Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

It's starting to look like Mexico is falling apart

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: It's starting to look like Mexico is falling apart
    Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 18:36
Hello to you all
 
Once again the false argument that less regulation means less crime or that guns prevents them. Well we had a demonstration a week ago on how effective guns are. An insane guy went on rampage in one of the most liberal states in terms of gun laws and its people are armed to the teath and only the police stopped him.
 
There are countless reasons why some states with less gun regulation have less crime and the lack of gun regulation has little to do with less crime. For example many states with less crimes are actually states with large rural population (Nebraska or Vermont) and all over the world rural areas regardless of gun laws have less crime. Also the strict regulation in a state will have no effect if the neighbouring state has liberal gun laws (the prime example of Washington DC which is sandwitched between two states with liberal gun laws).
 
A good measure on how gun laws affect crime is not to compare states but metropolitan areas (which naturally has much more crime). If we do that we will find results that contradict every argument that people who support less gun control.
 
We most of the cities with a violent crime rate above 1000 are in states with liberal gun laws (Memphis, St Luis, Miami, Jacksonville etc.). The same goes for property crimes. However since states that have strict gun laws are largely urban (with urbanization rates above 85%) there is a false notion that stricter gun laws means crime. Actually this is not true.
 
Anyways, the only way that crime is going to go down is by aggressive government involvement. This is how states began in the first place, this is how the wild west was tamed and this is how the drug problem in Mexico will be solved. Anything else is nothing but BS.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 19:21

Exactly!

The state has to take back the control!

Democracy, freedom or civil rights aren't an excuse for anarchy.

Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 19:37
Originally posted by pinguin

Exactly!


The state has to take back the control!


Democracy, freedom or civil rights aren't an excuse for anarchy.



Remember Pinguin the USA is not a democracy but a Republic based on representative government.   I do not want to see this to stray onto gun rights but either way the criminals will get the guns in Mexico -see article I posted before   

I did not have a chance to read Al J. post but I will come back later and look it over- must go now.
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 19:53
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Anyways, the only way that crime is going to go down is by aggressive government involvement. This is how states began in the first place, this is how the wild west was tamed and this is how the drug problem in Mexico will be solved. Anything else is nothing but BS.
 

But in this case it is exactly aggressive government involvement that caused all the carnage.

Drug trade has been a problem for decades, but it was not until the government declared a war on the drug cartels that the death toll started to rack into the thousands.

I'd say just legalize everything. It's better having a few people ruin their own lives than turning Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) into a warzone.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 20:05
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

...
Drug trade has been a problem for decades, but it was not until the government declared a war on the drug cartels that the death toll started to rack into the thousands.

I'd say just legalize everything. It's better having a few people ruin their own lives than turning Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) into a warzone.
 
Don't agree. Legalizing drugs is giving up on crime and it is a coward attitude.
It is like if justice gives up in persecuting murderers and just let people take the justice on theirs hands. Or it is like legalizing children prostitution because some consumers enjoy it.
 
Nope. Drug traffic has to be stop by force. The cochraches had to be crushed without forgiveness.
 
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 20:30
You can't compare using drugs with murdering people or having sex with children. If you murder people or have sex with children you're making victims, if you're using drugs the only person that will get hurt is yourself.

We allow use of alcohol and tobacco, so it makes no sense to ban other drugs.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 20:35

Hello to you all

I have noticed here a paranoia when it comes to government and its powers.
 
Except in Switzerland there is no country in the world like the US in terms of direct democracy. Nearly all the important jobs from municipal level and up to state level are subject to elections, from ordinary supervisors of local public works to judges and sherrifs. I think with such direct democracy in place any argument that there is a danger from a supposed government take over is simple baseless phobia. Same thing applies to danger fom the federal government which is the basis where AS coes from since unlike state governments federal government consists from career civil servants. All those civil servants are, believe it or not, subject to the same checks and balances that state and local level officials have and actually in my opinion the checks on them are greater since an elected official can only be ousted in elections but federal officials go with each administration (if I am not mistaken over 3000 employees in the DoD lost their jobs with the coming of this current administration).
 
The main reason why the federal government tries to expand its realm on state level (which is totally constitutional by the way) is because many states are actually failed states. Just look at the current fiasco in California. With no funds and political deadlock and worst of all the absense of government in that state forces the federal government to intervene. Many states in the union suffer as much which helps the federal government's case.
 
