important number would be its effect on overall homicide. If people go on killing just as much but they use clubs or whatever, it doesn't matter much.

Not saying I know what those numbers are, mind you.

This kind of thing is one reason there's so much controversy about statistics on this issue. The crime-increasing effect of handgun prohibition doesn't necessarily result in more *handgun* crime, or even in more murder. Disarmed citizens are more vulnerable to armed thugs, who can operate with the assurance that their victims won't be better armed than they are. If a mugger knows his knife won't be trumped by a legal handgun, there's a disincentive to pull an (illegal by definition; guns may not legally be owned by convicted felons here anywhere) gun.

Jag--read *all* the words: handgun *control* capital--handguns are illegal in DC unless you're a cop. That the murder rate is so high doesn't exactly support your point. :-)

Or a congressman, since they or their bodyguards can get FBI carry permits vaild anywhere in the country. Unfortunately the laws for DC are made by Congress, who dosen't actually *live* there.

That doesn't sound right... I live near Pine Bluff, AR, and I think it's pretty safe. They're ranking it the #2 murder capital of the world! Their population is only 55,000. Most of the other top ranking citys are other rinky-dink southern cities.

Of course, I probably shouldn't be questioning the FBI. Still.. this does not seem right.

Its kinda easier to kill people with a gun thouhg. Im ena you shoot someone it doesn't even ahve to be ciritacal fo them to die of shock/blood loss/cardiac arrest pretty damn quickly and most thugs aren't actaully interested in killing people - it tends to generate a little too much police interest.

So he gets a handgun, and since he'll probably have it out first, you're now more screwed becease he has more chance of shooting you if you try to pull it out.

I'd rather go up a against a thug (no matter how he's armed) with a gun of my own than without. I'm better off gun vs. gun than nothing vs. baseball bat or lead pipe or knife. ("He'll probably have it out first" is an assumption, too; tactics are more complicated than that.)

Thugs are cowards (otherwise they wouodn't be thugs); when the populace is armed there's a strong disincentive to attempt. As you point out, thungs aren't really interested in killing people; if a nice quiet mugging turns into a gun battle they're way behind the curve. It tends to create the sort of intense police interest here you mentioned is supposed to happen in AU when a gun crime goes down.

The idea that law-abiding citizens are somehow safer if they're disarmed is just plain bogus. It's an idea mostly championed by people who already have their own armed guards, like police chiefs and politicians.

We have an interesting concept here called an effective polcie force. It eman i can wander around without having to worry about being mugged. I can walk though the centre of the city and take a train home @ 1am without being even vaguely worried about my safty. I don't need a gun to feel safe. As for 'you're safer with' you're starting ot sound liek the NRA and that blatnatly untrue series of adverts they put up about australia.

We have an interesting concept here called freedom. It means that we don't need our government ordering us around and doing things that are "for our own good".

We have the same freeomds, we jsut can't wander round with an M-16. Don't get me started on negative and positive rights comparisons =p I'm generally a libitarian but for thigns like this.....

I realize you're almost certainly using hyperbole, but could you please stop using "m16" as an example of a gun people carry around? It's stupid, and getting on my nerves.

It goes a bit beyond "hyperbole" when used in a sentence like that. This "high-school debate team" level of discourse does get old after a while.

Jag says (or tries to): "We have the same freedoms, we just can't wander around with an M-16".

But the truth is we *don't * have the same freedoms, and I think that's one reason we hear so much sour grapes about how there "must be something wrong" with people who exercize their right to be armed.

It would be *nominally* legal for me to open carry an AR-15 (I'm not about to pay the confiscatory tax we have here on full-auto M-16) and "wander around". (Of course, that's another of jag's favorite images on this issue: gun owners out looking for an excuse to shoot something, like one of those teenage fire brigade volunteers that eventually get caught starting fires just so they have something to put out).

But the actual fact is that "wandering around with an AR-15" anyplace but the state game lands would get me picked up for "disturbing the peace" or "disorderly conduct" in the more populated areas of the state in fairly short order.

Where we *don't* have the same freedoms is when it comes down to the right to carry an effective personal defense weapon. I have that freedom and jag doesn't, so to resolve that dissonance he needs to paint gun owners as a trigger-happy lunatics.

