Print Page | Close Window

It's starting to look like Mexico is falling apart

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: AE Geopolitical Institute
Forum Discription: Implications of Strategic Policies.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=26689
Printed Date: 29-Mar-2024 at 11:41
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: It's starting to look like Mexico is falling apart
Posted By: Kevin
Subject: It's starting to look like Mexico is falling apart
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 18:59
Here in the US we are getting more and more news about the drug-related violence in Mexico. It seems to be getting worse by the week and it appears Mexico could be very well the next Columbia.
 
Any thoughts in terms of open discussion about the current state of affairs in Mexico at the time being? In addition to it's possible effects on the geopolitics of the region



Replies:
Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 19:31
One of the reasons why drug cartels thrive in Mexico is the US itself. All weapons that the cartels have come from the US and US citizens sell these weapons which they can get easily without any checks, especially assult weapons, to the cartels and the US refuses to accept that it is partially responsible for the mess especially in the border cities where Cartels have more weapons than the federales:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-drugs_N.htm?csp=34 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-drugs_N.htm?csp=34
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1 - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 19:37
Originally posted by Al Jassas

One of the reasons why drug cartels thrive in Mexico is the US itself. All weapons that the cartels have come from the US and US citizens sell these weapons which they can get easily without any checks, especially assult weapons, to the cartels and the US refuses to accept that it is partially responsible for the mess especially in the border cities where Cartels have more weapons than the federales:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-drugs_N.htm?csp=34 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-drugs_N.htm?csp=34
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1 - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1
 
Al-Jassas
 
I wouldn't say that is nessacerly true as alot of these weapons are coming from China and elsewhere in Asia, if not the majority. In addition the Feds here in the US are beginning to crack down on illegal weapons sales that go into Mexico.
 
Also if you look at much of the weaponary and manpower that cartels have now you will realize that illegal weapons sales from the United tates couldn't have made much of that possible alone.


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 19:51
No, read the articles. 90% of the weapons come from US and particularly from Texas and Arizona which has I think the most liberal gun laws in the US. Plus AK-47 is manufactured in the US so are many Russian and Israeli guns the mob like. It is because of these laws which makes it legal for gun stores to sell weapons to whom ever comes even if he had connections with drugs and organised crime that exacerbates the problem.
 
Plus if one sees where the drug war in Mexico is concentrated he will find that it is in the border states of Chihuahua and Sonora. Other states don't have such a problem as these two states because gun flow is much more limited.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2009 at 20:59
The CIA makes these problems worse by backing their own cartels and cartels with ties to the Mexican government, against their rivals, mainly local Mexican cartels. If our intelligence agencies simply opposed ALL cartels and patrolled our border, these problems would never reach the proportions they have. But the CIA is an unconstitutional body with no oversight, which is why they can engage in these activities. From their perspective, there are billions in profits to make from the control of drug trafficking in north America. The 'War on Drugs' should be called the 'Drug War', because thats what it really is. Two people trying to sell drugs on the same block are bound to go to war.
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Plus if one sees where the drug war in Mexico is concentrated he will find that it is in the border states of Chihuahua and Sonora. Other states don't have such a problem as these two states because gun flow is much more limited.
 
You have it backwards. The reason why the violence is much more concentrated in northern Mexico as opposed to the southern US is precisely because most people in the southern US own guns, while Mexicans throughout their country are victims of the tightest gun regulations in the hemisphere. Thats why, despite complete freedom of movement due to an ungaurded border, and freedom to own guns in the US, the drug violence is more than 10-fold inside Mexico than in the US. Because cartels know that the citizens (and even police) in northern Mexico are sitting ducks, and unless there are full-time army patrols in northern Mexico (which they started lately), the people are defenseless. Not the case in Texas, where you can create citizen militias out of a couple of city blocks, and you don't even need police protection from drug criminals, since even granny knows how to use a rifle. Cartels know that everyone in Texas owns guns, which is exactly why they operate a few miles away in northern Mexico.
 
And northern Mexico, in terms of crime rate, is not that different from the rest of the country--- Look at Mexico City, geographically in the middle of the country, and one of the most crime-infested areas in the world. Again, because citizens are unarmed and armed criminals know this. Even southern Mexico is infested with crime, with major rebellions in Oaxaca and Chiapas.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 07:52
Here we go again, more gun control means more crime.
 
With all due respect AS gun control has nothing to do with the problems in the north, it is the lack of them that makes things go wrong. Even if you arm people there with tanks and F-22's cartels will have the upper hand because they are just too powerful. If police and army could do simply nothing and they have a kill-first policy how the hell do ordinary people going to make use of liberal gun laws.
 
Al-Jassas
 
 


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 12:15
The lack of US control over gun trafficking to Mexico is indeed scandalous but cannot be considered the main reason why such violence is happening on the Norther border. If they didn't get their weapons from the US, they would get it from somewhere else. These guys are able to bring in tens of tons of cocaine and other drugs, you don't think that a few guns are beyond their reach. At best some small gangs would lose their gun supply. On the other hand, demand for small firearms may create the necessary economies of scale for the Mexican cartels to import big stuff they cannot find in the US market (rockets, mines, machine guns, etc.).

The argument that it is gun control in Northern Mexico that causes the violence is totally bogus because:
1. most of the people killed had a gun in the first place (many gangsters and policemen are shot). What the army brings is not so much firepower as a more organized force.
2. the primary cause of the violence (control over drug trade) makes no sense north of the border.

Cartels are rent-seekers fighting over the control of the smuggling of drugs and to a lesser extent of human beings (coyotes). Self-evidently the best way to stop the violence is to stop the smuggling; this can happen if you end demand for drug and undocumented labour or if you make the trade legal by opening the border to drugs and migrants. It would make good economic and fiscal sense but it is of course politically difficult.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 12:18
Mexico has always being falling appart.
 
Well, in the possitive side, what's going on in Mexico could mean the beginning of the end of the tolerancy to crime.
 
Twenty years ago, Colombia was in a similar situation. The guerrilla and the drug lords literalilly dominated that country, killing each politician and military that tried to prosecute them. They even asaulted the supreme court and killed a hundred people. Fear had that country helpless. But though people came and started to persecute and kill the bad elements. When Uribe arrived he started to destroy sistematically every single source of crime and violence, and today they have the FARC and drug lords diminished in theirs violence and power.
 
