Swiss Mercenary on 24/2/2009 at 02:10
Quote Posted by Shug
For all intents and purposes, if you were really in difficulty with a mexican drug gang all your gun ensures is that they will certainly kill you.
Considering how frequently gangs fight other gangs, who definitely have guns (not much of a deterrent, it seems...), I'm pretty sure Shug hit the nail on the head.
Quote:
Can people really be this ignorant about what is going on down here?
Look how well this snake lotion works! I haven't been attacked by a single Leperchuan since I've started using it!
In fact, those Leperchuans are so intimidated by every other person using it, nobody's getting attacked!
Stitch on 24/2/2009 at 02:12
Quote Posted by Old and Cunning
Nice piece of unthought-out hyperbole. Can people really be this ignorant about what is going on down here?
Also while I'm at it: the reason you are losing this debate (and you are) is in no small part due to a frankly delightful lack of awareness on your part.
Of course, checking in the batshit while piecing together the facts wouldn't hurt, either.
Ladron De La Noche on 24/2/2009 at 02:44
(
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/international-news/portfolio/2008/06/16/Examining-the-US-Mexico-Gun-Trade#page1) Examining-the-US-Mexico-Gun-Trade
I thought this a good article on the illegal gun trade between the United States and Mexico. It is only a partial story of what is actually going on with organized crime in Mexico. The cartels are not interested in threatening old women who live in shotgun shacks, that is the least of their concerns.
Smiles and waves. ;)
For the record (I love saying that), I am for the banning of handguns (except for law enforcement) and assault rifles. However, the possesion of hunting rifles and shotguns should be legal in keeping with the founding of the country and it's traditions. I know it will never happen, but one can dream. Besides, no one hunts a moose with a glock.Martin Karne on 24/2/2009 at 03:03
So, illegal Mexicans gays are selling guns for abortions in the US?
Pretty radical for gays.
:p
Muzman on 24/2/2009 at 03:25
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.
And I'm pointing out that, given how much vehicular activity there is relative to car induced injuries, it's not ironic at all and in fact makes perfect sense.
Quote:
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.
You made a spurious comparison of cars and guns and now you'd like to point out that they're actually completely different. Way ahead o' ya.
Quote:
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.
Come on, now you're just bleating the same old lines. Who's "they" and what makes you think they aren't doing these things as well? This isn't letters to the editor.
Quote:
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.
I explained earlier that yes I do think banning guns makes a difference and can point to numerous places where that is so, but it's not a straightforward thing. It never seems to occur to people that unsavoury types want guns for exactly the same reasons that they do; convenience, power, ease of operation, range. So yes, inconveniencing potentially violent people makes perfect sense. The 'How' part is where it gets tricky.
That's beside the point anyway. Leave the car thing (and any other siimilar argument) alone is my advice. The comparison is nonsensical to begin with, but cars and drivers have been subject to 50yrs of severe regulation. Why? Because they're dangerous when misused, obviously. It's this massive regulation that has reduced car accidents to the presently low levels. (and no, low numbers of gun accidents, or non accidents for that matter, doesn't make them less dangerous things. If that were so, you wouldn't want one so bad) You really don't want people thinking about the two in the same breath. People might get ideas. Imagine if you had to come in for an eye and competence test every so often or they wouldn't let you keep your Mexican repellant device.
Feel free to tell us about life on the border though, of course.
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 07:48
Quote Posted by Muzman
Feel free to tell us about life on the border though, of course.
Feeling free:
(
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-02-23-mexicoborder_N.htm?csp=34)
(
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/mexico_collapse/2009/01/14/171339.html?s=al&promo_code=77A2-1)
So far in this debate, a whole bunch of self-styled know-it-alls have jumped in to mock and abuse me, yet of all of us, I have been the only one to offer any proof or evidence to support any of my assertions. The rest of you want to make your hyper-emotional grand statements of belief but are unwilling to apply any standards of fact or logic to support your arguments.
Where on earth did you people get the idea that truth is a mere matter of majority opinion? Several of you have made it painfully clear that you don't know shit from shinola about the border, about mexico or about guns, but that doesn't stop you from attacking someone who DOES know about those things:tsktsk:
Lucky for me and the rest of the border population that most of you probably don't bother to vote.:laff:
ercles on 24/2/2009 at 08:00
Give us a buzz when you actually find a real piece of journalism to prove your point
Vivian on 24/2/2009 at 08:33
Or work out what socioeconomics is
Shug on 24/2/2009 at 08:54
While the
NEWS MAX link doesn't work, the other article essentially backs up my last assertion.
Quote Posted by Shug
It also tends to astound me how much the average gun enthusiast seems to think they could stave off a band of organized criminals just by possessing a weapon. The tone of these comments certainly leans towards 'gangs' of criminals, as though your home has suddenly become a fortress of safety now that you own a sidearm. For all intents and purposes, if you were really in difficulty with a mexican drug gang all your gun ensures is that they will certainly kill you.
Besides, truth or not it isn't exactly a reason to avoid partial gun restrictions at the very least.
Here's the part where you find out lots of other countries have weapon restrictions and are going great guns (lol)
Old and Cunning on 24/2/2009 at 09:00
I'm sure it was very entertaining for someone who doesn't know the difference between opinion and news. One can't help noticing the sad lack of sources for this opus.
For some up-close-and-personal border news, with lots of legitimate sources and photos he took himself instead of setting up cutesy studio shots, try this fellow here: (
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/mexicos-drug-war-crisis-or-political-theatre)
and here: (
http://borderreporter.com/)
And, if you're up for a little critical thinking, ask yourself why we aren't dinging U.S. car manufacturers for all the cars shipped south and used in shooting and bombing attacks. and how about all the used car dealerships being used to cover gun shipments?
You people are amateurs.
