Cuevas' proposal to ban toy weaponry, introduced on Thursday, is one of a number of legislative proposals aimed at addressing in one way or another the explosion of killings and kidnappings that Mexico is experiencing.
Lawmakers have suggested legalizing marijuana to reduce traffickers’ profits, bringing back the death penalty for kidnappers and reducing the age at which criminal suspects can be tried as adults to 12 from 18, among other measures.
The bills face varying probabilities of success and are in some cases dismissed as irrelevant by security experts. But they show the concern, and even desperation, that many politicians feel toward the state of their crime-racked country.Now let me get this straight, in addition to banning toy guns, the other proposals are 1. Legalizing marijuana, 2. Capital punishment for kidnapping, and 3. Trying 12 to 18-year-olds as adults.
Banning toy guns makes good sense to me, not so much for the immediate situation but for the long range. In fact, teaching kids that violence is not the answer is probably the only hope we have of curbing the vicious cycle. So eliminating the look-alike playthings of that cycle may be part of it.
Legalizing marijuana works for me too. The NYT article goes on to say that it has scant possibility of acceptance, but it opens talks of decriminalization like what was recently adopted in MA.
Capital punishment is never an option, I say, nor would it help in any way. Actually, I believe it would exacerbate the already dreadful situation if the death penalty were expanded in Mexico to include kidnapping and other crimes short of murder.
Trying young offenders as adults is out as far as I'm, concerned. I agree with what Weer'd has commented a few times that it's an individual call whether a kid might have the mental capacity to actually belong in the adult category, but since it's impractical to sort that out, they need to stay in the juvenal system. Resources may be needed there to accommodate the numbers.
After so much meandering around, we finally got down to the real problem: real gun availability. Now, I realize what can happen in a violent society when people have machetes by the thousands, lìke in Rwanda a while back, and I saw how many knife and strangulation murders there were in Jersey City last year, nevertheless, I'm gratified to see the government of Mexico agrees with me that something needs to be done about the "flow."
One priority of Mr. Calderón’s government is to reduce the number of real guns in Mexico, the vast majority of which are smuggled into Mexico from the United States. That is likely to be high on the agenda when Mr. Calderón meets with President-elect Barack Obama on Monday in Washington.
What's your opinion? Do you think it harms children to play with toy guns? Does it lead to violence and difficulty in handling confrontation as adults? Would legalizing marijuana help diminish the bloodshed in Mexico? How about the death penalty and trying kids as adults, would they help?
What do you think about the flow of guns into Mexico? We talked about it before; did we come up with any solutions?
Please leave a comment.
So, in a country were civilian possession of firearms is illegal already, they are going to write more laws to make it --- illegaller?
ReplyDeleteI realize that is not a word, but that is the only concept that makes sense.
It's like murder. There are laws against it but let's make it illegaller to do it with a firearm.
Hasn't helped much has it?
"Do you think it harms children to play with toy guns? Does it lead to violence and difficulty in handling confrontation as adults?"
ReplyDeleteThis is one of those wag-the-dog sorta mind games. Dangerous people with violent fantasies and/or aggressive coping issues often have fixations with weapons. This means as children they enjoy toy guns, violent video games, and violent play. As adults it often leads to collection of weapons (Thankfully because of their violent nature, and some of our few effective gun laws, these people rarely make it to adulthood without acquiring enough criminal charges to prevent them from ever buying a gun legally, so they fall back on things like knives and replicas ect)
So when somthing newsworthy happens people look and say "Oh, Violent Video Games, Toy guns, Oh, he collected hunting knives. These are all bad things that need to be banned."
Where logic fails is that 90% of America engages in one or all of the above pastimes.
I'd say most boys, and quite a few girls in america have or had toy guns. ALL children have engaged in some sort of violent play. Very few people don't engage in some form of collecting. Yet these people never engage in a single violent act. But that doesn't fit the storybook so that fact is discarded.
I love to joke about how EVERY mass murderer in the last 30 years owned at LEAST one pair of athletic sneakers! I further joke that obviously sneakers lead to mass murder. I could make the same crack about blue jeans. Most of the populous owns these items, so when the bad guys make themselves known I can pretend like it's somehow a unique link.