Anyway returning to the subject drugs are an international problem not a local one and because of this it is natural for the federal government to be involved in drugs. Plus even if we assumed that some states would want to legalize drugs because it is within their right (which is not true by the way) other states won't agree and will ask the federal government to intervene to stop drugs from coming to them (since according to the constitution states cannot coordinate policies without federal oversight) which leave us back to square one.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 20:50
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

You can't compare using drugs with murdering people or having sex with children. If you murder people or have sex with children you're making victims, if you're using drugs the only person that will get hurt is yourself.

We allow use of alcohol and tobacco, so it makes no sense to ban other drugs.
 
With tabacco a person only kill itself. In the case of drugs and alcohol they are directly the cause of the killing of million of people worldwide, in murders, car accidents, intoxications, etc.
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
  Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 20:55

I'd love to share my responses with you guys, but I really don't want to divert this thread any more than it has. Maybe someone should open up a thread on gun control in the intellectual discussions forum?

 
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

I'd say just legalize everything. It's better having a few people ruin their own lives than turning Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) into a warzone.
 
I have to agree. Instead of letting people make the choice of destroying their own lives, we're waging a war which affects millions of people who have nothing to do with drugs, all for the sake of saving a few junkies. This obsession with anti-drug sentiments has turned shooting up needles by junkies into shooting up the entire continent with automatic rifles. Thats what happens when you criminalize addiction.
 
If a fraction of the money spent on these wars went to drug treatment, we would be a lot better off.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Except in Switzerland there is no country in the world like the US in terms of direct democracy.
 
The US is a direct democracy? Thats news to Americans. If you want an example of a society very near to democracy, look at Ireland, not America.
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-Jan-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 818
  Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 21:27
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

I'd say just legalize everything. It's better having a few people ruin their own lives than turning Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) into a warzone.
 
I have to agree. Instead of letting people make the choice of destroying their own lives, we're waging a war which affects millions of people who have nothing to do with drugs, all for the sake of saving a few junkies. This obsession with anti-drug sentiments has turned shooting up needles by junkies into shooting up the entire continent with automatic rifles. Thats what happens when you criminalize addiction.
 
If a fraction of the money spent on these wars went to drug treatment, we would be a lot better off.
 


I'm starting too wonder about that myself. People are going too use no matter what the cost in wealth or lives lost. If drug users are so willing too pay top dollar for the substance of their own destruction, at the expense of annoying the hell out of billions of peoples and their respective governments, then why not legalize them and then slap a horrendously ridiculous sin-tax on the individual user, while they are enjoying their own destruction? As far as the manufacturer's are concerned, they might become respectable business men in their own right, but a healthy tax (Say 25-50% of earnings) with no loopholes what-so-ever for their companies to wiggle out of might be the right way to go in making them pay for all the damage they have done to countless lives lost and ruined, and with the many destruction of past failed states over centuries just so a person can get a high! WTF...

This is all specualtion of course and it seems my views on this are currently in a state of flux. But, i do know this much for sure, i would rather we not be having this conversation in the first place!




Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 07:42
Hello to you all
 
 
 
First point. On the state level, yes the US is a direct democracy. On the fedral level however it is the normal representative democracy that exists all over the world.
 
Second point, the overwhelming majority of ordinary crimes have a direct link to drugs and stats prove that. If this is not enough to accept as a legitimate reason for why drugs should be outlawed then what is the accepted reason? Drugs bankroll dictators, organized crime, human trafficking and many other hineous crimes that affect many times as much people as those who are now in the cross fire.
 
Plus drugs are nothing like smoking or alcohol. Drugs affect a much wider range of people negatively than those two. One can control his tobacco or drinking habits easily but the same cannot be said about drugs. Drugs are highly addictive and rarely you will find a person who managed his drug habits.
 
AL-Jassas
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 10:06
Originally posted by pinguin

With tabacco a person only kill itself. In the case of drugs and alcohol they are directly the cause of the killing of million of people worldwide, in murders, car accidents, intoxications, etc.

So you'd agree with making alcohol an illegal drug as well?

Originally posted by Al Jassas


Second point, the overwhelming majority of ordinary crimes have a direct link to drugs and stats prove that. If this is not enough to accept as a legitimate reason for why drugs should be outlawed then what is the accepted reason? Drugs bankroll dictators, organized crime, human trafficking and many other hineous crimes that affect many times as much people as those who are now in the cross fire.

