Vivian on 24/2/2009 at 00:25
Quote Posted by Old and Cunning
I'm sorry, Vivian, but you can't credit poverty with producing this kind of corruption and hypercompetitive savagery. And you can't deal with it in any way but with weapons.
ah, Fuck off..... Mexico's social troubles are a result of guess what, not socioeconomics, but a lack of guns? Ha. Out with it, are you some kind of elaborate hoax?
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 01:22
Mexico has many problems that are directly related to to socioeconomics. It's violence, however, is the result of criminal activity that has gotten way out of hand because high level authorities were too dependent on that fat cash flow from criminals and its rank and file citizens and police too underarmed to keep a lid on it.
You do yourself no favors by oversimplifying everything down "me good, you bad." At this rate, I doubt you'll ever learn enough to be useful in this world.
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 01:27
Quote Posted by Koki
So... when you're poor and live among poor people you're okay... but if you live near rich people it makes you very very angry and you start murdering other poor people?
LOL! that must be it, though SD failed to note that mexico is not in the bottom of the heap on the world socioeconomic scale and the killing is not being done BY the poor, but by the the rich smuggling syndicates. I'm guessing SD isn't real up to speed on events in Mexico.
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 01:36
Quote Posted by ercles
By any chance were you involved in writing W's speechwriting when he was trying to stall withdrawing from Iraq? Because the logic is spookily similar, and similarly retarded. No, I don't live near a border full or crazed lunatics/murderers/zombies, but at the same time I'm not entirely sure why illegal immigrants would spend their first few hours in the "promised land" looting and raping rather than trying to fit in and find a low end job so they won't get arrested and deported immediately.
If nothing else your stalwart double posting should keep that nasty Mexican at bay!
Ah, yet another "authority" who lives nowhere near the conditions he pooh poohs and has no idea what the Southwest border and Mexico is about.
It seems a little counterproductive to mock people who know, by pure geography, far more than you ever will. And equally silly to attack an educated opinion when you haven't bothered to educate yourSELF.:tsktsk:
Folks, the fact that you WANT to believe something is a certain way does not, in any way, influence the reality.
Stitch on 24/2/2009 at 01:44
Quote Posted by Old and Cunning
Folks, the fact that you WANT to believe something is a certain way does not, in any way, influence the reality.
The reality of guns being the only thing between you and RAMPAGING MEXICAN OUTLAWS, that is.
Edit: just to be clear, I'm openly mocking you.
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 02:00
Quote Posted by Muzman
This is silly parallel and you really ought to drop it as it does your case no good. It might as well be argued that hospitals should be banned as they are an enourmous 'cause' of accidental death also.
Imagine for a moment if guns were used that often.
Well OBviously I'm not advocating that cars be banned. I am simply pointing out the irony of being more petrified of guns than of cars, considering the huge numbers of car wrecks in comparison to gun deaths.
And I think you miss the point you raised yourself. Guns are NOT used that often and that's because their legitimate users are aware of their power and show restraint. The number of people who die each year from accidental gun discharges is vanishingly small and hardly worth the level of hysteria that I see gun ban advocates expressing.
I often wonder why that is, considering the amazing number of REAL issues they could be worrying about. Like how to get violent people out of circulation so they won't use guns (and knives and harpoons and rat poison and garotting wire and C4 and scissors and etc.) against the law abiding.
And please don't tell me that you believe banning guns is going to accomplish that. If it keeps criminals from getting guns at all (which is doubtful, just look at mexico), it will certainly not keep them from using the gazillions of other things that can be used to kill and maim.
If a reduction of gun deaths is really your goal then it is dangerous criminals upon whom you should be focusing - not law abiding gun owners. The latter are are the equivalent of drivers who follow the rules of the road and drive safety and taking away their rights is no more effective than rescinding the licenses of EVERYone for the sins of a few drunk drivers.
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 02:04
Quote Posted by Stitch
The reality of guns being the only thing between you and RAMPAGING MEXICAN OUTLAWS, that is.
Edit: just to be clear, I'm openly mocking you.
Nice piece of unthought-out hyperbole. Can people really be this ignorant about what is going on down here?
Scots Taffer on 24/2/2009 at 02:04
down here
in my pants
Vivian on 24/2/2009 at 02:05
Out of interest, what comes under 'socioeconomic' in your paradigm?
Stitch on 24/2/2009 at 02:08
Quote Posted by Old and Cunning
Well OBviously I'm not advocating that cars be banned. I am simply pointing out the irony of being more petrified of guns than of cars, considering the huge numbers of car wrecks in comparison to gun deaths.
I can totally picture you reading these out loud and waving your arms around, it's awesome.
Muzman's right, though, the cars vs guns argument does nothing more than make you seem utterly oblivious to context (or intended function). I actually side with you on the whole guns-for-law-abiding-citizens thing, but you seem to forget that shooting things--or at least
raising the threat--is exactly what guns are designed to do.
