Security Management published an article about the appeal of David Shirk, Ph.D., Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of California, San Diego.
Shirk noted that there's a tendency to find more higher-powered, assault-like weaponry within the Eastern corridor of Mexico as opposed to Mexico's Baja, California, in the West. While there are various reasons why this variance occurs between East and West Mexico, U.S. state gun laws play a role, Shirk said. He pointed to the state of California's much stricter gun laws, especially on assault-like weapons, as a reason why Western Mexico is less violent than its Eastern territories. Shirk also said this disparity "speak[s] strongly in favor of the remarks" Calderon made during his visit to the United States at the end of May.
Now that's an answer we've been looking for. The question was, "Do California's strick gun laws work?" The answer, "Yes."
The issue, however, is highly contentious because of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. In a statement more than a year ago, the National Rifle Association's (NRA) Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and Chief Lobbyist Chris Cox said in a statement that the anti-gun advocates would use the CIFTA "to attack gun ownership in the U.S. Therefore, the NRA will continue to vigorously oppose any international effort to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners."
The problem is when we protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, we make it easy for the not-so-law-abiding to get guns too. At a certain point this blind focusing on the 2nd Amendment creates more problems than it cures. That's when we need to rethink the whole business. That's when we need to agree on what reasonable restrictions might be.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
"there's a tendency to find more higher-powered, assault-like weaponry within the Eastern corridor of Mexico as opposed to Mexico's Baja, California, in the West."
ReplyDeleteSo what exactly is "more high powered assault-like weaponry"?
Since no one knows what that made up term means, then this whole article really makes no sense. Their "Dr. Shirk" sounds like a real winner. A typical anti that is just worried about the shoulder thing that goes up and has no real clue what he is rambling about. I'm sure he graduated from the Jade Gold School Of Made-Up Bullshit.
> About 70% of traced firearms were found to have come
ReplyDeletefrom Texas (39%), California (20%), and Arizona (10%).
"Do California's strick gun laws work?"
Obviously, they don't work as well as Arizona's gun laws.
It sounds like Mr. Shirk is channeling his inner Jadegold and ignoring the population density of western vs eastern Mexico.
ReplyDeleteHe's also ignoring the fact that western Mexico doesn't have a southern neighbor funneling drugs and guns through it.
it sounds like Mr. Shirk could benefit from an 8th grade geography lesson.
The problem is when we protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners, we make it easy for the not-so-law-abiding to get guns too.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's a damned shame--and you're just gonna have to deal with it.
That's when we need to agree on what reasonable restrictions might be.
I agree that ZERO restrictions are reasonable.
All or nothin' Kurt. Zero restrictions, eh?
ReplyDelete"All or nothin' Kurt. Zero restrictions, eh?"
ReplyDeleteI can get behind that.
All or nothin' Kurt. Zero restrictions, eh?
ReplyDeleteNot sure why this requires amplification, but yes--shall not be infringed.