Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt, Threatening National Security
 

I wonder how many of these deserters took there guns, ammo, and grenades with them?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,487911,00.html

-S

Isn't it odd that Mexican criminals still have access to his kind of hardware, despite strict Mexican gun-control laws? Take a lesson from them, anti-gun activists. Economic difficulties are the prime cause of gun violence, not the availability of guns. Perhaps you should focus your efforts on the disease rather than the symptoms.

This aint good for me... hehe but yea gun violence in mex it getting out of hand... tell it to me that i live 40Km from Tijuana things are nuts there i stay out as much as i can. usualy the deal goes you dont mess with them they wont mess with you, and that is true, but if you stumble upon somthing you shouln't see or just happen to be at the wrong place when a shooting goes, well... to bad.

where i live (tecate) we rlly dont have much trouble with this kind of stuff but since the gov. is getting stricter in Tijuana the bad stuff is slowly trickling over here now:stare:

So that's the reason America hasn't invaded Mexico :DL

I don't find it odd at all. I'm sure its very easy to smuggle guns into that country, Especially if you are a drug cartel. The amount of gun violence also clearly indicates that availability is high not low. Poverty is certainly a factor in the causes of violence yes, but availability is also a key factor too (hard to have gun violence with out guns). The problem with guns is they make it easier to kill in a moment of anger.

Now mind you I am a realist, and I am perfectly aware that the criminal element when faced with the unavailability of guns would simply switch to knives and chains and other old school gang weapons, but the results tend to be a little less lethal.

Thank you for the reasonable and well-presented argument. You are quite correct in your assertion that guns are readly available in Mexico. I also think that you are correct in believing that a lack of guns would not eliminate violent crime there.

However the points on which I think we are most likely to have a fundamental disagreement are that I believe that gun regulations, no matter how strict, and no matter in what society, are ineffective when it comes to the criminal element. U.S. Prohibition is a good example of this.
Hence, I would rather that honest citizenry be able to arm themselves as well, to defend against criminal threats. I also believe that guns in the hands of citizens serve a s a deterrent to criminal activity if they are prevalent enough.

Your thoughts?

The laws, in and of themselves, only represent half of the problem. Legislative bodies can come up with whatever laws they want but as long as the power and capacity to enforce those laws is not on hand then they exist only on paper. The power of enforcement is obviously nonexistent in these areas of Mexico, as it seems they're staring down nothing less than an armed insurgency.

Not saying that your ideas on gun control are wrong, but this is not an effective case study. Show me a case where both gun control laws and the capacity to enforce said laws are strong, yet gun violence is also heavy, and you would have a point.

Other than the U.S.? Okay, how about Russia, China, and a host of totalitarian states (esp. in Africa) that effectively govern their nations with what amounts to martial law? They all have the laws and the capacity to enforce them, and gun violence remains unchecked. How about Iraq? A a antion under military control that still manages to get military-grade weapons?

I, personally, could easily obtain an M240 machine gun and ammunition for it and go on a killing spree. I have access to a reserve armory. But I don't do that because I'm not militant and I have a good job, so there is no reason for me to be a criminal.

For my case, I present Switzerland. A nation with fairly relaxed gun-control and a healthy economy. Many citizens there are required to own guns as part of their militia obligations. They also have a very healthy economy due to their free-trade practices. Yet, Switzerland has one of the lowest gun-violence rates per capita in the world.

If nothing else, just ask yourself which you would prefer if you were a common criminal; an armed victim, or an unarmed one?

The post above shows it all. One could elaborate, but it is thought out and said to a degree where there is really no need.

It comes down to this, someone can buy an AK-47 fully automatic in downtown London for the going price of $800 - way cheaper than it is here to buy one fully automatic. The point being, in a perfect world, one would not need guns. Problem is, you live in an imperfect world. You do the math.

-S

Not a good example to use , they had a very large military that was disbanded but allowed to take home weapons , it has several very large terrorist militias that have been very well armed for decades , oh and some bright spark decided that to rebuild the disbanded military it would be a good idea to ship lots of military grade weapons from the Balkans ...but didn't bother with checking on the shipments so a very large amount of them went walkabout on arrival in Iraq .

Subman, you know what I think is more dangerous, is the ACLU helping illegals sue the ranchers who find these roaches and round them up on their property....

Sorry for the delay have been rather busy for the last bit.