Me personally, I grew up with lots of toy guns, toy soldiers, action figures. I had a few GI Joes, and a SHITLOAD of Transformers and Masters of the Universe. All these toys were all about good guys defeating the bad guys. I read comic books...I really liked the more gritty and violent ones. My best friend and I spent most of our first years together reading Lord of the Rings books, playing D&D and running around in the woods with sticks fighting "Orcs" and other such bugbears.
I had an Atari when I was in kindergarten, and even some of those crude games were violent. They only got more violent as I grew older.
I was raised on James Bond films, as well as the standard brainless action films of the time.
I had a collection of Swiss army and utility knives, and one or many would often accompany me into the woods.
Despite all of this by the time I was a teenager I had bought what I later learned to be misinformation propagated by the news media about guns and "Assault Weapons", and I was a staunch supporter of gun control, and had a deep dislike of guns.
Is there something wrong with me? Why didn't that HORRIBLE upbringing result in me being a maniac?
Of course I deeply suspect that Most of the males here (and possibly some of the females) had a similar upbringing, and were steeped in just as much "Violence" as I, and still turned out fine.
But that doesn't make the news story as interesting, does it?
I wonder how this toy gun ban would work in, say, Gaza? Are the children there enticed by guns or repelled by them?
ReplyDeleteThat would be a psychologist's doctoral thesis waiting to be written.
I grew up playing with guns and toy soldiers. So did every boy I knew of in the 50s and 60s. Maybe that's why we, so many of us, have problems with conflict resolution. Or, maybe it was the Converse sneakers.
ReplyDeleteMike,
ReplyDeleteYou say you have problems with conflict resolution?
I hope that you aren't trying to imply that I do also....exactly how do those problems manifest?
Are we out there firing rockets into Israel because we can't sit down and talk it out?
Are we out there shooting people for the "disrespect" of looking at us wrong?
Are we out there mowing down families because their car cut us off in traffic?
Maybe so many of us who grew up playing with guns learned that violence should be used as a last resort, not the first resort.
Maybe that was something that PLAYING with guns taught us.
"Maybe that's why we, so many of us, have problems with conflict resolution."
ReplyDeleteI'm with Bob. That's a really disturbing statement. I want to react to it, but my past experience here tells me I'm better served to just ask for clarification on that statement.
Conflict resolution is not an easy thing to master. I've had difficulty with it all my life, from relationships with my intimate partner to sitting on a train next to a guy taking up more than his share of the seat. I can only wonder if all of us of my generation had been raised on the proverbial hippie commune in Northern California where violence was frowned upon, how we'd have turned out.
ReplyDeleteI find it hilarious that Bob and Weer'd both bristled at my remark. Often it seems like you guys can't even handle internet conflict without getting all huffy and offended. Am I wrong?
Project much, Mike?
ReplyDeleteLike I said, your statement was (and is) disturbing, but instead of running with how i read it I decided to let you further explain yourself.
What you just essentially said is you personally have a problem with conflict resolution, and you're not only projecting it on your entire generation, but at Bob and I.
The Pacifist "Hippie Commune" is a sexy story too, and one I'd LOVE for it to be true, but I gotta call bullshit on that one too. (Hippies were also anarchists, revolutionaries, and the people who coined the phrase "Speak Truth to Power" that doesn't sound like somebody who can't handle the other guy hogging the train seat)
Of course a nice piece of data would be to note the number of conflict resolution books, workshops and programs available in the modern world.
It's not a Boomer thing, it's not a toy gun thing. It's a people thing (Hell Abbot and Costello's whole comedy stitch was poor conflict resolution...usually with Bud being the Bully and Lou taking abuse) Conflict resolution is a skill that must be honed and practiced throughout life.
And in closing, using my own personal conflict resolution skills, I'd like to point out to Mike, that I asked for clarification out of personal respect for you, as you have many times taken issue with people misinterpreting your statements. To turn such an act into an accusation isn't very nice.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAbsolute true story about my "lack of conflict resolution" skills from yesterday morning.
I drive down a neighborhood street on the way to work. Fairly quiet street with few cars on it, one car in front of me directly at a stop sign.
