Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt, Threatening National Security

[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.

[SUBMAN1]

Hey Neon, I'm not in the mood for a large debate with essays on guns deterring crime, but there are plenty. If you feel like researching it, the best places to look are where there were once guns, and then analyze exactly what happened when they were taken away. Look at the before and after crime statistics. Its quite shocking actually.

Another place to look to read up on it is the criminals themselves. The biggest fear they have when breaking and entering for example is an armed homeowner. Many documented cases where this question has been act of the actual perpetrator themselves.

Look! now you've got me writing more than one paragraph! Way more than I planned to do! Ugghh... Being sucked in.....

-S

[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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by August

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.

This is very true. CNN has a widely known anti-gun stance BTW. Always have. Another thing, CNN's parent company has a large stake owner named Hillary Clinton who is well known for voicing her opinion on the issue as well.

-S

[Happy Times]

Mexicos instability really is a number one threat to the US.
If Mexico falls into large scale civil war, any insurgency and terrorism could spread in the US side also. I wouldnt count out a bigger American conflict from Venezuela and Colombia to Mexico or an US intervention.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Mexicos instability really is a number one threat to the US.
If Mexico falls into large scale civil war, any insurgency and terrorism could spread in the US side also. I wouldnt count out a bigger American conflict from Venezuela and Colombia to Mexico or an US intervention.

That's an interesting thought. What makes you think that Mexico will dissolve into a civil war or that the U.S. would intervene? And if all that happened, what makes you think the U.S. would suffer any more difficulty than financial strain?

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

That's an interesting thought. What makes you think that Mexico will dissolve into a civil war or that the U.S. would intervene? And if all that happened, what makes you think the U.S. would suffer any more difficulty than financial strain?

Military Report: Mexico, Pakistan at Risk of 'Rapid and Sudden Collapse'

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479906,00.html

Joint Operating Environment 2008 report.
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storya...08/JOE2008.pdf

In terms of worst-case scenarios for the Joint Force
and indeed the world, two large and important states bear
consideration for a rapid and sudden collapse: Pakistan and
Mexico.
Some forms of collapse in Pakistan would carry
with it the likelihood of a sustained violent and bloody
civil and sectarian war, an even bigger haven for violent
extremists, and the question of what would happen to its
nuclear weapons. That “perfect storm” of uncertainty alone
might require the engagement of U.S. and coalition forces
into a situation of immense complexity and danger with no
guarantee they could gain control of the weapons and with
the real possibility that a nuclear weapon might be used.
The Mexican possibility may seem less likely, but the
government, its politicians, police, and judicial infrastructure
are all under sustained assault and pressure by criminal gangs
and drug cartels. How that internal conflict turns out over
the next several years will have a major impact on the stability
of the Mexican state. Any descent by Mexico into chaos
would demand an American response based on the serious
implications for homeland security alone.

Military and Intelligence analysts naturally create different scenarios all the time.
But i read about this earlier, cant remember where, anyway the whole scale of the economic crisis wasnt materalised then. Now it has and Mexicos oil revenues and exports plummet, combined with the cartel wars, the scenario of a collapse starts to look very plausible.

The potential risks from Mexicos fall to US are numerous.
Starting from severe economic effects, mass immigration to the possible escalation of a conflict over to the US and its Mexican population.
When you throw in Chavez as a possible player, that has recently consolidated his position and has ambitions over his own borders, you can see the potential for an escalating conflict. Colombia and Bolivia come in to picture at this time and Cuba is a wild card.

Iran has also close relations with Venezuela, has been active in Central America and could play a role also. The borders seem to be open all ready but naturally it would also make it easier for some non goverment sponsored terrorist group to pass in to the US.
Seems that imagination is the limit here.

So as the possible collapse of Mexico seems to be comparable to an Pandoras box, an US military intervention in Mexico would to me make every sense.