Ok first off gun laws. I agree gun laws so far have been non effective for several reasons, the biggest being localization differences (the old go across to a state where gun laws are weak). My thought on making it more effective would be first to change the control system from the state to the federal level. Second all loop holes and other tricks that the criminal element uses to get their firearms from legal sources need to be closed. Gun sales need to be recorded carefully, theft of weapons needs to be mandatoraly reported with fines, jail time or even liability for the use of the weapon if one fails to report a theft (and monitored too, anyone who has multiple guns stolen multiple times should have their license revoked for not safely storing their weapons). Lastly the companies that make weapons specifically intended for criminal use (like the tec-9) which can be easily converted to full auto fire need to be taken to task and shut down. Anyone with a serious criminal record should probably also be banned from gun ownership (with strict penalties if broken)

Ideally the laws would let proper law abiding citizens have the firearms they desire (with in reason, i don't think military grade weapons should be easily available), and hinder the criminal element from obtaining firearms from legal sources. Of course this wont eliminate criminals with firearms, but it would help to reduce availability (once the current batch of firearms washes out of the system anyhow). They would have to resort more to smuggling guns in which is much more expensive, and lowers the supply. Lets face it the vast majority of weapons used in the US by criminals came from legal sources like gun shows and states with lax gun laws.

I do not support having civilians armed with concealed (or visible) weapons in public. First off I don't believe it is a deterrent (it certainly wasn't in the "wild west"). Second i have strong concerns about collateral damage, mistaken shootouts between civilians, the increased risks to law enforcement personnel, not to mention the usual problems of tempers and alcohol. I think violent death would go up as a statistic not down.

Ultimately though if you want to really reduce the violence, you have to change the societal issues which are the root cause of the violence. You mentioned Switzerland and gun violence, I could mention as the opposite Japan, which also has very low violence and extremely strict weapons laws. These are different societies though with very different dynamics. The distribution of wealth, and the extremes of the distribution level, along with average education level are strongly associated with the level of gun violence in a country. Countries with excessive gun violence often tend to have high to extreme amounts of poverty, very large extremes of wealth distribution, and low to non existent education levels among the lower classes. All of which tends to lead to anger, frustration, aggression, substance abuse, and violence. Japan and Switzerland aren't gun violence magnets because the wealth distribution is a bit more balanced, education levels are much higher, government assistance is greater, and there is much less poverty.

As for if I were a criminal, I doubt that people armed would phase me much. After all I probably belong to a gang, who has been having an armed conflict with another gang, friends have been murdered, I've probably murdered. I would defiantly know how to use my guns very well, and as for civilians, I would simply shoot first if everyone is armed, preferably with a silencer to minimize retaliation. I would probably also be a substance abuser, and not expect to live very long, so I probably wouldn't care a whole lot if I got killed, just as long as I killed you back.

Subman1 I agree, we live in an imperfect world, but surely we can find a way of coexisting with out the need to arm ourselves to the teeth.

Oh and lastly I myself am a gun owner, I inherited a couple of fully functional family heirlooms from the ending days of the wild west. I firmly believe in responsible safe gun ownership.

Anyhow ill close off with the NRA line that guns don't kill people, people do... Unfortunately people are the problem as no one is perfect. Guns make killing a whole lot easier and quicker, so quick you can kill someone before you even have a chance to think about it, or realize it.

@ NeonSamurai

That is the one of the most well-phrased and effective arguments I have ever heard on gun legislation.
Honestly, I've never even heard anyone mention Japan, even in debates. It is an effective counterpoint to Switzerland and some others, isn't it? Singapore is another good one.

It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement about gun legislation. Honeslty, I don't know which of us is more correct, but I'd rather take responsibility for my own security. Evidently, you have fears that the populace cannot effectively use gun ownership safely against criminals. And that is a valid concern.
However, the Constitution enforces the right of American citzens to bear arms. A right that "shall not be infringed". As such, I remain a staunch proponent of very limited gun control.

On the issue of adressing the causes of gun violence, namely poverty, as you pointed out, I think the best solution is a free market system, and a free society.
The wealthiest nations in the world, per capita, are usually those rated highest on the index of economic freedom. Exceptions include nations with an overabundance of oil.
Switzerland has a very free economy, as does Lichtenstein, and they consistently rate high in terms of GNP per capita. Japan, not so much. Japan is the closest thing to a "centralist" free market on the globe, in economic terms. And, while gun violence per capita is relatively low in Japan, the suicide rate is very high, as is the rate of deadly assault.


