How many times have we heard about the low percentage of gun deaths and how many ways have we seen that figure manipulated to look even lower? When talking about suicides it's a person's right to do it, or he would have used another means. When it's a criminal doing something wrong, that has nothing at all to do with lawful gun owners.Witnesses report that Monday's fatal shooting of a Farmington man stemmed from a domestic violence situation involving the deceased and his ex-girlfriend.
Christopher Lucero, 34, was shot three times shortly before 3 p.m. inside a residence on County Road 3958, where he went to see the mother of his three children.
He was pronounced dead on the scene.
Deputies arrested David Markham, 57, who at the time of the shooting told deputies that he was breaking up a physical fight between Lucero and Leandra Tafoya.
The couple's 4-year-old son was present at the time of the shooting.
Even when they talk about the peripheral damage, the woundings and property damage, nothing can trump the god-given, natural-human right to own and carry that inanimate object called a gun.
But, in this story we have a tiny glimpse into a little reported aspect of gun violence. "The couple's 4-year-old son was present at the time of the shooting." Most of the time they don't mention it, but this must be a fairly common situation, an innocent person, not necessarily a child, witnesses the violence and is never the same again. Imagine the Post Traumatic Stress experienced by these innocents. Imagine the cost to society in lost wages and wasted potential.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
This is the cost of gun violence the gunloons completely ignore. When they talk of "only" 30,000 gun violence deaths--they omit the fact that behind each of these deaths are families who lose loved ones.
ReplyDeleteAny murder is a violent and horrific event. It is one of the most selfish acts possible. I can only begin to wonder how that event will affect the four year old that was a witness.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate the passion to end murders and violence. I wish both would end as well. Unfortunately, both always have been and always will be part of the human experience. We will never be able to totally eliminate them, only to minimize them.
I think there are several huge problems with mankind that lead to violence and murder. One of them that is especially pervasive in the U.S. is our "fast food" mentality -- people want what they want and they want it now. Thus many people want immediate relief or revenge and seek to obtain it with a firearm. Of course another tempting idea is to eliminate firearms -- an apparently fast and easy solution to minimize violence and murders.
I know many people don't want to hear this: whatever the reason we will always have lots of firearms in the U.S. Look at hunting for example. The one to two week firearm deer hunting seasons of just four states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin -- see about 2.5 million people afield with rifles and shotguns. Add in the various other seasons and states and the numbers get much larger. Of course there are other socially "popular" reasons that people own firearms as well.
My point is that trying to eliminate firearms from the U.S. is an impossibility. If those who seek to eliminate firearms from the U.S. are really committed to minimizing violence and murder, I believe they would be much more productive attacking big problems that lead to violence, such as disintegrating families, domestic violence, and lack of economic opportunity.
That last point may be the biggest of all. I have a very strong background and formal education in Mathematics and I am always hugely suspect of statistics: as the maxim goes "correlation does not equal causation". My position is that statistics are a tool which indicate areas of interest; and we use other methods to try and determine causation. That said, I have noticed an unmistakable trend: most violence happens in economically depressed areas, especially areas with destructive family dynamics.
Could it be that severely lacking job and business opportunities coupled with horrendous family upbringing are the overwhelming primary drivers of violence? Common sense tells me they are.
If we want our "biggest bang for our buck", I am thinking it is time to put our energy into strengthening families.
Crunch writes:
ReplyDeleteI know many people don't want to hear this: whatever the reason we will always have lots of firearms in the U.S. Look at hunting for example. The one to two week firearm deer hunting seasons of just four states -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin -- see about 2.5 million people afield with rifles and shotguns. Add in the various other seasons and states and the numbers get much larger. Of course there are other socially "popular" reasons that people own firearms as well.
Crunch, respectfully you are incorrect.
For example, in Canada they easily do as much hunting as we do here. It is one of their main sources of revenue for a specific aspect of their tourism.
Yet they regulate firearms in a model which I applaud, and their firearms fatalities - per wikipedia - are a fraction of ours per capita at 4.78 to our 15.22. (from list of countries by firearm related death rate) They are a nation which values freedom as much as we do, and which has a very similar culture and economy. In some ways I would argue they are more free, certainly they are more free from gun violence than we are.