Drugs cause other crimes exactly because they are illegal. It's not as if there is something inherent about drugs that makes everything that's involved with it linked to crime. Just look at the prohibition in the United States: only when alcohol was banned alcohol and crime got unto an unholy relationship.

Just for fun perhaps they should try to ban chocolate. I'm sure that you'd have chococartels going on a rampage in Mexico and Guatemala within a few years. Organized crime has little to do with the character of the product, but rather with the fact that it's illegal.

Plus drugs are nothing like smoking or alcohol. Drugs affect a much wider range of people negatively than those two. One can control his tobacco or drinking habits easily but the same cannot be said about drugs. Drugs are highly addictive and rarely you will find a person who managed his drug habits.

A survey at my previous university showed that 75% of all students had used drugs at least once. Nevertheless I've never seen one drug addict at all at the uni. And that goes for the entire country, drug use is a lot higher than in other countries but drug addiction - which is which you want to combat - is not.

Another major benefit is that with legal drugs you can have the government check the quality, to make sure they don't contain poisonous material or things that make them more dangerous. Plus it means you can tax them, so instead of being a resource drain the government will actually make money from it (which could for example be spent at combatting drug addiction).


Edited by Mixcoatl - 18-Mar-2009 at 10:10
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4613
  Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 11:34
Originally posted by pinguin

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

...
Drug trade has been a problem for decades, but it was not until the government declared a war on the drug cartels that the death toll started to rack into the thousands.

I'd say just legalize everything. It's better having a few people ruin their own lives than turning Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) into a warzone.
 
Don't agree. Legalizing drugs is giving up on crime and it is a coward attitude.
It is like if justice gives up in persecuting murderers and just let people take the justice on theirs hands. Or it is like legalizing children prostitution because some consumers enjoy it.
 
Nope. Drug traffic has to be stop by force. The cochraches had to be crushed without forgiveness.
 
Legalize it, the illegal status of drugs makes them
  • tax free (no way of claiming back the cost they create)
  • lucrative (a money spinner and source of income for criminal networks)
  • drain tax's (law enforcement)
  • unregulated (quality and safetly issues)
Its pointless as it can never be won and it doesn't address the problem, strong and honest eduction programs will convince most but at the end of the day humans like having their minds altered. Heroin though I don't have the same feeling for.

When they made alcohol illegal in the US, it became a very lucrative source of income for the criminals and the up and coming mafia groups who otherwise were low level 'protection' type thugs. You had a major surge in related violence because of the money that was made, this went on to cost lives and money for the law enforment agencies but worse still it also had corrupted parts the state (again with the money involved). people still wanted to drink so it was fruitless.

 If people want to take drugs let them, tax it, make sure its as safe as possible and deny anyone huge profits by making it so risky to trade in the first place. its a bloody no brainer.



Edited by Leonidas - 18-Mar-2009 at 11:36
Back to Top
Maharbbal View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 08-Mar-2006
Location: Paris
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2120
  Quote Maharbbal Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 15:38

I agree for the legalization of drugs, nonetheless, it should be pointed out that

1. Unlike tobacco and to some extent alcohol and weed, many drugs do not allow you to be socially and professionally functional.

2. Drugs are particularly plastic; in other words, you can't allow every and any drug, of course a (much more limited) for the drugs that will still be banned. But the fact is that if weed, cocaine and x alone were legal, drug trade would be considerably less important already.

3. Drugs by definition create a legal problems: by definition someone on drug is not responsible. I'm not talking weed here, but can you for instance prosecute for murder a guy who at the time though he was a walking and dancing bannana or something?

4. Some drugs to fuel crime by essence. It is particularly the case of those with a mix of high price, high addiction and low functionality left to the user. Basically, how else than by stealing  will one fund his habit?

But even bearing that in mind, I think making (some) drugs legal, even heroin, is a good thing. Indeed, however terrible some one the consequences of legalization may be, the consequences of prohibition are worse every time. If anything in budgetary terms. If anything, I don't see how legalization could turn entire regions into warzones!