Mexico will have to follow a similar path. It will happens sooner or later. They are concient the situation is escaping from theirs hands. What they need is more decision and a couragious man as Alvaro Uribe in Colombia.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


-------------


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 15:32
Originally posted by Kevin

Here in the US we are getting more and more news about the drug-related violence in Mexico. It seems to be getting worse by the week and it appears Mexico could be very well the next Columbia.
 
Any thoughts in terms of open discussion about the current state of affairs in Mexico at the time being? In addition to it's possible effects on the geopolitics of the region
 
With the possibility of previous cooperation between Hugo Chavez's government and FARC (widely suspected but not yet proved), what might the probability be of Venezuelan involvement in Mexico's current problems?  There is still plenty of narco-business in Colombia, regardless of improvement, because of the money involved.
 
The reduction of revenue from oil production might have to be made up elsewhere by a regime that has staked it's future and reputation on widespread social spending.  How much of a challenge that may be for Venezuela has yet to be determined.  There is no other substantial revenue stream available to the regime.
 
Since caudillo regimes find it useful to construct foreign threats, an inability to fund the socialist order in Venezuela might lead to domestic unrest being blamed on the United States.
 
Venezuela is no military threat to anyone in the Caribbean but an asymmetrical challenge to a key US partner in Mexico by means of narco-business could:
 
1)  assist in revenue aquisition that can easily be laundered through a hundred places in Latin America and elsewhere.
 
2)  provide the perception to key Chavez support within the Venezuelan regime that the United States is being distracted in the Hemisphere by diverting assets to it's southern border and to Mexican authorities.  That might stress already thin US resources to the benefit of narco interests (and sources of revenue).
 
This could be done with public deniability, and, by concentrating on Mexico, there is no military threat of retaliation to Venezuela....anti-Gringo policy by proxy.
 
Why might Venezuela be an obvious matter of concern?  Because the regime has made a wager on oil which may not be sustainable in the short term, and because Hugo Chavez, as a populist, has staked his prestige on outspoken anti-American policies.  
 
This is a matter of geopolitical concern to two important North American states as it impacts basic security in Mexico and has already impacted several states in the American southwest with increrased criminal activity by Mexican cartels in Arizona and Texas.  California and New Mexico are hardly immune.  In a broader sense, the possibility of instability in any sovereign state along the Caribbean littoral impacts the vital interests of the United States. 
 
    


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 15:46
Mexico should sent drug criminals to U.S. jails. like Colombia do. That would help to reduce the problems.
Now, how come the problems are getting though in the states? I should warn that criminal organizations have so much money they can corrupt anyone. The U.S. is not inmune to it, and should make an effort to control its own corruption more, particularly in gun trade.


-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 16:10
The U.S makes millions if not billions from the drug trade, they have to appear as if they are trying to stop it however, its just an image, behind the curtain people very high up in the U.S make so much money from this business and have no intentions for it to end.

-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 16:56
That's what worries me. If the U.S. really had the will, a priority should be to cut to zero all the imports of drugs. With technology that can be made.
However, it looks like there are some corruption in the frontier guards, and also among the high spheres. Drug money corrupt everyone, I am afraid.


-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 17:04
Hello Pike
 
What you said in your post is typical right wing propaganda although a much suitable word better describe it.
 
Right wing militias benifit from drugs in Colombia as much as the FARC if not more. Now the FARC has gone and the government and its militia control the country drugs are still a problem as they were. Colombia still produces 70%+ of the worlds Cocaine and actually the percentage is increasing not decreasing believe it or not.
 
The only way to stop drugs is cooperation. The US must crack down not on trade but also consumption. If celebrities keep getting it easy when they are caught with drugs then its hopeless to find a solution without cracking on the civil rights of the people in those areas.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 21:01

They could wipe out cocaine and other foreign-imported drugs quite quickly if they wanted to. The networks rely on a system of credit or consignment to distribute the narcotics, which could be easily collapsed by pulling out all the undercover agents simultaenously when they are in possession of a peak amount of consignments and unpaid debts. A wave of killings would ensue and the distribution networks would destroy themselves.

The reason they don't do this is because there would be no prestige, no busts to print in the paper. There would also be a tidal wave of "drug violence" as the distribution networks collapsed in executions and slayings over unpaid debts. The drug enforcement agencies seek good media coverage in the form of large busts and lower drug violence, so they will never do this.



Posted By: Kevin
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 21:25
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello Pike
 
What you said in your post is typical right wing propaganda although a much suitable word better describe it.
 
Right wing militias benifit from drugs in Colombia as much as the FARC if not more. Now the FARC has gone and the government and its militia control the country drugs are still a problem as they were. Colombia still produces 70%+ of the worlds Cocaine and actually the percentage is increasing not decreasing believe it or not.
 
The only way to stop drugs is cooperation. The US must crack down not on trade but also consumption. If celebrities keep getting it easy when they are caught with drugs then its hopeless to find a solution without cracking on the civil rights of the people in those areas.
 
Al-Jassas
 
The US has been cracking down very hard on the drug trade and anything related to it since the mid-1970's when it started showing up in large amounts on US soil. Keep in mind US drug laws are amongthe strongest in the Western world. Not to mention that tens of thousands of indivudals are curenly serving sentences in American prisons from drug offences of varying degrees.
 
Pikeshot is also very true in what he says about Chavez's regime, organized crime espeically of the drug type has flourished in his nation under his reign and Caracas has become one of the most crime infested cities in the world as an example of that.


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 22:38
I do not detect much geopolitical analysis in some of the foregoing posts.  Let's give it more thought than that, please.
 
Nowhere did I mention stopping the drug trade.  Stopping the drug trade is unrealistic, and people will continue to make money from it.  "Cooperation" and "technology" are not going to stop it, and drugs can and might be used as a weapon or force multiplier in strategic matters among sovereign states.  This is hardly going to be discussed in public by governments or intelligence agencies.
 
All the usual stuff about "right wing propaganda" and higher ups who make billions, and corrupt "frontier guards" is irrelevant notwithstanding individual perception and bias.  There has been plenty of press linking the president of Venezuela to narco criminals.  If that makes anyone uncomfortable, take his name out of the equation.  It is doubtful that the use of illicit drug revenue (in some form, and to varying degrees) is absent from the operations of any state entity or any intelligence agency.
 
Now, how does this affect geopolitics...in this example in the Caribbean basin?  From the standpoint of the writer, it impacts the vital interests of the United States, and those of other states along the Caribbean littoral.
 