As I get up to the stop sign, there is a car in a driveway about to back out 2 houses down from the stop sign. Car in front of me goes, I stop and then proceed. No other traffic so I don't stop for very long.
As I pass the first house, the car in the second driveway starts (notice that he waited until I was in motion, very near him) to back out. Not only does he back out, but he backs out into my lane, and continues backing. I hit my brakes and my horn. Guy stopped his car less then a foot from my bumper. I was very angry that this inconsiderate jerk didn't yield to on coming traffic as required by law. I was angry that he deliberately back out more then was needed, forcing me to brake hard. I was angry that he sat there for several seconds with my horn blaring at him.
Now here is the failure of my conflict resolution skills. See I was armed, carrying a firearm but something strange happened.
I didn't pull out my firearm and shoot him. Didn't demand an apology, either.
What I did do was simply flip my lights to high beam twice as he drove off and I proceeded to work.
If there was so much problem with conflict resolution, especially with the number of concealed carry permits increasing, wouldn't the violence levels be much higher?
Texas alone has over 300,0000 concealed carry permit holders. It is legal in Texas to carry a firearm in your vehicle every day.
Often it seems like you guys can't even handle internet conflict without getting all huffy and offended. Am I wrong?
Yes, you are wrong.
Conflict resolution is not an easy thing to master. I've had difficulty with it all my life, from relationships with my intimate partner to sitting on a train next to a guy taking up more than his share of the seat.
ReplyDeleteyou're making yourself out to sound like the very sort of person who are the reason conflict resolution is so hard.
Yes, Weer'd, it is projecting. But that's allowed on my blog. In fact the rest of you do it all the time too. The reason it's allowed is because we're only talking. This isn't supposed to be scientific evidence, but rather ideas. That's all.
ReplyDeleteBob, your story of the road rage in which you didn't resort to pulling your gun does not comfort me one bit. Nor does it attract me to your side of the argument. I am quite familiar with leaning on the horn in anger at an inconsiderate driver, but it's not good behavior. When we do that, we're really saying, "fuck you, asshole." And that's not what the horn is for.
Let me ask you this. What if the guy got out, came up to your car, pounded his fists on the hood and started calling you names? Would you draw your gun then? Would you just show it to him and tell him to back off? What if he came to your window and grabbed you by the shirt and told you you're a punk? Would you pull the gun then? Your life's not being threatened. Would you get out and agree to a fist-fight to resolve it like a man?
If you keep blowing your horn at offending drivers, sooner or later, you're gonna face something like that.
I've got an idea. Here's what you do. Get rid of all your guns, come over to my side of the argument and together we'll take on the rest of these guys. What do you say?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI am quite familiar with leaning on the horn in anger at an inconsiderate driver, but it's not good behavior. When we do that, we're really saying, "fuck you, asshole." And that's not what the horn is for.
First, it is not saying FU. It is saying you've done something inconsiderate and/or unsafe, I'm letting you know that is unacceptable. I think the fact we don't communicate that more often is why bad behavior is increasing.
Let me ask you this. What if the guy got out, came up to your car, pounded his fists on the hood and started calling you names? Would you draw your gun then?
This is one that I have thought out, so I can tell you how I would respond.
No, I wouldn't draw down on a person for doing that. I leave room to drive around someone. If needed I would do that. I've had people calling me names for no reason and for honking at them already since I've been carrying. So sorry, you don't get the response of me brandishing my firearm -- that is an illegal act.
Would you just show it to him and tell him to back off? What if he came to your window and grabbed you by the shirt and told you you're a punk?
My window doesn't get rolled down, period. Not on the highway, not on the side streets, not in the parking lots in response to someone approaching my car.
Again, this is a thought out response to a possible situation. I can talk to any one through the window. So, again I don't brandish my firearm - an illegal act unless I feel my life/health is endangered.
Would you pull the gun then? Your life's not being threatened. Would you get out and agree to a fist-fight to resolve it like a man?
Do you consider the use of a firearm to be unmanly? Please tell me that was just a turn of phrase and you aren't trying to insult my manhood?