from Gun Politics in Canada:
Registration of firearms in Canada has been an issue since the 1930s when the registration of handguns became mandatory. Over the past few decades, legislation has become increasingly restrictive for firearm owners and, since 1995, all firearms (including non-restricted firearms) are required to be registered; the RCMP's Canadian Firearms Program has become unpopular with many Canadians as a result. Cost overruns to integrate the program, and failure to make it function as originally planned, have been presented as leading arguments to dismantle it.[2][3][4] Systematic auditing and criminalization of firearm owners and sports is implemented and enforced in most of Eastern Canada,[5][6] and to a lesser extent, in Western Canada (in most cases firearm ownership regulations vary slightly in different provinces and territories, where some provinces have decided to mandate their own laws, such as the Quebec Law 9 course, which is mandatory for all owners of restricted firearms).[7]
The Firearms Act of 1995 and the Criminal Code of Canada provide limited recognition for self-defence as a reason to acquire or possess a firearm in Canada. The Firearms Act acknowledges the possibility of an individual requiring a restricted firearm or handgun for protection from other individuals when police protection is insufficient.[8] However, the RCMP Authorization To Carry application[9] refers only to protection of life during employment that involves handling of valuable goods or dangerous wildlife. [10]
Crucn continues My point is that trying to eliminate firearms from the U.S. is an impossibility.
We are not so much committed to eliminating all firearms, not at all. We are committed to regulating them and restricting them from the possession of those people who should not have them.
Crunch you are making an argument which has absolutely nothing to support it other than you don't want to see regulation. You have no data, not even credible theory. Your argument boils down to 1. there are a lot of guns; and 2. we don't want them regulated; so 3. don't even try. And 4. we shouldn't have to do anything or cooperate with reducing those horrible statistics of death and injury, go regulate someone else or do it by some other means than the source of the problem - ie people with guns who should not have them.\
Bullshit.
If those who seek to eliminate firearms from the U.S. are really committed to minimizing violence and murder, I believe they would be much more productive attacking big problems that lead to violence, such as disintegrating families, domestic violence, and lack of economic opportunity.
ReplyDeleteAnd I suggest you go read some of the academic papers that show a clear causal correlation to how people get involved with crime and continue committing crimes. You'll find them under the heading of social learning theory and criminal behavior.
If you like statistics so much you will find the analysis which actually measures what effects behavior, ie quantifiable results of what works and what does not.
In every country which has more restrictive gun control, there is a corresponding low incidence of gun violence, a low incidence which correlates to the timing of the more restrictive gun controls.
So instead of telling us how just lockin' up those bad guys longer would solve our crime problems, or how anything and everything BUT stricter gun control would fix everything, why don't you provide us with something better than your wishful thinking that demonstrates that.
We can regulate guns, and doing so DOES dramatically reduce the problems that we are targeting by doing so. It works.
Your argument that there are too many guns is not dissimilar to the argument in the 19th century that we couldn't eliminate slavery because there were too many slaves.
The size of the problem argues FOR a solution, not against it. You shoot yourself in both feet with your comment.
"In every country which has more restrictive gun control, there is a corresponding low incidence of gun violence, a low incidence which correlates to the timing of the more restrictive gun controls."
ReplyDeleteWhat a load of horseshit. Tell that to a Mexican. Thanks for the laugh though.
We will never be able to totally eliminate them, only to minimize them.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't having truly enforcable firearms laws be a way to help minimise that number?
I know many people don't want to hear this: whatever the reason we will always have lots of firearms in the U.S. Look at hunting for example.
If someone is truly a sportsman, then they can register their firearm. Most nations with strict gun control make allowances for those people who are sportsmen.
Usually, this also requires belonging to a gun club.
If those who seek to eliminate firearms from the U.S. are really committed to minimizing violence and murder, I believe they would be much more productive attacking big problems that lead to violence, such as disintegrating families, domestic violence, and lack of economic opportunity.
The problem is that the people who fight gun control are the ones who do not address those issues.
Whereas those who are pro-gun control do
You would find this quite interesting:
http://wisaflcio.org/index.cfm?action=downloadasset&assetid=2fd1344e-ebfa-4735-9646-3ed463f898de
Gun Control Issue
The Right also sees the gun control issue as a means to divert workers from voting according to their economic interests and that of their families. The Right sees it as a particularly clever way to prevent workers from following the candidate endorsements of their union, which are made based on economic interests of the members. Neal Knox, a former head of the National Rife Association (NRA), said as much:
"[The gun issue] is the one thing that will spin the blue-collar union member away from his union."26
The NRA conducted a massive get-out-the-vote effort on behalf of George W. Bush. Chuck Cunningham, a former director of voter education for the Christian Coalition, led that effort for the NRA. Before working for the
Christian Coalition, Cunningham was executive director of the anti-union New England Citizens for Right-to-Work.27
Charlton Heston, former president of the NRA, supported the National Right-to-Work Committee in 1994 when it lobbied Congress to defeat S.55 / H.R.5 Anti-Strikebreaker Bill. This would have prohibited employers from permanently replacing striking workers (an act which is illegal in other industrialized countries). Heston appealed to union members to "put freedom first" and support NRA-endorsed candidates, and yet the right to strike is a most basic and essential freedom. Heston personally appealed to members of Congress to defeat pro-worker legislation that would prohibit strikebreakers and produced a video on behalf of the National Right-to-Work Committee, which called him their "world famous ally."28
In 1996, Charlton Heston championed the most serious threat to the very existence of labor unions. He assisted the National Right-to-Work Committee in a $260,000 ad campaign to lobby Congress to pass a National Right-to-Work Bill which had been introduced.29 Right-to-Work legislation would prohibit unions from negotiating any union security clause in their contracts. Union membership would be totally voluntary, though all workers must receive the wages and benefits negotiated in the union contract and they must be legally represented in any grievances. It has nothing to do with a right to work, but is part of a larger corporate strategy to financially weaken and eventually eliminate unions. Now deceased, Heston was a very effective spokesman for the NRA in distracting workers from the Right’s real agenda.