 


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2009 at 22:49
Originally posted by Maharbbal

The lack of US control over gun trafficking to Mexico is indeed scandalous but cannot be considered the main reason why such violence is happening on the Norther border. If they didn't get their weapons from the US, they would get it from somewhere else. These guys are able to bring in tens of tons of cocaine and other drugs, you don't think that a few guns are beyond their reach. At best some small gangs would lose their gun supply. On the other hand, demand for small firearms may create the necessary economies of scale for the Mexican cartels to import big stuff they cannot find in the US market (rockets, mines, machine guns, etc.).
 
Yep.
 
 
Originally posted by Maharbbal

The argument that it is gun control in Northern Mexico that causes the violence is totally bogus because:
 
I didn't say gun control causes the violence. The war over the drug market causes the violence. Gun control just makes it worse, because it prevents law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves with lethal force.
 
 
Originally posted by Maharbbal

1. most of the people killed had a gun in the first place (many gangsters and policemen are shot). What the army brings is not so much firepower as a more organized force.
 
Many of the police that are killed work for rival gangs. The police force in Mexico is totally demoralized. Armed citizenry, by historical evidence, have greater morale, because they have an incentive to be organized in order to protect their families. Guns are an incentive for citizens to be organized and ready... without guns, there is no point for civilians to be organized against crime, because they can't to anything without guns. All they can do is duck and cover, and hope that some bureaucrats from the capital (many of whom are secretly part of this cartel war) send the army to the north for an indefinite period. This is why law-abiding citizens need to be armed. The army can't be everywhere at once, and no one has a greater incentive to protect the city than the citizens who live there.
 
And you're right, even armed people die, but that doesn't disprove that a citizen's freedom to own guns curbs violence (curbs, not stops). All genocides and mass murders were made possible because citizens were stripped of their firearms.
 
 
Originally posted by Maharbbal

2. the primary cause of the violence (control over drug trade) makes no sense north of the border.
 
The southern states of the US are seeing unprecedented increases in drug violence, because there is virtually no border patrol. Most authorities from these states confirm that this violence is, by definition, a spillover from northern Mexico.
 
 
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Self-evidently the best way to stop the violence is to stop the smuggling; this can happen if you end demand for drug and undocumented labour or if you make the trade legal by opening the border to drugs and migrants.
 
Good point. Drug prohibition is a major cause of all this. The same way all the powerful American mobs of the 30's were propped up by alcohol prohibition.
 
 
Edgewaters also makes a great point in his post. I would also add that the CIA and similar clandestine groups make billions in profits from these drugs, which is a key reason they haven't done anything about it.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2009 at 16:22
The Chavez regime (by the way the guy was elected in a free and fair election that the US recognised) has nothing to do with the drug problem in the US and Mexico. The drug problem is an American-Mexican problem that both countries know exactly what the solution is and yet dance around it.
 
Also the US did crack down on organized crime, the Italian and US mafia, which lead to a reduction in drugs where the mafia operated, however drug trade soon went to Colombian and Mexican cartels many of which were involved with the CIA back in the 80s and early 90s. Drugs are freely traded nowadays in the US cities and being caught with drugs in some states have become almost a misdemeanor.
 
It is no secret that all gang activity within the US are financed by drug money. Crack down on gangs (that is put every gang member in jail even if his only crime is that he is a gang member) and the cash funding the Mexican cartels with dry out.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2009 at 16:46
Marijuana is a misdemeanor rightly so in a few states, but hard drugs aren't people are still serving multi-year sentences for them. It is the ones that have the money to get a lawyer-and pay off a judge that get house arrest and or a lesser sentence. That is at least the case in Chicago for years now. 

-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2009 at 17:51
Al Jassas
It is no secret that all gang activity within the US are financed by drug money. Crack down on gangs (that is put every gang member in jail even if his only crime is that he is a gang member) and the cash funding the Mexican cartels with dry out.


There arn't enough prisons, do you know how bad the gang problem is? there are estimated to be over 1 million gang members.

The problem is a social one, people put blame on weapons and drugs but they don't cause the problems people do.

I have lived in mountain villages were everybody walks around with guns and everyone has a gun, however, gun crime was practically non-existant.

The problem with gangs is a tragic social cycle, broken families have kids who grow up on the streets without parental guidance, the surrounding people are in a similar predicament, the area has high unemployment and the people with respect ie people to aspire to are involved in criminal activities, usually involving narcotics. Every generation the gang members get younger and younger untill this way of life in these areas becomes the norm. Over time even in families which arn't broken, most the family is involved in some form of crime which makes the situation even worse.

This is just the lowest level of the drug trade, the highest level is an elite of very wealthy and influential people usually inside the government.



-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2009 at 18:35
Hello to you all
 
Tell me es_bih, how many celebrities have been caught with heavy drugs and got away with it?
 
As for prison problem, it is PC politics that made the situation worse, oh my god these criminals have rights crap. This guy's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ) approach is the ideal approach to deal with gangs. The US has many islands, send the criminals (the most dangerous of course) there and while at it, if these prisoners misbehave in prison, put them with a rival gang and you will see all kinds of good behavior.
 
AL-Jassas


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 00:47
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
Tell me es_bih, how many celebrities have been caught with heavy drugs and got away with it?
 
As for prison problem, it is PC politics that made the situation worse, oh my god these criminals have rights crap. This guy's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ) approach is the ideal approach to deal with gangs. The US has many islands, send the criminals (the most dangerous of course) there and while at it, if these prisoners misbehave in prison, put them with a rival gang and you will see all kinds of good behavior.
 
AL-Jassas


This is what I wrote:

Originally posted by es_bih

Marijuana is a misdemeanor rightly so in a few states, but hard drugs aren't people are still serving multi-year sentences for them. It is the ones that have the money to get a lawyer-and pay off a judge that get house arrest and or a lesser sentence. That is at least the case in Chicago for years now. 


Celebrities are but a small number of the overall population or even the overall population of "drug users." Do not think that their treatment is standard operation procedure for the rest of the residents of either state in the Union. Normal people (with no money) end up in jail daily for simple drug offenses. While at the same time people that distribute them get off nor get mentioned due to a lot of corruption in government on state and federal levels. Putting more mislead gang bangers in jail will only create a flood - our prison population is ridiculous as it is. A kid that grew in up in a bad neighborhood with an ounce of Marijuana shouldn't be persecuted or put in jail in the same manner than a high level trafficker would.
The only people in Chicago that get away with a half a year of house arrest after getting arrested with a high level of hard drugs are the ones that can afford to pay 20k to get off that charge. While at the same time a kid with a tenth as much would get 30-40 years depending on number offenses, etc...