I know *lots* of legal gun owners. As a group, they are polite, mature, restrained, careful, and tend very much to mind their own business. The kind of irresponsible personalities that one could characterize as "trigger happy" spent their youth out blowing up mailboxes (or over in NJ shooting cyclists with paintball guns), and by the time they reach adulthood have usually accumulated enough of a police record that they are no longer allowed to posess firearms legally.

Well, that's kind of the point. We have the freedom to carry weapons, and some other countries don't. Whether you think it's a good freedom or not could be argued -- but it <b>is</b> our freedom.

Okok I’ll stop the hyperbolic crap and try and keep this realistic. (as for debating quality that fark imagine of arguing on the internet is like...... comes to mind).

My guess is that I’m arguing with people from the 'small-government' school of thought. Call me insane but I’m willing to delegate things like law enforcement to the government we elect. This novel concept, properly implemented means I don't need to carry a loaded firearm, whether it be a glock or a minigun for my personal protection. Owning a firearm for recreational purposes I wouldn't have a problem with, there are many gun clubs here and they are thriving, but the the point is for sport only - not personal defence.

The bill of rights is an amazingly socially advanced document, there is no question about that - in reality I’d question just how well things like freedom of speech and freedom of associating actually exist but... Governmental control of these things is of course an icky issue however you look at it and there is always going to have to be a delicate balance drawn between the effectiveness of law enforcement, the freedom of the populace and the power of businesses. Some of the intelligence laws here (http://www.efa.org.au), are starting to lean toward the draconian - all in the name of the war on terror an issue that is starting to and will continue to generate ever-growing dislike but the gun control laws (admittedly passed in the wake of a slaughter committed by one man in Tasmania that would not have been possible without an automatic weapon) generated little concern outside the firearms community. The main argument against was farmers ability to effective control pests such as kangaroos, the issue was never one of positive rights. Abstract 'rights' while making you feel nice are kind of pointless unless they are useful for something. Correct me if I’m wrong but the original purpose of being able to own firearms was as a balance-of-power thing between the people and the state? Neither this or the need to be able to 'best' or 'match' the firepower of thsoe would do us harm is an issue here. I would hope an armed rebellion would not b necessary to keep a democratic system democratic (then again *thinks back* I could be wrong). Each nation has its own collection of political lobby groups and socio-political hang-ups, if a political here tried to be elected on a platform of 'lets bring god closer to the presidency' I doubt they'd do well at all. Here the government is actively funding stem cell research, despite the lambasting of the Catholic Church. The kind of militant support that the gun lobby has over there may be based on something solid, but from here with a reasonably effective police force and an extremely (by comparison to most) peaceful history, it seems outmoded and unnecessary.

Sorry couldn't help this one
We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
by George Orwell

Am I slow, or does that sentence make absolutely no sense whatsoever?

Requires knowledge of the image in question which many people here would know. Basicly it says "argueing on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win, you're still a retard" fark refers to a website called fark.com , talk a look.

I missed one point, on the whole i'm sure gun owners are a responsible group, and i'm sure paintball gun owners are, but there always will be a minority....

Jag, while I respect what you have to say, and I am by no means calling you stupid, this may be a situation that is simply not quite understood by non-Americans. Even some Americans might not understand.

The second amendment of the US constitution is very precious to many people in this country.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Now granted, this amendment is 211 years old. But even if interpreted in modern times, one could interpret it as "In order to keep our country free, people have the right to have guns, knives, etc."

I used to believe a lot of what you're saying, jag. In fact, if I were still a resident of the state of Missouri, I would probably vote to keep the ban against concealed weapons (one of only 7 states I believe to have this ban) b/c I find most Missourians beyond St. Louis to have the IQ of a sock. ;)

But seriously, the second amendment is an unshakable belief that is as strong as our first amendment. The amendments are part of the foundation of our country, and are what make our society truly unique. The Constitution was created so that Americans would never have to suffer as they did under Union Jack rule. People bearing arms are what helped us become the United States of America.