Even if you do mean it, the answer is this: I'm 45 years old, asthmatic, with arthritic knees. I haven't worked out in 2 years. I know exactly what I am physically capable of doing; and that is not fist fighting anymore.
Would you expect your wife, my wife, my daughter to get out and "settle it like a man" if this happened to them?
There are very specific requirements before I am allowed and willing to draw down on a person. When those requirements exists, I will do what is needed to protect my life and health.
By the way, according to the law if I had started the situation then drawn down on the person, I could not claim self defense. But simply honking my horn to warn a person he was about to hit my car with a 2,000 pound weapon isn't starting a situation. I was genuinely concerned the person was going to back into me.
MY point was that I was in a conflict situation and resolved it without violence....what would have been your response since you have problems with conflict resolution? Problems that not all of us have.
"I've got an idea. Here's what you do. Get rid of all your guns, come over to my side of the argument and together we'll take on the rest of these guys. What do you say?"
ReplyDeleteWow, what did we do to deserve such a glib and thoughtless responce?
In that comment you mentioned somthing along the lines of "What would you do if the guy grabbed you by the collar" (BTW, if somehow this happened to me I'd step on the gas and drive away...then call the police and file assault charges) But here's where a logical disconnect stepps in. You mention this assault with the assumption the attacker doesn't know Bob is armed. Next you preach about Bob thowing his guns away for the sake of a man who would commit assault over the honking of a car horn.
Sorry Mike guns have NOTHING to do with violence, and what you preach is the Might Equalls Right, of the dark ages.
Lastly, only to add slightly to Bob's responce (which is a very good one) I would point out a story of a personal friend of mine.
He did somthing very stupid, and slept with somebody's wife. Scorned Hubby came by and told him to clear out of town and informed him that the next time he saw him he'd kill him.
My friend went into hiding, and a mutual friend of ours informed me of the story, and where I could find him.
When I tracked him down he was visably scared, was on extended leave from his job (thankfully his Boss was understanding) and spending most of his time hiding out.
I told him to call the cops, get a protection order, get a gun, and get his carry permit, and get back to his life.
He was very emotional. First up he did somthing I've seen you do, Mike, which is second guess a potentially deadly scenario (a REALLY stupid idea, as if you guess wrong you DIE!) second he was guilty and was unsure if he had a right to ANYTHING at that point because he HAD slept with Hubby's wife and Hubby had every right to be pissed.
I told him that was true, Hubby deserved to be pissed, and he was an idiot for sleeping with a married woman. But all of that aside that did not grant him the right to run my friend out of town, or to kill him.
So your odd juxtoposition that somehow honking a horn at a traffic violation somehow vindicates physical assault is really troublesome.
I'm starting to suspect there is somthing very important here you aren't telling us, Mike.
One thing that comes to mind is your dodge on my question if you were ever convicted of a felony.
Was that in intentional dodge?
Weer'd, What you called "such a glib and thoughtless responce" was just another failed attempt on my part at humor.
ReplyDeleteAnd your comment, "So your odd juxtoposition that somehow honking a horn at a traffic violation somehow vindicates physical assault is really troublesome." is difficult to understand, but it seems to have led you on that path of inquiry which I thought we'd left behind us. I'll answer your question now. Yes it was an intentional dodge, but I'm afraid not for the reason you seem to be hinting at. I have no felony convictions, at least not yet. I hope you're not disappointed. The reason for the dodge is because I felt the question was invasive and rude and although possibly germain to our discussions, obviously none of your business. I
LOL Mike,
ReplyDeleteThe reason for the dodge is because I felt the question was invasive and rude and although possibly germain to our discussions, obviously none of your business.
You ask repeatedly rude and invasive questions to us gun owners. You routinely imply that we are responsible for other peoples deaths because we are simply gun owners.
You have a penis (I assume, perhaps I'm WRONG? {See how rude that can be}) Are you responsible for the multitude of rapes that occur?
What Weer'd was pointing out was your thought process about my honking of the car horn. I think he was wondering how you found that action justify a possible assault on my person?
If you keep blowing your horn at offending drivers, sooner or later, you're gonna face something like that.