Putting people in prison never solved anything, because the people that are being and have been put in prison are on the bottom of the ladder - and there are enough misguided, eager, and most importantly poor kids in this country to hang off the bottom of the ladder if another one falls (goes to jail).

Robert Downey Jr. and co. represent 0.1 % of that overall figure - and have no bearing on reality - because such high profile people with money usually do not have much to do with reality (R Kelly is free and acquitted of any crime - even though he taped himself having sex with a minor). That isn't even a drug related offense, but a very serous one; a pedophile without money would be in jail for at least 20 years.






-------------


Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 00:47
Al Jassas its almost socially accepted among certain celebrity circles to snort coke and smoke the mary J.

Al Jassas
As for prison problem, it is PC politics that made the situation worse, oh my god these criminals have rights crap. This guy's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ) approach is the ideal approach to deal with gangs. The US has many islands, send the criminals (the most dangerous of course) there and while at it, if these prisoners misbehave in prison, put them with a rival gang and you will see all kinds of good behavior.


It sounds good but just isn't realistic, there are an estimated million gang members, meaning there are millions connected directly or in-directly with gang related issues. There is a social underclass where this type of lifestyle and behaviour is normal. This is the real issue which needs to be tackled, everything else is superficial and intended to make the majority who don't live in such an environment to feel safer.



-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 00:54
Originally posted by Al Jassas

Hello to you all
 
Tell me es_bih, how many celebrities have been caught with heavy drugs and got away with it?
 
As for prison problem, it is PC politics that made the situation worse, oh my god these criminals have rights crap. This guy's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ) approach is the ideal approach to deal with gangs. The US has many islands, send the criminals (the most dangerous of course) there and while at it, if these prisoners misbehave in prison, put them with a rival gang and you will see all kinds of good behavior.
 
AL-Jassas


PS:

It isn't PC crap - it is a realistic issue. We have over crowded prisons full of people that either have done a crime, or when it comes to a drug crime - that haven't done as much as they are serving for. There used to be people caught with a baggy of a few grams ( a user or addict if you will) serving hardcore criminal sentences... that is the problem that caused the overflow in the first place... and going back to that won't fix the problem.

Like I said in the previous post - a gang banger isn't necessarily a drug runner - nor a criminal (yet or in some cases ever). These are social and criminal clubs-organizations that exist in areas where people are of lesser economic means (of various ethnic backgrounds from white American, to black, to Hispanic, to European newcomers...) So simply arresting these people won't stop the problem because a portion are just there for social reasons and the rest that aren't are going to be replaced by the next graduating (drop-out) class... It is an on going phenomena that is tied to economical situation and society in genral that can't be stopped by simply imprisoning a few lowly criminals or hang arounds...

Think of a weed - once you cut it out - it grows back on another part of the lawn, in order to stomp it out you have to go to the cause of it.

Unless you want to have anyone that could potentially turn to crime in jail, but then you'll have a population of 10 million left in the USA that isn't in jail.




-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 00:55
Originally posted by Bulldog

Al Jassas its almost socially accepted among certain celebrity circles to snort coke and smoke the mary J.

Al Jassas
As for prison problem, it is PC politics that made the situation worse, oh my god these criminals have rights crap. This guy's ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio ) approach is the ideal approach to deal with gangs. The US has many islands, send the criminals (the most dangerous of course) there and while at it, if these prisoners misbehave in prison, put them with a rival gang and you will see all kinds of good behavior.


It sounds good but just isn't realistic, there are an estimated million gang members, meaning there are millions connected directly or in-directly with gang related issues. There is a social underclass where this type of lifestyle and behaviour is normal. This is the real issue which needs to be tackled, everything else is superficial and intended to make the majority who don't live in such an environment to feel safer.



True.


-------------


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2009 at 10:38
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Many of the police that are killed work for rival gangs. The police force in Mexico is totally demoralized. Armed citizenry, by historical evidence, have greater morale, because they have an incentive to be organized in order to protect their families.

Armed citizenry? Please, we're not talking about repealing the Wermacht here. We're talking organized crime, steps away from civil war. No tell me how the "armed citizenry" of Bagdad, Belfast and Bilbao have been doing in favour of peace lately... How many bandits and mafiosi origin from armed citizenry. I see some hysterical evidence, little historical. European history is rich in concerned and organized citizen who end up fighting like dogs destroying their country in the process (check up Greece, Italy and the Ukraine right after WWII).

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Guns are an incentive for citizens to be organized and ready... without guns, there is no point for civilians to be organized against crime, because they can't to anything without guns. All they can do is duck and cover, and hope that some bureaucrats from the capital (many of whom are secretly part of this cartel war) send the army to the north for an indefinite period. This is why law-abiding citizens need to be armed. The army can't be everywhere at once, and no one has a greater incentive to protect the city than the citizens who live there.
As it happen, there is a little something called specialization: you do half my workload, I do half yours and every one benefits.
Secondly, lets take into account some cultural traits for a second: it is Mexico we're talking about here not Switzerland. Law-abidingness does not reach the same levels (just stating a fact, the same way as a Frenchman will drive as fast as he can without getting caught while a German will drive as fast as s allowed).

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

And you're right, even armed people die, but that doesn't disprove that a citizen's freedom to own guns curbs violence (curbs, not stops). All genocides and mass murders were made possible because citizens were stripped of their firearms.
We're not talking genocide yet, and anyway you're getting it the wrong way around: every mass murder starts with someone picking up a firearm.
 
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

The southern states of the US are seeing unprecedented increases in drug violence, because there is virtually no border patrol. Most authorities from these states confirm that this violence is, by definition, a spillover from northern Mexico.
C'mon I'm sure any Northern Mexican state would happily exchange its murder rate for any Sourthern US state. Not the same league.
 
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival

Good point. Drug prohibition is a major cause of all this. The same way all the powerful American mobs of the 30's were propped up by alcohol prohibition.
 If memory serves, they were killing each others with legal tommy guns, not non-existing banned firearms.
 
In economy there is such thing as the "border effect" which has a huge opportunity cost attached to but also benefits a small minority. I believe that's what we have here (since there's a border). Firearms or not are not really the matter, bad guys would kill each other with forks if necessary! The only thing I know is that it is more difficult to kill someone with a fork than with a 9mm pistol, so I tend to prefer having a concern citizen with a fork than with a pistol. But hey that's personal, I tend to like being alive than dead... granted my set of preference and I have no right to impose it on any one.