As a whole, our police forces are rather effective, and it's a shame that a few bad apples fuck it up for everyone. While we have laws that govern us, and police that protect us, we are an individualistic society (for better or for worse). We control our destinies for the most part...and that includes the right to protect ourselves in a legal manner, with guns if we choose to do so.

Criminals are bad...they are selfish, and care for nobody but themselves. So, they will do whatever they desire to get over on you.

Strictly as a hypothetical, maybe someone will try to mug Maggie (not that I want to see that happen, of course) and WILL draw a gun faster than her. But, because she is also carrying, there is an equalizing factor. It gives her a fighting chance. To put it plainly, it moves her status from "completely fucked" to "possibly fucked." :)

I don't like guns. And maybe I'm risking my life by not carrying one, but that's my decision. I feel able to carry on my life in the city of Philadelphia by not carrying one. And maybe restrictive gun laws are helping us. But we still have people on the street, using semi-automatic weapons, killing each other. People using guns in robberies, assaults. And now, we have people getting creative...passing notes to tellers in bank windows, using no weapon whatsoever.

To me, it's about the criminal element. We have to find better ways to stop the criminal element before it starts. Education...man, that is so damned important. People need to get themselves schooled. Learn that they can succeed in life without having to resort to criminal activity. Of course, it's not as easy as it sounds, but somehow, we have to find a way in this country to show that good always trumps bad. Throwing people in prison and restricting our freedoms doesn't seem to be helping that.

In conclusion, we are a unique country that has developed under unique circumstances. Many of our people believe in the right to bear arms, and for the most part, it has worked well over the past 226 years. And so long as law-abiding citizens are not using those arms to infringe upon my individual rights, why the fuck should I care? :)

Effective police force?
 

Is this the effective police force you speak of?

http://www.efa.org.au/Campaigns/alert200205.html

In the USA it's called the PATRIOT ACT.

Oh! I get it; yes, I did see that image. Your spelling threw me off; with the word "imagine" there, it isn't much of a sentence at all.

Re: Effective police force?
 

I'm not sure if you were referring to me or jag, but I was speaking of the United States in my post. Of course, our government is trying to do the same thing in terms of monitoring communications, and it wouldn't surprise me if they try to bring back the War Powers Act as it was used during WW1.

http://www.peta.edu.au/ ;)

Law enforcement? Sure; they make the laws, they can enforce them. But personal defense? A different matter entirely. Law enforcement just means they track down and punish anyone who breaks the laws (they do a bad job at this, and not just in the US, but that's another story). Thing is, if someone's attacking me, I'm MUCH more interested in stopping the attack than in whether they are punished afterwards.

using sex in an attempt to get the thread off gun contol ...
 

syc i know the second amendment to quote myself Mabye i should have made it more clear what i was refering to, my equlancy tends to fail early in the morning (its now 11am here). I agree, education is essential, life oppotunities and all that are the key - any solution i think is better than arming the populace in some desperate bid for self-defence as a substitute to an effective police force. Yes the word imagine would have thrown me off too =)

If you know you're gooing to be caught afterwards you're not going to do it are you, or less likely. While the cops here aren't a perfect bunch they generally seem to do a pretty good job - i'm judging that by the experience of myself and those around me

pink has nice teeth.

I don't know how things are going in Australia, but here, we seem to have a new breed of criminals. A group that either a)Doesn't think they'll get caught, b) Thinks they can beat the system on a technicality (which does happen), or c) Doesn't care if they get caught or not.

Poor Maggie. I think she's hypothetically mugged/raped every time we have a gun debate.

Pink fails to change the topic ...
 

I know...that's horrible. :)

Seriously, the only reason I used Maggie in my example is b/c she is a fervent gun rights supporter, and she is the only one here that I know of that owns a gun (or at least talks about it).

I own a number of guns, but I don't carry.

Okay, now I'll say something.
 

Maggie is not the only one here who openly owns a gun(s), will admit to it, carries one for personal protection, and generally supports the NRA. I am 100% right behind her (I love the womens' movement from here). She is doing a fine job of defending herself and her opinions without me muddying the waters.

But you never know who might be on her side without saying it.

