Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt, Threatening National Security

[SUBMAN1]

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

[UnderseaLcpl]

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.

[I-25]

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

[Jimbuna]

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

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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?

[fatty]

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by fatty

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?

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

I was a little surprised as to the source of the guns, though.

Pastor and Hakim note that the United States helps fuel the violence, not only by providing a ready market for illegal drugs, but also by supplying the vast majority of weapons used by drug gangs.
Pastor says there are at least 6,600 U.S. gun shops within 100 miles of the Mexican border and more than 90 percent of weapons in Mexico come from the United States.
And it's not just handguns. Drug traffickers used a bazooka in Tuesday's shootout with federal police and army soldiers in Reynosa, Mexico, across the border from McAllen, Texas.
"The drug gangs are better equipped than the army," Hakim said.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...nce/index.html

[Torplexed]

Some fun news. Apparently this Allen Stanford, who is the latest Bernie Madoff, may have been laundering drug money for the Mexican cartel:

The SEC's fraud charges may be the least of accused financial scammer R. Allen Stanford's worries. Federal authorities tell ABC News that the FBI and others have been investigating whether Stanford was involved in laundering drug money for Mexico's notorious Gulf Cartel.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Blotter/st...6907429&page=1

Sometimes you wonder if anything is legit anymore...

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...nce/index.html

I love how CNN implies that you can buy a bazooka at a gun shop.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

I love how CNN implies that you can buy a bazooka at a gun shop.

CNN - always reliable gun information. Someone should drag those reporters out and teach them proper!

-S

[NeonSamurai]

Personally I haven't seen anything showing guns are a deterrent to anyone other then maybe muggers and small time criminals. Also the criminal faction who packs weapons, particularly gang types (and I mean real narco dealing gangs like the hells angels, bloods, cripts, 18th street, surenos, BTK, etc) will be the slightest bit phased by people packing weapons. For one thing these people are organized (several of them are international crime groups), and also the tend to carry bigger weapons then your average civilian (like full auto AK's, sawed off shotguns, full auto tec-9's with 30 round clips, etc). So I doubt they would be at all intimidated by someone carrying a 9mm pistol, or a 6 shooter. Also they have the psychological advantage and they know it. Many of them have killed before, and will not have the slightest qualm or delay in killing again, several of them are borderline to fully sociopathic, then there is the physicial intimidation and serious threat of retaliation if you do put down one of theirs.

Ya there isn't much hard data on anything from the wild west, but there is a general indication that the criminal element didnt care that the civilian populace was armed (broad daylight bank robberies were fairly common at the time, as were train robberies and stage coach robberies etc).

I concede the constitutional points to you as you are obviously more familiar with the document then I am (I am Canadian after all, so I don't know your constitution by rote). My interpretation of the line is that people had the right to keep arms and bear them in times of need (ie militia), since at the time the concern was defending the nation from foreign domination. Carrying guns around in general was a non issue really, in the wilds people carried muskets to hunt and defend themselves from. Not sure about the cities though.

For me the best society is the one that takes in to account the interests of the individual and the whole, and balances the needs of both equally. Basically fairness is the concept im trying to get across. I have issues with most large corporations, for one thing they tend to be highly exploitative of their work force, particularly in third world nations where they take advantage of cheap labor and lax polution laws to make more money. Now I'm certainly not arguing against the rights to free thought, free expression, etc. Just that corporations need to be accountable to the community. So like I said I mean fairness, fair labor laws, fair wages, etc. Not a free ride though, not at all, it must be based on work of course, work hard, get more, don't work hard, don't get much. Anyhow this is getting a bit off point so ill leave that where it is.

Ok back to gangs and military training. They are the biggest concern to law enforcement right now and with good reason. Military training gives tactical training, something which your average police officer doesn't. Add to this the fact that your typical gangster seriously out guns most patrol officers, and this represents a serious threat to patrol officers. It also makes the job of SWAT officers much more dangerous and difficult, as now the suspects are on equal footing with them, they both have CQB training, heavy automatic weapons, body armor, etc, and typically the gang would have the defensive position according them the advantage. Dealing with these groups is dangerous and difficult, especially since many of them have a decentralized hierarchy, so there are no head(s) to attack. Armed civilians won't help things here. If anything they will just serve to confuse law enforcement during an engagement, and would probably result in civilians getting mistakenly shot by police thinking them to be hostile (after all they have no way of knowing who are the "good" people and who aren't in a fire fight).

I think a psychological check would be important, but I readily see your concern. So I would suggest it be done on a pass/fail basis, with only that being recorded, and the interview/examination process being destroyed. The psych checkup would be to make sure the individual doesn't have any forms of mental illness which could represent a threat to public safety if this person were permitted to carry a weapon.

The only issue with doing it at the state level though, is unevenness of application of the law across the states. That unevenness creates gaps which the criminal element tends to exploit.

Yep it is all just speculation in the end, and logic does not always work out the same in the real world. So I agree that studies are necessary, and that they should be specific to the country in question, as one can't easily generalize the results from one country (or even period of time) onto another.

Anyhow its been an interesting discussion. I imagine I will be stopping here, though I will read any reply you make. I think we have carried this as far as it will go with out hammering the same ground. I respect your opinion and emotions behind them. My point was that you did not take the emotional route to side step the debate. Emotional arguments tend to short circuit rational debate and lead to reflexive reactions. My personal emotion is that people do have the right to posses weapons (in a responsible manner), but the thought of everyone going around packing heat (including myself) scares me a bit... scares me that I may have to kill some one (or mistakenly do so), or that I might get mistakenly killed. I just hope that some day we can evolve far enough were we don't even need to think of carrying arms around.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by August

I love how CNN implies that you can buy a bazooka at a gun shop.

Well, that can be inferred if that's what you're looking for.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, that can be inferred if that's what you're looking for.

Being well familiar with CNN's normal anti-gun stance I figure the inference is intentional. Notice also how they infer those 6,600 gun shops within 100 miles of the border are involved in running guns to Mexico.