-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 11:50

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Armed citizenry? Please, we're not talking about repealing the Wermacht here. We're talking organized crime, steps away from civil war. No tell me how the "armed citizenry" of Bagdad, Belfast and Bilbao have been doing in favour of peace lately... How many bandits and mafiosi origin from armed citizenry. I see some hysterical evidence, little historical. European history is rich in concerned and organized citizen who end up fighting like dogs destroying their country in the process (check up Greece, Italy and the Ukraine right after WWII).

 

You said it yourself in your previous post, and I agreed: Criminals and mafiosos have guns no matter what. Making guns legal for citizens simply evens out the playing field because most citizens in any part of the world are law-abiding. As for your examples, do you really believe a militia committed to dominating the country or overthrowing the government, is going to be concerned about what the government says about the right to carry guns? Right-to-carry laws only benefit the average citizen, since criminals and militias will get their guns no matter what.

 

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal

As it happen, there is a little something called specialization: you do half my workload, I do half yours and every one benefits.
Secondly, lets take into account some cultural traits for a second: it is Mexico we're talking about here not Switzerland. Law-abidingness does not reach the same levels (just stating a fact, the same way as a Frenchman will drive as fast as he can without getting caught while a German will drive as fast as s allowed).

 

Obviously the army is more efficient and powerful, what I'm saying is the army shouldn't be the only form of security, because every human has a right to protect their own family. As for the cultural traits, I don't agree or disagree, you make an interesting point.

 

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal

We're not talking genocide yet, and anyway you're getting it the wrong way around: every mass murder starts with someone picking up a firearm.

 

You're implying there were never any mass murders before firearms were invented. This simply isn't the case.

 

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal

C'mon I'm sure any Northern Mexican state would happily exchange its murder rate for any Sourthern US state. Not the same league.

 

All the more reason why its citizens should have the right to protect themselves with a fraction of the deadly force that the criminals possess.

 

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal

In economy there is such thing as the "border effect" which has a huge opportunity cost attached to but also benefits a small minority. I believe that's what we have here (since there's a border).

 

Sure, they get it cheap and go north and sell it for 10x the original price without paying any tarrifs. There is a border, but there is no border security. The U.S., being heavily involved in the drug trafficking industry, and planning a future North American Union, has no incentive to spend resources on border patrol. This is evident with the millions of illegals we have in this country. The border exists in paperwork and on maps, but the de facto border no longer exists.

 

The bottom line is, Americans are the consumers of the drugs sold by these drug-runners. They have an incentive not to kill or make a lot of noise in their main market. If northern Mexicans were their main market, they would never have had crime at this scale. But since they do have rampant crime, they should have right-to-carry laws.

 

 

Originally posted by Maharbbal

Firearms or not are not really the matter, bad guys would kill each other with forks if necessary! The only thing I know is that it is more difficult to kill someone with a fork than with a 9mm pistol, so I tend to prefer having a concern citizen with a fork than with a pistol. But hey that's personal, I tend to like being alive than dead... granted my set of preference and I have no right to impose it on any one.

 

In this comment you make the switch from "bad guy" to "concerned citizen" as if they are interchangable or synonymous terms. I simply don't agree with the fundamentals of what you're saying, so we should leave the gun discussion for another thread.

-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 12:12
There is a simple solution to stop criminality. You put emergency state, close a whole neighbourhood and put the army to inspect house by house everybody.
There the guns, drugs and everything else appeares, and the criminals that oppose are shot in site. For the rest, you pick the people involved in drugs, that own guns, etc. and send them to a concentration camp.
 
Democracy is soft to stop countries that are in state of anarchy. Sometimes tougher measures are requered.
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2009 at 17:24
Whoa, I discovered this topic much too late. Anyway, a few responses to other people's posts:

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival


And northern Mexico, in terms of crime rate, is not that different from the rest of the country--- Look at Mexico City, geographically in the middle of the country, and one of the most crime-infested areas in the world.

Mexico City is not even one of the most crime infested areas in Mexico. I can easily name a dozen cities in Mexico that are much more violent and criminal.

Again, because citizens are unarmed and armed criminals know this. Even southern Mexico is infested with crime, with major rebellions in Oaxaca and Chiapas.

Not only are those not 'major' rebellions, those rebellions are actually nonexistant by now. The 'rebellion' in Oaxaca, which was rather escalated civil unrest rather than a real insurrection, has been crushed in 2006 already, and in Chiapas there hasn't been any serious fighting since 1994.

Originally posted by Pinguin

Well, in the possitive side, what's going on in Mexico could mean the beginning of the end of the tolerancy to crime.
 
Twenty years ago, Colombia was in a similar situation. The guerrilla and the drug lords literalilly dominated that country, killing each politician and military that tried to prosecute them. They even asaulted the supreme court and killed a hundred people. Fear had that country helpless. But though people came and started to persecute and kill the bad elements. When Uribe arrived he started to destroy sistematically every single source of crime and violence, and today they have the FARC and drug lords diminished in theirs violence and power.
 
Mexico will have to follow a similar path. It will happens sooner or later. They are concient the situation is escaping from theirs hands. What they need is more decision and a couragious man as Alvaro Uribe in Colombia.

No, I don't agree. The mess in Mexico started after the Mexican government declared a war against drug cartels. Mexico has never been exactly crime free, but death tolls have only started to get four or five digit numbers since the government involved the army and started a war on the cartels.

Besides, the most fearsome narcos, the Zetas, are made up of deserters from Mexican and Guatemalan paramilitary organizations. Police cooperating with the drug cartels is bad enough, so you don't want to have the same thing happen to the army.

And ironically, the democratization of Mexico might also have something to do with it. Before the 1990s criminal groups were supported or part of the PRIs vast corporatist apparatus. The government (especially state and local goverments) and organized crime were basically allies of each other, so the drug bosses had no reason to go on a killing rampage. Now the corporatist system has been dismantled the cartels have to fight for their turf.

Originally posted by pikeshot

With the possibility of previous cooperation between Hugo Chavez's government and FARC (widely suspected but not yet proved), what might the probability be of Venezuelan involvement in Mexico's current problems?  There is still plenty of narco-business in Colombia, regardless of improvement, because of the money involved.