Brian

PS to Maggie, I gave you a free pass on that misquote about the ends justifying the means in an earlier forum.
You owe me one.

B

Site was interesitng, man, long list of anti-gun groups/companies/individuals/flowerbeds/corperations/foundations
. Seem to be lots of school groups, psychologists groups and victims groups, the kind pf people who ahve to clean up the mess afterwards *sighs*. Odd about that. The lobbying to liberals page didn't work which is what i was most interested in =( (anyone ahve a better link for it?)
FAQ was kinda brief. Interesting group. Am i the only one that found the use an what looks like an assult rifle mount/butt worrying?

Syc once again, i wonder how they came into being......
Argh, this is pointless.

How is this pointless? We are having a constructive discussion involving gun control. We may not agree on it, but there's no harm in talking about it, unless we go into shit like, "Well jag, you're a fucking moron for thinking that way...you Aussies are all alike!" ;)

As far as the origins, pick one or more:

--Socioeconomic status
--Poor home environment
--Societal influences
--Bad genetics
--Bad decision making

Re: Okay, now I'll say something.
 

Hence why I used a disclaimer.

I'm going to use Jesus in future hypothetical situations. "If Jesus had his trusty 9mm..."

WWJD? :)

Re: Re: Okay, now I'll say something.
 

Dude, that'd be awesome.

One day we'll live in a socity where minorities won't need firearms to feel safe, where tollerance is the norm, where people can walk the streets in safty. Hell will freeze over first but it might happen.

http://www.musicfanclubs.org/fuel/JesusCD.jpg
best i could do, i was looking for another one.
I was looking for the one i knew of, it had the text "fucking crazy" under a pic of jesus holding a 9mm so i did a goodle image search for "fuck jesus". It came up with the MSN logo......

Yeah! That rules!

Jesus: Holy Land Ranger

Re: Okay, now I'll say something.
 

The NRA and I don't alwys see eye-to-eye. There are a lot of homophobes in the NRA, and too often the organization turns a blind eye to it. There was a lot of queer-bashing from Heston when he was campaigning against Clinton.

That said, we do have a lot of goals in common. And in general I get more tolerance of my queerness from shooters than I do tolerance of being a shooter from most queers.

They haven't heard "An armed society is a polite society."

One is more inclined to be polite to anyone (not necessarily queer) who is known to be packing a gun, is one not?

wink

Brian

Actually, they probably have. The issue seems to be that they have queers stereotyped as people who want to disarm erverybody, and who seek special privileges (a special "hate crime" category, for example) rather than *equal* rights.

They have to actually *see* and experience out queer folks who believe in the individual right of armed self-defense for all people to break that stereotype. That's one thing that the Pink Pistols is about.

One of the early reactions we often hear when folks first hear about the Pistols is "Oh, you just support arming gay people?", and they have to think a minute when our answer is: "No, we support the right of armed individual self-defense for *all* people. We place special emphasis on the importance of it for queer folk, since we're usually stereotyped as hoplophobes, and we believe that stereotype is dangerous to us as a group."

That's a little bit easier for straight people to understand than issues like "gay marriage" or "gay adoption", which come across as "special interest" issues. The difference is, of course, that there's not much controversy about the rights of *straight* people to marry or adopt (although there's still racial issues about adoption in some areas) .

But the individual right to armed self-defense is still *not* universally respected, even within the US. So when the homophobes find out the homos aren't all hoplophobes, it's a real conciousness-raising expereience for them.

Rosie O'Donnell, for example, has done *enormous* damage to efforts to reverse that stereotype. And most of the anti-gay rants I've heard in the armed citizen community have started off with Rosie-bashing. Rosie hasn't exactly been a poster child for gay pride, either.

Again let me emphasize: most of the armed citizens I've met are content in general to let queer folks live their own lives, even if they still have doubts about gay marriage or gay adoption. But the level of acceptance for queer folks within, say, the NRA, hasn't risen to the level where someone engaging in queer bashing in the context of a panel discussion at the NRA convention (this did happen quite recently) would be frowned on openly by those present.

This just in ...
 