I am a free donkey!
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 16:17
Make suicide legal, and ask the government to provide the suicide rooms... That's easier...
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar

Joined: 07-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1810
  Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 17:20
Hello to you all
 
No, the illegality of drugs has nothing to do with them being a cause of crime. It is rather the consequences of drug use that make people unemployed (nobody will employ a drug addict) and thus tend to commit crimes. Even if drugs were legal social and economic problems will arise, much more than if they are still illegal.
 
As I said, no sane employer will ever employ a drug addict because drugs affect the mental stability of the user much more than alcohol. Plus not everyone who drinks get drunk. Most people use mild drinks like Beer and only get drunk in the weekends or parties. Drugs on the other hand are not mild. Users get stones almost instantly and drug withdrawl is much worse than alcohol withdrawl.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2800
  Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 17:36
AlJassas
Plus drugs are nothing like smoking or alcohol. Drugs affect a much wider range of people negatively than those two. One can control his tobacco or drinking habits easily but the same cannot be said about drugs. Drugs are highly addictive and rarely you will find a person who managed his drug habits.


Drugs are too often lumped into one box and that box is sealed with the label "taboo".
There are so many different kinds of drugs with so many different effects that we need to get out of this mindset that, legit drugs = good, illegal drugs = bad.

Alcohol kills more people directly and indirectly than any other drug however, its legal, does this mean it should be made illegal? in my opinion thats a big no, people will still drink as there is a demand and we'll have ourselves a few more Al Capones.

Cannabis, Khat etc are no better or no worse than tobacco or alcohol however, smoking or taking one can give you a prison sentence while our elected officials take the other drugs and think nothing of it.

A regulated drug market is better than one ruled by crooks.

However, when it comes to the really harmfull drugs like Heroin and Crack cocaine I don't know if morally a state can make it legal. There can be an argument made for "soft" drugs that in moderation its no better/worse than alcohol or tobacco but nobody can in their right mind can argue on behalf of these hard drugs, they ruin lifes, bodies, families and societies but some people get very wealthy from it. Only way to stop it is reduce demand but how do you do that? social pressure maybe?


Al_Jassas
No, the illegality of drugs has nothing to do with them being a cause of crime. It is rather the consequences of drug use that make people unemployed (nobody will employ a drug addict) and thus tend to commit crimes. Even if drugs were legal social and economic problems will arise, much more than if they are still illegal.


The illegality of drugs has created a great business opportunity for criminal gangs who exploit this market and make a mint off it. Its because drugs are illegal that police waste their time arresting or cautioning people who are caught with a spliff on them. There are so many more examples but in short, drugs being illegal cannot be denied as being a cause of crime.

Also not all drug addicts are unemployed bums. You'll find many white collar workers in a pub or bar on a friday night snorting lines of coke, you'll find many people employed who smoke cannabis in their free time.

I think your referring to hard drugs in which case your correct as these people become like zombies and do anything for their next fix.





Edited by Bulldog - 18-Mar-2009 at 17:46
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine

Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:06
We need the Untouchables!!
 
The problem with drugs is corruptions. There is no other reason with drugs produced in a country is consummed in other. People is getting rich all the way down the path; particularly at the frontiers. It is not enough to persecute the produced, but the receiving countries should be enforced as well.
 
 
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8596
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 19:23
Regarding the potential abuse and addictive qualities of alcohol versus drugs, it's probably best that we don't seperate the wheat from the chaff. They both have debilitating qualities that impact the person, families and society in general.

Back to the topic. The rise in drug related violence seems to be cartels reactions to the Mexican government's crackdown. The US wants to slow the illegal flow of arms to Mexico as well.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/03/18/MND616HC2C.DTL&amp;feed=rss.news


Edited by Seko - 18-Mar-2009 at 19:25
Back to Top
hugoestr View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar

Suspended

Joined: 13-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3987
  Quote hugoestr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2009 at 03:48

The top 10 states in the U.S. with the lowest crime rates are all states where you can carry a concealed weapon. Actually you can carry a concealed weapon in 40 states, and these states don't have higher rates of crime than the other 10 states. On the other hand, the states with strict gun regulations (California, New York, Illinois, Washington DC, etc.) are consistently among the leaders in crime per capita, especially violent crime.


Also, you're completely ignoring the fact that firearms prevent a countless number of crimes per year, as eaglecap mentioned.



This is the big gun fallacy: correlating safety with guns. The high Southern crime rate disproves this. If guns were the same as safety, the American South should be one of safest places on the country. The South is overrepresented in incidents of gun violence.