Do you have any sources for that or is it just plain speculation?
The only time I heard somebody claiming Chavez had anything to do with Mexican drug violence was Glen Beck on Fox News, and he also hinted Al Qaida and Putin could be involved.

Originally posted by Armenian Survival

Many of the police that are killed work for rival gangs. The police force in Mexico is totally demoralized. Armed citizenry, by historical evidence, have greater morale, because they have an incentive to be organized in order to protect their families. Guns are an incentive for citizens to be organized and ready... without guns, there is no point for civilians to be organized against crime, because they can't to anything without guns. All they can do is duck and cover, and hope that some bureaucrats from the capital (many of whom are secretly part of this cartel war) send the army to the north for an indefinite period. This is why law-abiding citizens need to be armed. The army can't be everywhere at once, and no one has a greater incentive to protect the city than the citizens who live there.
 

An armed citizenry like in El Salvador? Over there there are numerous citizen militias, private death squads and other nongovernment groups cracking down on gangs.

Coincidentally El Salvador has the highest homicide rate of the entire world.



-------------


Posted By: whalebreath
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 04:23
Over the past 25 years I've spent a lot of time in Latina America particularly in Mexico.

It's sad to see the uninformed speculation here and in many places on the net, people who have no information but the worst kind of sensationalist garbage repeating the slander over and over and over.

Mexico today is nowhere near the kind of apocalyptic societal collapse as predicted and given some political backbone and judicious and long term use of deadly force can put those gangs on their heels.

This is what's happened in Colombia-a place I've visited as well-Colombia needed a lot of US military help but now is seeing the strength of narco gangs on the wane.

Bad News-faced with overwhelming force traffickers are relocating to Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador the problem is relocating and will continue to be a conern to democracies everywhere.


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 12:18
What is funny is that while Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, etc. are all praised by the US govenment for their heavy handed antidrug crackdowns and receive aid accordingly, Bolivia, that is constantly being blasted for being uncooperative in the fight against drugs, is the only country where cocaine production and export are actually in decline.

-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 16:08
How dare you Mixo praise the rogue regime of Evo (the evil himeslf) Morales, that commie SOB who dared to challenge the US and decided that the only way forward was to end the privilages for the rich and declared war on corporate America LOL.
 
Al-Jassas


Posted By: Cryptic
Date Posted: 10-Mar-2009 at 16:24
Originally posted by Al Jassas

No, read the articles. 90% of the weapons come from US and particularly from Texas and Arizona which has I think the most liberal gun laws in the US. Plus AK-47 is manufactured in the US so are many Russian and Israeli guns the mob like.
 
Military style weapons (AK-47s, M-16 variants) etc have become increasingly difficult to purchase in large quantities in the USA. This is even true in states like Texas and Arizona. Furthermore, purchases are tracked by the federal government and anyone systematically purchasing large quantities of such weapons in going to get a visit by the FBI.  
 
Military type weapons found in Mexico most likely come from Panama and Columbia. In the case of Panamanian bought weapons, the ultiamte source is either China, or more likely, Chinese companies operating in Singapore.  The US may supply high capacity pistols to the Mexican drug gangs, but I bet that even large scale purchases of pistols in the USA are now tracked and investigated.


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 18:05
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival


You have it backwards. The reason why the violence is much more concentrated in northern Mexico as opposed to the southern US is precisely because most people in the southern US own guns, while Mexicans throughout their country are victims of the tightest gun regulations in the hemisphere. Thats why, despite complete freedom of movement due to an ungaurded border, and freedom to own guns in the US, the drug violence is more than 10-fold inside Mexico than in the US. Because cartels know that the citizens (and even police) in northern Mexico are sitting ducks, and unless there are full-time army patrols in northern Mexico (which they started lately), the people are defenseless. Not the case in Texas, where you can create citizen militias out of a couple of city blocks, and you don't even need police protection from drug criminals, since even granny knows how to use a rifle. Cartels know that everyone in Texas owns guns, which is exactly why they operate a few miles away in northern Mexico.

 

And northern Mexico, in terms of crime rate, is not that different from the rest of the country--- Look at Mexico City, geographically in the middle of the country, and one of the most crime-infested areas in the world. Again, because citizens are unarmed and armed criminals know this. Even southern Mexico is infested with crime, with major rebellions in Oaxaca and Chiapas.


You got this one wrong.

Gun ownership has no relation with crime rates. If that were so, the American South should be a sea of peace. Instead, it has the highest gun related murder rate in the country.

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.

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.

And the reason why the violence is in Mexico and not in the US is simple: the Mexican government is fighting them there, whereas the American government refuses to fight them here. Have the American forces fight them in the US, and you will start seeing beheaded heads in coolers in Texas.


-------------


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 18:30
Originally posted by Cryptic

Originally posted by Al Jassas

No, read the articles. 90% of the weapons come from US and particularly from Texas and Arizona which has I think the most liberal gun laws in the US. Plus AK-47 is manufactured in the US so are many Russian and Israeli guns the mob like.


Military style weapons (AK-47s, M-16 variants) etc have become increasingly difficult to purchase in large quantities in the USA. This is even true in states like Texas and Arizona. Furthermore, purchases are tracked by the federal government and anyone systematically purchasing large quantities of such weapons in going to get a visit by the FBI.


Military type weapons found in Mexico most likely come from Panama and Columbia. In the case of Panamanian bought weapons, the ultiamte source is either China, or more likely, Chinese companies operating in Singapore. The US may supply high capacity pistols to the Mexican drug gangs, but I bet that even large scale purchases of pistols in the USA are now tracked and investigated.


Research has found that most weapons that Mexican drug lords use are from the U.S. And the NRA and its nut ball competitor work hard to keep all kind of legal loopholes where you can sell weapons without a check. For example, in Virginia the loophole that allows people to sell guns at gun shows without a background check was going to be closed after the Virginia Tech massacre. Yet the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby fought to keep it there. and the NRA won.

I think that these fantasies that the drug lords' weapons don't come from the U.S. is from the strong denial of radical gun advocates not being able to accept that their ideas have consequences. Well, guess what, they do. Keep fighting to make gun purchases easier than getting a traffic license, and arming organized crime is one of the by products.