One last contention here. Criminals do not know how to use guns well. Please understand that this is entirely my own opinion, so take it as you like.
I'm a trained combat veteran, and I live in a state (Texas) where private gun ownership is fairly prevalent. I've seen friends accomplish remarkable feats of marksmanship with virtualy every type of firearm. I, myself, can easily hit a B-type target 500 yards away ten times out of ten, using iron sights on an M16A2 rifle (from the prone), assuming the wind isn't really bad.

If citizens were required to demonstrate adequate marksmanship and gun safety before recieving a permit to carry a firearm in public, perhaps we could reach some common ground?

Perhaps that could be negotiable, but I will address your other points first.

Like I said in the end a lot of violence comes down to social economic terms, and the societies value system. This is why we can find examples of countries with low violent crime levels, and either loose gun control, or strong gun control. Possession in the end is a non factor. Guns are simply a facilitator of violent crime and not necessarily a deterrent.

I don't know either which in the end would be the best solution. I can only go on the past where people did openly carry firearms, the so called wild west. The fact that a lot of people were armed did not seem to slow the criminal element at all. Though the wild west had its own dynamic which is different from today's United States so it may not prove to be a valid comparison.

Now the constitution argument can be taken many ways, for example what exactly did the founding fathers mean by bear arms? It can be interpreted to mean the right to own arms, the right to carry them, or the right to join the military. All are equally valid interpretations. Also that right was enacted at a very different time then now. In those days the United States relied almost entirely on a militia army for national and civil defense. A militia which provided its own arms. Also the land was hostile and it was necessary for civilians to carry weapons for protection and survival. Times have changed since then, and the constitution as a living entity has also changed with them. As such it would be perfectly valid to amend that aspect of the constitution. Personally I think that right should be clarified better.

I generally agree, but I think there should be some legal restraints on free economy to ensure it is serving the public good, not an individual's (or group's) right to exploit everyone else for their own benefit. I would also point out that countries like Switzerland and Japan (to a lesser extent) have strong social support structures designed to help those in their society who have need (both economically and educationally). The best societies are ones which balance the rights and needs of the individual against the rights and needs of the whole. Over value one or the other and society will either tear itself apart, or be rife with social issues and upheaval.

Ya Japan has its issues, all countries do. Japan culturally is also very very different from North American or European culture, to the point where it can be almost alien to us. Various social pressures are one of the things responsible for the higher rates of suicide in that culture. Deadly assault I'm not exactly sure what the root cause is, I would suspect some of it originates from youthful rebellion, other from traditions of the past, and the rest to criminal syndications such as the Yakuza.

Well that criminals were not very skillful with firearms was in a sense true in the past, that dynamic is changing. One trend that has police circles very worried is that a lot of gang members have been joining the military and receiving military grade training. Some are even receiving special forces training and the like. These people are then when their service time is up going back to their gangs and teaching their members everything they know. There have as a result been more reports of SWAT engagements with gang members using military CQB methods to counter the police. Also in the past as well as the present there have been several criminals who were known for their skill with a firearm (in the wild west, during prohibition, etc). I would also say that criminals would start practicing more if everyone was armed to keep an edge.

Ok now for the big one, carry permission. The only way I could see that working would be with extremely strict laws and regulations. First of all alcohol and firearms would have to be utterly forbidden like alcohol and driving. If you want to drink you gotta leave the guns at home. Failure to do so should carry extremely harsh penalties including loss of carry permit, potential seizure of all owned firearms, and maybe even jail time. In other words zero tolerance. Second people would have to pass a psychological background check to insure they can safely carry a weapon. Followed by an extensive criminal background check for any previous violent crimes. Then they would require full training on firearm use and safety, and on threat identification. Lastly they would be fully responsible for their own actions in a legal sense, if they shoot someone they would have to go through a similar investigation as police, and they would have to fully justify the shooting or face criminal prosecution.

This is the only way I could see it working with out having massive amounts of accidental/erroneous shootings.

I thank you for the compliments by the way, it is nice to be able to rationally (and respectfully) debate such a subject with out introducing emotional elements. Sadly most people on the poles of the argument insist on using emotion to argue their point rather then trying to logically argue it. The only thing emotional arguments do is polarize the sides, not bring about consensus.

Well Russia has quite a lot of gun violence, in the wake of recent 'bening capitalism' things haven't gone all that well there concerning law & order.

But are you saying that China has a problem with gun violence...? Got any facts to back it up?