MAgunowner said...
ReplyDelete"In every country which has more restrictive gun control, there is a corresponding low incidence of gun violence, a low incidence which correlates to the timing of the more restrictive gun controls."
What a load of horseshit. Tell that to a Mexican. Thanks for the laugh though.
The problem with Mexico is not the lack of gun laws but the lack of enforcement.If they can ever succeed in enforcing those gun laws,Mexico should have no problem demonstrating the same results of those laws.
Or are you saying the U.S. is as bad as Mexico and our gun owners are just as lawless as the drug cartels? What does that tell us about you and the other pro-gunners? You might want to rethink how your examples, because they don't seem to argue very well for your position.
The problem with pro-gun arguments is that they do tend to backfire.
ReplyDeleteThat comes from not being logical, but emotional.
I thought you'd approve Laci.
ReplyDeleteThanks!
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI am not opposed to regulation. I see a very useful side to firearms in addition to the potential for people to misuse them. That useful side is very valuable to me and I don't want to lose it. For example my family has been struggling financially for the last 4 years. During that time, hunting has provided about $4000 worth of meat -- for which I would have had to earn about $6000 in order to have $4000 after taxes -- for my family. For some families that isn't significant. For my family it is.
So, given the benefits of firearm ownership and other potential solutions for their misuse, it is logical to me to explore other solutions that do not remove my ability to literally provide food for my family.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteSomething just occurred to me reading some of the posts. I imagine you will agree with this observation:
(a) gun control advocates are split (who knows what ratio) between some who want total elimination of all guns (except for military and/or police) and the rest who do not want to eliminate but try to control access to a greater or lesser extent.
(b) gun rights advocates are split (who knows what ratio) between some who want no restrictions whatsoever (with the possible exception of criminal restrictions) and the rest who want "generous" gun rights but are not opposed to registration requirements and somehow trying to ensure that criminals and mentally unstable individuals cannot possess firearms.
Assuming that is true, it is interesting to consider what "middle ground" might be possible. What do you think?
So dog gone,
ReplyDeleteCan you tell me in a fairly short response the benefits and drawbacks of firearm ownership in the U.S. at the moment?
I am interested in what you believe to be accurate annual data for the following (in a recent year):
(a) How many people do criminals murder annually with firearms?
(b) How many times do criminals shoot people annually who survive?
(c) How many people do criminals assault annually (resulting in rape or serious bodily injury) regardless of type (or no) weapon?
(d) How many times do people use firearms annually to defend themselves from an attack?
(e) How many of the attacks still resulted in the victim suffering serious bodily injury even though they resisted with a firearm?
(f) How many of the attacks would have resulted in the murder of the victim had the victim not resisted with their firearm?
(g) How many of the attacks would have resulted in rape or great bodily harm had the victim not resisted?
Note: I realize that we have to use a sensible estimate for (f) and (g) based on the data for the previous categories.
Extra Credit: assign a dollar value to the various categories.
"What a load of horseshit. Tell that to a Mexican. Thanks for the laugh though."
ReplyDeleteAs usual MAssivelystupidgunowner acts as if the mere fact of having a law on the books is the same as having stringent enforcement. I would direct his attention to the matter of speed limits in every place on earth. They are on the books and have been for years. Those who are cited for violations are subject to fines and, in some jurisdictions, loss of license or jail time. The same holds true for laws against drunk driving, littering, industrial pollution and a very long list of other prohibited activities.
Mexico's northern border with the U.S. is basically a warzone. Anarchy is rampant in areas outside of major cities and in the major cities rival narcotrafficers and various government forces vie for control.
