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.