If there was one illegal thing you would legalize...

[MercyfulFate]

Do you have stats on Australia? I had read those numbers were creatively calculated and the ban rather had little material effect. Restricting the possession of anything that cannot be detected and traced to source easily (uranium and other nuclear related radiological materials, for example) is a difficult prospect in the long run.

I'm pro-gun ownership, though I do believe it should be the right of establishments to ban guns on their premises, and there are people who cannot be trusted with a weapon that can be otherwise trusted in larger society.

I'll see if I can find them for you, it was some time ago and on my old laptop. I think I had them bookmarked, but you may be right about them being skewed. Like I said it's hard to find the real numbers because the anti and pro gun crowds both skew the facts in their favor. I just haven't seen much to suggest that gun bans reduce gun crime in any significant way.

If you banned guns in the continental US for example, they'd simply bring illegal weapons over the borders to compensate. The only people without guns would end up being the legal gun owners, because criminals will always find a way to acquire them as they do with anything that's banned.

[Cheka Man]

Handguns (to an extent), swords, and firecrackers (again, to an extent.)

[Ironwolf85]

probably some of the less harsh drugs, i don't use, but the income would be spectacular. probably take the regulated way the Dutch have with it.
small calibur handguns completely and easily legalized, but not the military hardware (no civilan has a "right" to carry a rocket launcher) however all citizans owning a firearm must be properly trained, documented, and take a test once a year.

probably free up the market a bit, but have more oversight

[Kate]

Why are so many pro-hand guns.

Why do people want them ?

I don't understand.

[Silverfyre]

Why are so many pro-hand guns.

Why do people want them ?

I don't understand.

There are a plethora of reasons, both personal and professional. Some want them to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Some want them just to have, like a collector. Some just enjoy shooting. It's their right to have them, at least in some countries.

[Callie Del Noire]

There are a plethora of reasons, both personal and professional. Some want them to protect themselves, their families, and their property. Some want them just to have, like a collector. Some just enjoy shooting. It's their right to have them, at least in some countries.

That sums up most of the reasons my friends and family own them. Mostly they enjoy shooting them (my brother does about 1 trip to a range a month minimum and I know 1 friend goes weekly)

[Trieste]

Why are we necro-ing a thread for an off-topic post?

[Callie Del Noire]

Why are we necro-ing a thread for an off-topic post?

To be honest I've been thinking about the subject of the thread since my post. I'm still thinking on it. :D I honestly can't think of anything I'd legalize that is currently illegal. (Though I am thinking hard!)

[Silverfyre]

Why are we necro-ing a thread for an off-topic post?

Don't look at me.  I just responded to the necromancer's post.  I didn't see the expiration date!  Why wasn't this thing thrown out for freshness?!  ~Flails~

[TheGlyphstone]

And here I was ready to make a joke about making thread necromancy legal. :P

[Kate]

necromancer ? Um ok :)

My apologies

[Oniya]

necromancer ? Um ok :)

My apologies

Aye, the thread hadn't been posted in for 6 months.

[ausyandy]

If I could legalise one thing it would be same-sex marriage.

[Silverfyre]

If I could legalise one thing it would be same-sex marriage.

No kidding.  +1

[Talia]

If I could legalise one thing it would be same-sex marriage.

No kidding.  +1

No doubt. +1

Throwing in an additional "I think weed should be legalized too."

[Kate]

picking three would help

[mystictiger]

If I could legalise one thing, it would be freedom of speech the world over. No more would repressive governments be able to intimdate opponents, voters, the media and hang on to power through fear and terror. When speech and thought is free, it becomes inevitable that society and economy also frees up - look at the way that China has and continues to change, or the experience of South American and European countries.

[Kate]

what about "true" free speech ? or true expression ?

Countries believing they support free speech don't really, as something things are deemed secret / treasonous etc.

[Callie Del Noire]

what about "true" free speech ? or true expression ?

Countries believing they support free speech don't really, as something things are deemed secret / treasonous etc.

Now now Kate, keep it to it's forum. This is not the one. Me? I think I had something but forgot it again. Breakfast with my future sister-in-law was just too funny

Like some of the suggestions I've heard though.

[mystictiger]

There is no such thing as 'true' expression or 'true' speech. There are merely degrees of freedom. I would be quite happy getting everyone to the fairly basic standard in which there's a small degree of regulation of the press on grounds of national security that we experience in the EU, US, Canada, Australia, NZ, and so on. Sod the handgun - an idea is a far more dangerous things.

[Kate]

Fair comments all.

Please though dont believe the US, or Australia (not sure about candana) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesnt mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are condictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desparation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

[Zakharra]

Fair comments all.

Please though dint believe the US, or Australia (not sure about Canadian) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesn't mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are con dictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desperation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

We are freer than most. Certainly a lot freer than many African, South/Central American, Middle Eastern and Asian countries. Are we 'truly free' as you say? No. No nation is, or ever will be. Some things need to be kept secret.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ?

Because if that secret is known, their lives are in danger. Intelligence agencies, police departments and the military have a very real need for secrecy. If it's known who their contacts, operational people are, our enemies -will- go after them.  In police work, what do you think happens if a mob informant turns states evidence and that is known?  That person is targetted for death. Or an 'anonymous' source is outed? The same thing.

A terrorist contact that is willing to help? Dead.  People willing to help in subtle ways against bad guys?  Dead or intimidated into not helping.

Your idea of 'true freedom' will only work if everyone follows it. The moment someone uses it for his ends, that 'freedom' no longer exists since they will use it against you.

[Callie Del Noire]

Fair comments all.

Please though dont believe the US, or Australia (not sure about candana) trumpets true speech.

We do more than some countries... it doesnt mean its free.

Speech itself is not free - there are condictions an "else" imposes that puts regulation options on it brutally.

Why ?

Because it threatens a something, someone "else" with a vested interest it in being muted or deed "an else" can not manage with other means. An act of desparation from an "authority".

Claiming doing so puttting lives at risk.... makes me think one thing.

Why are lives at risk if a secret stops being secret ? Is their position or objective necessary ? Is their nature of operations right ? Justified ? True ? What my tax I want to be supporting ? What I voted for my tax to support ?

Can we keep on topic and keep our debates in other threads there?

[LordVetinari]

Well I would legalise marijuana, but that's for personal reasons.

To bring something new up, at my school this week we had a talk from an ex-drug addict (I'm talking about serious addict, spending £1,000 minimum per week, stealing etc.)

And he told us that all the heads of police in each region in the UK had a vote on what they would legalise out of drugs. Every single one voted to legalise heroin(!) At first everyone was shocked (obviously...)

But the reason is out of all illegal drugs, heroin takes up the VAST majority of deaths, yet it is the most easily 'fixed' if people weren't afraid of going into a hospital.

Also nearly every single one of those deaths is cause by impure heroin.

So I would legalise heroin, personally never want to take it, but seems like a good idea for the country.

[Dizzi]

one thing to legalize?  Hmmm... I would say Marijiuana.  I don;t use it, but at the same time: People will have a lessened chance to get it laced, it will go down in price, etc.

However, I don't think that it would be.  Seeing as I live in Canada, most of our laws for things like Marijuana are (Seem to be) copied from the US.  And the US won;t legalize marijuana because at a vote, drug dealers will vote it down.  They would lose way too much money.