-------------


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2009 at 22:38
Originally posted by Al Jassas

One of the reasons why drug cartels thrive in Mexico is the US itself. All weapons that the cartels have come from the US and US citizens sell these weapons which they can get easily without any checks, especially assult weapons, to the cartels and the US refuses to accept that it is partially responsible for the mess especially in the border cities where Cartels have more weapons than the federales:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-drugs_N.htm?csp=34 - http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-02-26-drugs_N.htm?csp=34

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1 - http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4695848&page=1

 

Al-Jassas


This is a false assumption with only a grain of truth. Even if all the guns were confiscated by the government the black market would fill the void. China was caught via COSCO smuggling fully automatic machine guns through San Pedro port and selling them to LA gangs. It was in the LA Times and I saw the article but later.
Al Jassas PLEASE read:
Drug cartels' new weaponry means war from LA Times.

Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,229992.story

Hugostr read up on gun ownership and how legal gun owners have prevented incidents:

Here you can contact them if you want to really know the truth, that is up to you. I leave it up to you because I do not like to argue with you.

http://gunowners.org/ - http://gunowners.org/

-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 01:38

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

Mexico City is not even one of the most crime infested areas in Mexico. I can easily name a dozen cities in Mexico that are much more violent and criminal.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl

Not only are those not 'major' rebellions, those rebellions are actually nonexistant by now. The 'rebellion' in Oaxaca, which was rather escalated civil unrest rather than a real insurrection, has been crushed in 2006 already, and in Chiapas there hasn't been any serious fighting since 1994.

You're probably right about Chiapas and Oaxaca. But my only point of mentioning that as well as Mexico City, was a response to show that crime is a problem all over Mexico, not just its northern states (check the post I was responding to).

 
Originally posted by Mixcoatl

An armed citizenry like in El Salvador? Over there there are numerous citizen militias, private death squads and other nongovernment groups cracking down on gangs.

Coincidentally El Salvador has the highest homicide rate of the entire world.

I'm not an expert on El Salvador, but I would imagine the problem is not guns, the problem is probably weak central government and little or no precedent of law, which leads to many different groups vying for power (I'm sure there are several other factors as well). Does El Salvador fit this description?

Plus, if you describe these groups as "death squads", I don't think they would give a crap about gun laws, because they're already breaking more serious laws like murder. This is besides the fact that most militias don't carry legal models of guns, but rather military-grade weaponry (unless the militias you're referring to only carry handguns and shotguns, which would be a first).
 
 
Originally posted by hugoestr

You got this one wrong.

Gun ownership has no relation with crime rates. If that were so, the American South should be a sea of peace. Instead, it has the highest gun related murder rate in the country.
 
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.
 
 
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.
 
 
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.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 16:27
Originally posted by pinguin

There is a simple solution to stop criminality. You put emergency state, close a whole neighbourhood and put the army to inspect house by house everybody.
There the guns, drugs and everything else appeares, and the criminals that oppose are shot in site. For the rest, you pick the people involved in drugs, that own guns, etc. and send them to a concentration camp.
 
Democracy is soft to stop countries that are in state of anarchy. Sometimes tougher measures are requered.
 

You, Chilean joker, always ready to start a military dictature ain't ya?

Armenian survival, I don't sincerly hope to convince you but let me expose my point calmly:

Letw take a world where people can allocate their ressources whether to productive endeavours, or to "protection". We'll all agree that it is best to have every one investng as much as possible in production. Of course to preserves one's production comes a point when one has to invest in protection.

Protection is like any other activity: best done by professionals. You don't brew your beer, bake your own bread, teach math to your own kids or build your own car. You know it would be a loss of time and energy to do so, you trust professionals. On the other hand, people trust to do for them whatever it is you do best (in your case doctor if I am not mistaaking). Why would this be any different for protection? I want my bread to be as good as possible and as cheap as possible: I trust my baker. I want my protection to be as good and cheap as possible (so I can allocate as much resources as possible to production).

So saying that every one should get a gun is about as smart as saying that every one should bake his own bread or teach his own kids math!

There is worth, one's spendings in protection are correlated with one's neighbours' spending in protection. You don't want to be the only one without an alarm in the street. You don't want to be the only one without a gun in the bloc because whose to say that thy neighbour is going to use his in a sensible manner. So every penny I spend on protection induces my surrounding to spend two... meanwhile productive spendings plummet. So the beginning of an arm race is not some begnine event, it's the start of a very vicious circle.

Guns are a very expensive mean of protection (the price of the weapon, the safety devices, ideally the training, the accidents, the stolen firearms used by criminals). I think Mexico is the typical case when a strong and collective protection system ought to be put forward. Just look at C. Juarez, 2000 extra soldiers did in a few weeks what 100,000 guns would have taken years to achieve. The state is rightfully accused of getting a lot of things badly worng; but when it comes to violence and protection (the core of its business) it is still the best.



-------------
I am a free donkey!


Posted By: eaglecap
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 18:04
Protection is like any other activity: best done by professionals.

You have got to be kidding!!
Home invasions are getting really bad in some of our cities so if this happens you are saying call the professionals- meaning the police. Right, by the time the police arrive the victims would either be dead or very traumatized and the low-lives gone.

Now with a trusty 9mm well it is either them or me!! I would rather not kill someone because I value human life but I also do not believe in taking the chance they have the same values.

Making guns illegal in the USA will not stop them from entering Mexico via the black market and if read the article I posted then you will see most illegal guns are entering Mexico are from elsewhere.


http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=66561 - http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=66561

wait for the police right!!

You know this is a very hot topic and it will only go in circles but the main point is about Mexico where law and order seems to be falling apart and spreading across the border. I live near the Mexican border so that concerns me and if one of these thugs tries to hurt me or any family member I have the right to protect myself; via a gun or any other means.

It also concerns me about the many innocent Mexicans who oppose the violence but are victims. Many of their business men are fleeing to the USA for refuge. I have been to Mexico enough to know that most hate the corruption and violence. In Mazatlan I witnessed a peaceful protest of Mexican citizens against corruptions and violence in government. One way but for another topic end NAFTA and help the small farmers rebuild but that won't happen.


-------------
Λοιπόν, αδελφοί και οι συμπολίτες και οι στρατιώτες, να θυμάστε αυτό ώστε μνημόσυνο σας, φήμη και ελευθερία σας θα ε


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2009 at 18:14
Originally posted by Maharbbal

Originally posted by pinguin

There is a simple solution to stop criminality. You put emergency state, close a whole neighbourhood and put the army to inspect house by house everybody.
There the guns, drugs and everything else appeares, and the criminals that oppose are shot in site. For the rest, you pick the people involved in drugs, that own guns, etc. and send them to a concentration camp.
 