It falls completely back on Frankel's "between stimulus and response" issue. I honked the horn, that was an appropriate communication to a dangerous driver. NOTHING in that action could be seen as provocation for that driver assaulting me.
My telling that story was response to your accusation that I, not you, had problems with conflict resolution. Sorry but I was pointing out an anecdote that disproved your statement. I didn't "bristle" I challenged your assumption...or was it projection?
I see that as a major issue to be honest. Way too many liberals (but not all Nomen, I recognize the many exceptions) have angry management issues. For proof, I give you Huffington Post, Daily Kos; heck even the majority of the posts on the OneUtah site. Look at how many times, the liberals attacked the person instead of the issue.
Could it be that most liberals are less in control of their emotions?
Could it be that most liberals are willing to use violence to achieve a goal and fear using that violence?
Could it be that most liberals don't trust themselves to have firearms, therefore feel no one should have them?
Just wondering and my apologies to those liberals not typical of the genre....the broad brush strokes are not meant to tar all.
bob, about angry liberals in the media, i suspect there are several things to blame for that.
ReplyDeleteone is that angrier, more strident voices always get more media attention, and angrier people are of course more likely to speak up in the first place. (this may be why there are so many intemperate, vicious pundits on the right wing. need i mention coulter and malkin?)
the other is that us lefties have seen idiotic, stupid, childish policies by an extreme right-wing administration running our country into the ground for eight freakin' years now. there has been all manner of totally predictable harm done as a result of policies that were enacted for no other reason but right-wing doctrine purity, and we rather resent it. why shouldn't we get loud about our disagreement with such policies?
Nomen,
ReplyDeleteI think the part about the angry ranting liberals being news worthy is accurate.
However, this is not a new phenomenon at all, so I can't see blaming it on the Bush Administration.
There are some on either side that get shrill, but I am talking about the angry issues, the conflict resolution issues that usually accompany leftist movements.
The Bryan Millers, the Code Pinks, even the One Utah folks, etc; the ones that say they want to talk about the issues then end up shutting down conversation when it goes against them.
I applaud Mike and a few others for keeping the discussion open. As much as the One Utah folks attack people instead of issues, they don't censor or moderate comments. How many gun control sites are open for discussions like we have here?
I don't mind people getting passionate about their beliefs, I just wonder if the "need" for gun control comes out of the liberals inability to control themselves. There are only two basic types of control: self control and imposed.
If the liberals feel they can't trust themselves to handle guns, then it makes sense that they project that inability on everyone else.
If you don't trust yourself, then having control imposed also makes sense. Witness how many reformed addicts call for restrictions on their former addiction?
I realize that my comments were broadly based, I mean them only in generalities. The same issues can also be applied to those on the right; sexual issues is one of the common control issues for them.
"I honked the horn, that was an appropriate communication to a dangerous driver. NOTHING in that action could be seen as provocation for that driver assaulting me."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you're right, Bob. Are you saying you didn't blow the horn in anger? Was it simply to "communicate" to the other guy that you were about to collide? Are you always so composed behind the wheel? I'm not, I freely admit. So perhaps I am projecting all my liberal frustration on you cool and calm gun guys.
Even so, can you count on the other drivers to understand your "communicating" with the horn and not take offense at it. I know I don't like someone blowing the horn at me. How about you?
Mike,
ReplyDeleteIt is not a matter of someone liking it or not, it is a matter of how they respond.
Put yourself in that same situation, you are the driver who just exhibited inappropriate behavior.
Now do you get out and hassle the person who honked?
Do you drive on or ram your car into him?
Same situation but with one change....now you are legally armed.
Does it change your behavior any?
"Now do you get out and hassle the person who honked?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't do that, but I've seen it often enough. Haven't you? Road rage is a household expression for a good reason.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteYes, it happens. The point that I was making is the firearm doesn't change your reaction, just your options.
The media and many gun banners try to portray the firearms as turning meek, mild manner citizens into raging lead slinging merchants of death...it just doesn't happen. That was the point of my story. I had fear for my safety but I didn't get out guns blazing, neither would you or any of your readers.
Have you thought about what situations would result in you using lethal force? If not, why not? You have a wife and family to protect.