Posted on Mon, Jun. 10, 2002

Court rejects review on gun ownership
BY JAMES VICINI
Reuters

WASHINGTON - - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday stayed out of the politically charged debate on whether the Constitution protects an individual's right to possess guns, a position advocated by the Bush administration in reversing the government's long-held policy.

Without comment, the justices declined to hear two cases in which the Justice Department last month said the right to bear arms does not apply just to state militias, a change in policy denounced by gun control advocates and praised by the National Rifle Association.

The Justice Department argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to get involved in the two cases, leaving intact federal appeals court rulings that upheld the constitutionality of provisions of federal gun control laws.

The Supreme Court last ruled on the scope of the Second Amendment in 1939 when it said the amendment protects only those rights that have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia."

That legal position still stands since the Supreme Court issued no new ruling. But in one of the cases the high court passed up on Monday, an appeals court did support the Bush administration position on an individual's right to bear arms.

The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

RIGHT SUBJECT TO 'REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS'

In a footnote in the two cases, Solicitor General Theodore Olson said the government now takes the position that the Second Amendment protects the rights of individuals, including persons who are not members of the militia, to bear firearms.

Olson said the right was "subject to reasonable restrictions designed to prevent possession by unfit persons or to restrict the possession of types of firearms that are particularly suited to criminal misuse."

The Justice Department has said it plans to defend vigorously the constitutionality under the Second Amendment of all existing federal firearms laws.

The administration's shift in position first surfaced in May last year in a letter by Attorney General John Ashcroft to the National Rifle Association. It was repeated in a memo sent in November to all federal prosecutors.

In one of the cases, the justices let stand a U.S. appeals court ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of individuals to carry guns, but that exceptions do exist.

The appeals court rejected the arguments by a Texas physician, Timothy Emerson, that a 1994 federal gun law, designed to deny guns to people under restraining orders, was unconstitutional.

The other case involved an Oklahoma man, John Lee Haney, who was convicted of owning two machine guns. He claimed the federal law that bans the possession of a machine gun violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Justice Department said the constitutional challenges and claims in both cases lacked merit and did not warrant Supreme Court review.

Interesting....Sure sounds like legal war over there. Is gay bashing still a common thing? I've heard a few cases but nothign widespread. Same applies here, i've seen a few really offputting things here (one of my best friends and her gf kissing at a public train station copped some pretty nasty verbal abuse ) but it seems pretty isloated and rare.

In the NRA context , by "gaybashing" I meant verbal disparagement of queer folks.

*Physical* assaults against queer folk certainly do still occur. Matthew Shepard's case is notorious, and Danny Lee Overstreet's death in the Backstreet Cafe shooting in Roanoke VA ( http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/9977-1.html ) is a classic case where a gathering of queer folk was thought to be helpless because they were presumed to be unarmed.

The movie "Boys Don't Cry" documented a queerbashing multiple murder that actually happened. A lot of the other folks who died *without* their own movie are remebered at http://www.gender.org/remember ...including Joanne Lillecrapp, who was murdered in Adelade last November.

As for "legal war", there's been a dispute as to the correct interpretation of the Second Amendment ever since Miller. Olsen's statements leave some rather wide loopholes, but in general the Ashcroft Justice Department has come quite a ways in what I consider to be the "right" direction from the positions of previous Justice Departments.

The constitution of the Commonweath of Pennsylvania, where I live, is much clearer on this issue; we don't have that confusing paean to militias (a term that has changed in meaning considerably since Federalist times) in front of the clause affirming the right.

Section 21 of Article 1 says simply "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Not much wiggle room there.

There's ALWAYS wiggle room. :)

You can always have the right, but that doesn't mean that it can't be restricted, therefore preserving that right. Not that it SHOULD, but it COULD be.

The 2nd Amendment made sense when muskets were the pinnacle of weaponry, and it was reasonable to expect some sort of balance between the military power of the govt and of the people. It is now 100 years obsolete -- made so by the power of modern weaponry vs. the irresponsibility of Joe American.

Anybody who honestly believes a few handguns and assault rifles would have *any* chance of deterring a govt assault by anything more threatening than a letter opener-wielding battalion of postal carriers... is sadly, and ridiculously, mistaken. We need tanks, missiles, and tactical nukes! Now how safe would you feel knowing your drunk neighbor had a couple tactical nukes at his disposal? Not very. I believe, however, the 2nd Amendment gave that right, but it's obsolete and frankly (don't shoot me ;) ) should be repealed.