The states with low gun violence happen to be those where the culture stresses self-control; in other words, the Northern states of the U.S. and the Midwest. And as I said, I believe that the gun ownership in Canada is pretty hight and crime is pretty low. To be more cynical about this, Canada and the Northern U.S. states would have low crimes regardless of the existence of guns or not.



Originally posted by hugoestr

And having Mexicans own guns is a bad idea. At one point, back in the 60s, Mexico was one of the top 10 countries with the highest rates of gun murders. Once guns became practically banned, the murder rate went down quickly. Why was this? Because Mexico has a honor culture, similar to the American South. If people live in a cool-headed culture, such as New England or Canada, you can have most of the population armed and the murder rates can stay low. But if you have hot-honor culture, and you have to fight any perceived insult to your honor, adding guns to the mix makes things a lot worse. Specifically, take guns out of honor cultures, and you end up with a lot of fights. Give them guns and you end up with a lot of murders.


If we assume you're right, you're just proving my point that guns are not the problem--- people with bad intentions are the problem. Someone with bad intentions will not be stopped by the word of law, but he will be stopped if you point a gun at him and make him think twice.


And you're assuming that if guns are illegal, people won't kill each other with guns. Well, murder has always been illegal, but that hasn't stopped any murderers now, has it? And when they prohibited alcohol, it didn't lead to any decrease in consumption. In short, the word of law won't stop a criminal. The threat of deadly force will.


You missed the point of what I said: gun control does prevent deaths. Mexico is the proof that gun control at a national level can lower the rate of murder by fire weapons, especially in places with honor cultures. This means that if tomorrow guns were outlawed in the U.S., the rate of murder in the U.S. South would go down dramatically.

I know I will get in trouble for saying this, but guns are the cowards' weapon. People who are okay shooting at other people at a distance would think twice before trying to assault someone face to face.

And most gun violence occurs between known people, not against an intruder. People get angry at their friends, spouses or relatives, get the gun and shoot at them. This is the scenario of most murders in the U.S.; this was the scenario of most murders in Mexico before guns became unavailable.


Originally posted by hugoestr

For every one else the situation in Mexico is not a hard one to figure out: if the U.S. had sane gun laws, you know, where criminals wouldn't be able to easily buy guns, then drug lords from Mexico wouldn't have the arsenals that they have.


First of all, the drug lords don't use legal models, they use banned military-grade weapons (unless you want to argue that I can legally buy grenade launchers and automatic rifles). And again, criminals don't get their guns legally from gun stores, because you could trace every bullet shell back to the owner via individual serial numbers and bullet 'fingerprints' which are engraved when the bullet travels through the shaft of the gun, and this 'fingerprint' is unique for every single firearm. Even small-time criminals are not dumb enough to use a registered weapon for a crime. This is why almost all guns used in crimes are not bought legally, but bought off the black market, which can be done whether or not guns are legal. Thus, gun control only prevents law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves.
[/quote]

Once again, back to the fairy tale that guns are protecting people from intruders.   First, those scenarios are rare, very rare. So rare that the NRA has to collect those stories and publish them. How do I know?Because I took an NRA course and got their literature :)

Second, you are forgetting the big gun show loopholes. Legally, the nut case that shot people in Virginia Tech wasn't allowed to buy any guns. If I remember correctly, his name was in the database of people who shouldn't get guns. Yet he was able to legally buy them at a gun show.

And what would it worry to Mexican drug lords if there is a bullet signature with legal guns? Practically 100% of their use of the weapons will happen in Mexico.

And Semi automatic assault weapons, I believe, are legal in the U.S. Bush lifted the ban on them when he was president. And the news of how many people were buying them before a possible new ban made it to the post.


Now, don't think that I want to ban guns; I understand that this is a political impossibility in the U.S. Besides, as you pointed out, there are many states that can have a lot of gun with responsible use, so I don't see why they should be punished because others can't handle them correctly.

I would like to see some sane regulation on them. And gun aficionados should be the strongest proponents of them. Right now it is harder for me to buy sudafed or a test tube than it is for me to buy a semi automatic weapon. Let me repeat this again, it is easier to buy a semi automatic assault weapon in the US than to buy cold medicine or a test tube. This is insane.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.