Mexican Drug Cartels Armed to the Hilt, Threatening National Security

[Frame57]

I simply think that obsevation is bogus. Let's look at it on a Macro and Micro scale. Anyone who does not think that our nuclear arsenal is a deterrent is missing the big picture. Out gunning your opponant and assuring mutual destruction is indeed a deterrent. The state of nevada has proven that violent crimes have dropped because of gun ownership and allowing concealed carry. The criminal mind will always take the path of least resistance as opportunity presents itself. I learned very early on that you do not defeat the school bully by being nice and trying to talk your way out of an impending pummeling. You have to fight fire with fire, it is the law of the jungle and the only law that criminals and no do gooders resepct.

Oh yea, we've had a couple of examples here in Finland about the combination of schools and handguns. Can't say I'd like any more of that, thank you very much.

[SteamWake]

The thing that I find curious is why is it only now that this makes news when this has been going on for quite some time now.

[August]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

The thing that I find curious is why is it only now that this makes news when this has been going on for quite some time now.

Maybe it's reaching new heights of intensity?

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by August

Maybe it's reaching new heights of intensity?

Not really, this kind of thing has been going on there for years. You could fill a couple of dumpsters with all the heads that have been lopped off.

No I think it is suddenly newsworthy, so I ask again, what has changed?

I'm sure you can come up with an answer.

[August]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

Not really, this kind of thing has been going on there for years. You could fill a couple of dumpsters with all the heads that have been lopped off.

No I think it is suddenly newsworthy, so I ask again, what has changed?

I'm sure you can come up with an answer.

Is this 20 Questions? Just make your case man!

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by August

Is this 20 Questions? Just make your case man!

Well a change in administration comes to mind.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

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

Fair enough, and thanks again for taking the time to present a well-considered argument.

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 agree with everything but the last sentence. However, in all fairness I should point out that I'm still a young guy, and perhaps I have more confidence in a person's ability to defend themselves than is warranted.
However, I still feel that widespread firearms possesion can benefit the populace in combatting the common criminal by serving as a deterrant.

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.

It's a stretch, but worth considering. Unfortunately data on murder rates per capita is largely unavailable for the "wildest" parts of the wild west, so I can't really make anything of it. They could be higher than today's inner cities, or maybe lower.
It's an interesting thought, but I'd have to leave it at that until I have more detailed information on the period.

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.

You'll have to forgive me for breaking up your argument in this paragraph but I do take some exception to what you state here. The right to join the military wasn't much of a right. At that period in history, people were often forced into military service. This was before the Crimean War, which you may be familiar with if you have read the Charge of the Light Brigade. That war was something of a turning point for the public's perception of the common military man. Before that, the average soldier was regarded as little more than a trained dog or a brute.
Considering that the colonials would have been most familiar with the Empire's military systems, it hardly seems likely that the founding fathers, who took such pains to prevent tyranny from overthrowing a government by the People, for the People, would have included the "right" to serve in the military as a cornerstone of the nation's constitution.

The Second Amendment also includes the terminology "keep and bear arms" and states that the rights detailed within "shall not be infringed". Now, both of us can only specualate as to what the founders' intents really were, but seems like a logical stretch to assume that they intended to preserve the right for the nation to have a military. Especially when you consider how clearly the other powers of the Federal government are ennumerated. And when you consider that the tenth amendment reserves all right and power not expressly granted herein to the states or the people.

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.

It probably should have been clarified better but hindsight is 20/20, yes? The phrase "well-regulated militia" is a constant source of contention as well. Regulated by who? What is well-regulated? The Federal government isn't given the power to define those terms or regulate militias. The tenth amendment tells us that they shouldn't have the power to do so.

I do agree that the Constitution is a living document, and it is valid to amend it change the Second Amendment. However, this is not the type of legislation that has been used thus far. Most current federal gun control legislation is in direct violation of many interpretations of the second amendment and every imaginable interpretation of the tenth. Rather than using Constitutional means, the Federal government has only sidestepped Constitutional law by employing some questionable Supreme Court rulings or offering block grants to states that enact legislation that is unconstitutional for the Federal government to enact itself.

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.

That depends on how you define "best society". To me, the best society is one in which everyone is as free as possible. Of course, there must be some regulation, to control fraud and violations of others' personal freedoms, but I would like to see it as limited as possible.
Limited state control and interference helps to generate incentive in business and in private affairs. Incentive is required for productivity and prosperity. Just look at the extreme contrast of Taiwan and China, or Hong Kong and China, or China's special economic zones and the rest of China. Or the U.S. and Russia. Or South and North Korea.
Those are extreme examples, but what I fear is that liberal measures taken today will expand the power of the government to where it can become such an extreme example. A largely disinterested electorate and a state-monopolized education system can only exacerbate that possibility, and should the day ever come when the state takes one step too far, I want my firearm.

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.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was only attempting to illustrate that violent crime transcends national boundaries, and that even in a society as homogenous and regulated (socially) as Japan, laws do little to reduce the incidence of violent crime. We are in agreement about the social roots of the problem, but we differ in our opinions of how best to prevent and address those problems.

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.

That's a valid concern. I still disagree, though. Given the highly organized nature of law enforcement in America today, I think that it is likely that any criminal mind capable of assembling effective resistance to the police would certainly know that attracting attention using such heavy resistance against law enforcement officials would be a bad idea.
Certainly, there have been exceptions, but such a case is certainly not the rule.
Most violent criminals act alone or in small groups, and are generally poorly educated and come from low-income families.
Gangs are another matter, and I'm not quite sure what to make of that, but I still think that in the face of an armed populace and today's law enforcement methods, they would stand a poor chance of survival in any kind of prolonged engagement.

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.

Other than the psychological background check, that all sounds good to me. None of the other things really infringe on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, since felons forfeit a number of citizenship rights. However, I would only support legislation based on this principle at the state level. It gives people a choice, and it is Constitutional because it does not involve the Federal Government excercising powers not granted to it.

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

That's a matter of speculation for both of us. A really limited gun control system hasn't been implemented in in modern America yet, so I can only speculate as to the results. And although I may point to countries that have strict, but failing, gun control policies, those nations are not the U.S.
At this point, our best bet is to study the effects of gun control policy by state, and compare results, which is practically another argument entirely. Perhaps for another thread.

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.

Likewise, but I'm not innocent of letting emotions affect discussions. For instance, I do feel very strongly about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms in the context of the Second Amendment (at least, the way I understand it).
But that is no reason we can't have a civil discussion and exchange information and opinions.

[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

[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.

[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.