Democracy is soft to stop countries that are in state of anarchy. Sometimes tougher measures are requered.

You, Chilean joker, always ready to start a military dictature ain't ya?

 
Who is talking about military dictatures? This is what our democratically elected government does to control criminality in our worst neighbourhoods. I am talking about today. No kidding. Well, the state don't use the army, but our militarized police. It doesn't proclaim a nationwide state of emergency, but it declare a thoublesome neighbour "out of control" and under direct intervention by the state.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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.
According the the next website ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate )
 
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


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: eaglecap
Date 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


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
 


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date 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։


Posted By: Panther
Date 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!






-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Guests
Date 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).


-------------


Posted By: Leonidas
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Maharbbal
Date 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!


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2009 at 16:17
Make suicide legal, and ask the government to provide the suicide rooms... That's easier...

-------------


Posted By: Al Jassas
Date 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


Posted By: Bulldog
Date 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.





-------------
      What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.
Albert Pine



Posted By: Guests
Date 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.
 
 


-------------


Posted By: Seko
Date 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&feed=rss.news


-------------


Posted By: hugoestr
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2009 at 03:56
Originally posted by Maharbbal

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!



It all depends on the drug and on the kind of addiction a person has. I actually know a person who was a heroin addict for years, and held a job during that whole time. The same applies to other kinds of drugs. Yet some people with addictive self destructive behavior will destroy their lives by becoming addicted to video games, collecting garbage, or even going to church.

Also, to be able to legalize different substances we will have to create an infrastructure to deal with addicts. Right now that structure are prisons.

-------------


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2009 at 21:57
Originally posted by hugoestr

You missed the point of what I said: gun control does prevent deaths.
 
I would love to show you why this statement is wrong, but lets do it in the appropriate thread.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2009 at 00:59
You have alternative numbers on deaths by guns from Mexico for the 20th century?

-------------


Posted By: calvo
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2009 at 08:49
Actually, the other day I was talking to a Mexican guy about this very issue.
He said that Mexico 30 or 40 years ago was not at all the dangerous place that it is today.

He summarised the problem to the following:
- a very high birth rate (although decreasing now), which gave rise to a fast population growth, much faster than the economy could provide new jobs.
- the one-party-state of the PRI that dominated the country for 70 years. As with any political party, when it stays in power for a long time, it gets corrupted. If PRI had been in power for 70 years, its corruption must have been exaggerated!
- even with the oil boom of the previous decades, the government and businessmen did little to invest the surplus capital in improving the nation's infrastructure, education level, and basic living standards. This lack of public investment, combined with the fast-growing population (especially in the lower classes), gave rise to a large underclass and a growing disparity between rich and poor.

Last and most important of all: the main problem is "DRUG TRAFFICKING".
Since the 90s, the clan wars over the control of the drug market has generated a large number of unsolved murder cases, and the police did not have enough resources to investigate all these murders and illegal activities.
As a consequence, most petty crimes went unpunished because the police has little time or power to deal with them. By knowing that anyone could get away with commiting any crime; the petty criminals broke loose on the streets: commiting robberies, kidnappings, thefts et.

For example, many of the "sexual perverts" who rape, torture, and kill prostitutes the Ciudad Juarez are foreigners who settled there just because they know they can get away with it.

THE RISE IN ORGANIZED CRIME ACTIVITY GENERATED AN INCREASE IN DISORGANIZED CRIME.

My Mexican friend said that the only ones to blame for the problems in his country are the Mexicans themselves. They are a country of rich natural resources, an exotic cultural heritage giving them huge potential for developing a booming tourist industry like in Spain, and a hard-working populace...
If the government and businessmen had invested wisely the money they earned through the oil boom to forment the growth of a middle class, things could have turned out very differently.





Posted By: pebbles
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2009 at 09:00
Originally posted by calvo

 


My Mexican friend said that the only ones to blame for the problems in his country are the Mexicans themselves.They are a country of rich natural resources, an exotic cultural heritage giving them huge potential for developing a booming tourist industry like in Spain, and a hard-working populace...
If the government and businessmen had invested wisely the money they earned through the oil boom to forment the growth of a middle class, things could have turned out very differently.



 
 
Exactly !
 
Mexico needs more citizens like him.
 
Stop blaming " gringo conspiracy " purposely keep down Mexico.I heard it directly from a indigenous looking Mexican-American colleague.
 
 
 


Posted By: hugoestr
Date Posted: 21-Mar-2009 at 03:54
Hey, let's hear it directly from another Mexican too!

The state-party regime was a compromise to pacify Mexico after the Revolution of 1910. Using today's language, every stakeholder in the country had a place and a say in the system. This didn't happen when all of the generals got together one day and decided that this was a good idea. Instead, it played out for two decades, and in some cases, even beyond that.

One could say many things about Mexico, but its leadership during the 50s and 60s did invest in infrastructure and education, turning a nation where the vast majority were illiterate after the revolution and creating a public education system from kindergarden to university (now, the quality is another issue, but considering the beginnings, this was an impressive change.)

The Mexican government was even successful in cutting down the birth rate. Unfortunately, the population was already so high by the time that the birth rate was reduced (in the 80s), that you still had a wave of young people coming to age with no prospects for jobs.

The drug trafficking problems were well under way in the 80s, probably starting back in the 70s when the drug use in the U.S. began to rise. By the 80s, there were already turf wars.

But the real problem with Mexico has been an ongoing declining economy since 1982. There hasn't been any real recovery for the mass of the population. This was the result of economic crisis that got tied together with massive concentration of wealth. That, more than anything, has been the cause of social breakdown in Mexico.

Mexico does create a massive amount of wealth. The problem is that it is not distributed justly. And the social problems are a result of that. And there is no easy solution on how to redistribute it, and those with it don't want to share it.

After all, the elites get the mobs that they deserve.

-------------


Posted By: ArmenianSurvival
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2009 at 20:55
Originally posted by hugoestr

You have alternative numbers on deaths by guns from Mexico for the 20th century?
 
Nope, there are many statistics and studies done on the U.S. in terms of gun control and its effect on crime. There are also statistics of other countries where a significant part of the population owns guns, compared to countries where guns are virtually banned, and all of these show the same general trend.
 
You were the one talking about Mexico as an example of how gun control correlates with a lower crime rate, so you're the one who needs these statistics on Mexico, not me.


-------------
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!

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

Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com