The classic NRA anti-govt opression line is Grade A bullshit. The real reason: power vs. fellow citizen, whether that's vs. a potential criminal, bullies in a bar, or some schmuck boinking your wife. Now, whether "law-abiding" citizens should have that power is debatable, but not, I feel, within the scope or intent of the Constitution.

Which is what Ashcroft's guy was saying. My point was there's much less wiggle room in the wording of Commonweath constitution than in the US one, where the reference to militia has created an excuse for decades of confusion.

Just an aside, actually the Man of War was the pinnacle of military technology at that time. Private persons owned well armed ships as well, but nothing capable of going toe to toe. Comparable to me having a backhoe vs a Fed tank, potentially useful but really not effective... not that I've considered such things. ;)

The reference to militia has only caused confusion when folks have tried to apply the clause without reference to militia, like it was a case of bad drafting because it doesn't fit well the current perceived needs.

It seems clear that the concern addressed by the 2nd Amendment was to ensure the freedom of the State in a federation. Having been formed by revolution against a government, and viewing themselves as independent sovereign states such as the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the federal union of states was "conditional" on certain assurances of freedom of the State from the federation. High on the list was the right of the people to continue to keep and bear their arms to defend the State from the other states and the federation, if need be. Having just proved that an armed militia was necessary to achieve freedom of self determination it was the accepted notion.

In the context of the period, the people had just fought a revolution against their legitimate government, so self-determination was a very high priority and the founding fathers realized that such rights are often achieved and maintained by armed forces of the people of the State seeking self determination.

There are still folks in the NRA who still see their guns as the best defence against their own federal government. Ruby Ridge, etc.

For many, that notion is anachronistic. For others, it is a clear example of why the people need to stockpile weapons in their homes.

In modern times, many Americans interpret the constitutional language to support their current perceived need pack heat to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, terrorists and assorted mofos.

self defense 401
 

I think that the typical person who thinks they need a gun really just needs a way to stop an attacker.

What about alternate means? More of these are being developed all the time, some are pretty cool.

I want one where I can throw or aim a device at an approaching mugger that instantly encases him in some kind of clear acrylic, tougher than steel but light enough that I can still cart the suspect into a courtroom on a dolly as exhibit A.

"See your honor? Look at that expression on his face, and the way that knife is raised, he was definately up to no good".

Maybe. But I'd point out "Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on the Constitution, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (1982)

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html

as a source of some very interesting constitutional scholarship on that issue, especially the preface written by Hatch.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html#h1

These are probably the grounds on which the Ashcroft Justice Department has taken the stand they have.

Re: self defense 401
 

Problem is that old slippery slope. For example: here in Canada not only is your average citizen restricted from CCW, she also can't carry a can of pepper spray [1] or mace. I don't think tasers are legal either. Any of the nifty personal protection devices are also useable by robbers, rapists, and muggers and seem to quickly become illegal to possess.

[1] pepper spray is legal only if you carry a 16 oz or larger container. At least I can carry some protection from bears when out in the woods.

Unfortunate reality: most of those alternate self-defense gizmos are basically shit for self defense. Pepper spray hurts, but there's no guarantee it'll drop a guy, and even less you can get to it fast. Same for ranged tasers. Guns don't really improve on those flaws, but at least you can get training for one; don't think I've ever heard of a course in pepper-spray use.

Touch tasers are even worse, though. Have to get the guy in the neck for the full effect, see. Nearly impossible to do that in a struggle, but it's easy when you're sneaking up behind someone. In other words, it's a lovely weapon for rapists and crap for stopping them.

This illustrates one of the core gun-control fallacies: that a weapons prohibition law will prevent criminals from arming themselves more than it prevents law-abiding people from defending themselves..

It's just not true....law-abiding citizens comply with laws *much* more than criminals do; why that's so hard to follow escapes me. And prohibitions that create contraband really never work. In an ideal world they might, but then an ideal world wouldn't need laws.