Comparing Mexico's murder rate with any country not in a similar state of anarchy is disingenuos, something that MAnicallyobssessivegunowner is completly aware of. But, then, what can we expect of people who fear the world so much that they have to have a gun everywhere they go?
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteVery few of the gunzloonz that I talk to have ANY interest in meeting anybody halfway on the issue of regulation. They are, like most bullies, defensive, aggressive and they tend to whine a LOT about being misunderstood martyrs.
I have known plenty of people in my life who are 100% opposed to gunz--I hold them in about the same degree of disdain that I do the gunzloonz. The difference between them is that the truly anti-gun people are not going to be shooting anyone they disagree with.
What I see here is a need to convince the Democratic party to favor gun rights. That way, we remove the powerful motivation to vote Republican from those who are both working class and gun owners.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the number of Democratic supporters of the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act is an indication that things are getting better.
Democommie,
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, every gun rights advocate that I have ever encountered is incredibly restrained. I think you overestimate the propensity of gun rights advocates to shoot people out of anger or disagreement. I can give you two cases in point. While I was hunting as a guest on a small piece of private property, another hunter came out to berate me for "hunting in his spot". This guy yelled and carried on for over 15 minutes. When I produced a legal survey of the property, showed him the survey markers, showed him that I was on the correct property, and he was trespassing on someone else's property to berate me, his argument changed to how his family never sold hunting rights when they sold off that property 5 years ago -- which was an out-and-out lie by the way. He came over the next day to repeat the whole thing when the owner came out to see how I was doing. That guy was really upset, trespassed, and committed felony hunter harassment, but he going to shoot me over it. And I didn't shoot him for ruining my hunting location and interfering with my ability to harvest about $1000 worth of meat.
And this summer, my neighbor was drinking and started getting loud and using profanity. My four year old and 10 year old daughters were outside, heard the profanity, and came inside to tell me. Rather than go over myself and challenge their macho bravado, I sent my wife over holding our 4 year old daughter to tell them nicely and assertively to stop. I figured I would appeal to their "be nice to a lady" side. They apologized and my wife walked back to our house. Less than five minutes later, they got loud again and shouted an F bomb. Fortunately our daughters had come inside but the neighbor didn't know that. Really upset, my wife shouted to the neighbor, "Hey, keep it down!". The neighbor responded, "Fuck you bitch! Come over here and suck my cock!" You can imagine how I felt about my neighbor yelling something like that to my wife. And what angered me even more was the fact that my children would have heard that if they were still outside. Some people may not think my neighbor's behavior was that big a deal. To me, it was no different than blowing poison gas at my girls. I wanted to bust their chops. Instead, I went to their driveway to gather as much evidence as possible while my wife called the County Sheriff. Of course all they received was a "stern conversation" from the deputy. And I knew that was all the deputy would do. The only reason I didn't bust the neighbor's chops, one way or another, was because I wanted to retain my right to keep my firearms in case something even uglier ever happens.
While this is "anecdotal", it is consistent with the numbers that I see reported annually about the number of citizens losing control.
And your point is what, Capn Crunch?
ReplyDeleteDo we need to come up with concealed carry holders who don't show restraint and shoot over things such as road rage, parking spaces, use their permits for criminal purposes?
You know that sort of information is hard to come by since the pro-gun side doesn't really want that sort of thing publicised?
But, it is nice to know that you didn't blow your neighbour away for stealing your hunting spot or insulting you.
Obviously, you live in a part of the US where you can hunt for food. I'm not sure what the breakdown is for Urban v. Rural population in the US. Not everyone can hunt to provide food for their family.
Wow, Greg, 47 democrats voted for the bill--which is a significant minority!
Nice to know you think that's a victory!
Way up thread the Capn said, "My point is that trying to eliminate firearms from the U.S. is an impossibility."
ReplyDeleteGood thing nobody around here is trying to do that.
Cap'n Crunch:
ReplyDeleteObscene speech is not punishable, afaia, under any laws that are constitutional. Criminal behavior, such as verbal threatening is covered under the law. If your neighbors persist in swearing so loudly that it disturbs your peace and quiet, you have every right to file a complaint. People that are obnoxious, especially if they have other bad habits like getting shitfaced in bars or doing drugs usually wind up on the wrong side of the booking desk at some point.
Shooting them, threatening to do so or brandishing a firearm will get you in the pokey in a lot places.
MikeB points out:
ReplyDeleteWay up thread the Capn said, "My point is that trying to eliminate firearms from the U.S. is an impossibility."
Per Heller-McDonald: gun bans are off the table.
While I may dislike the opinion on a legal basis--it does have its good points.
Laci,
ReplyDeleteMy point was to reassure democommie that armed citizens who are "loose cannons" are quite rare. I also wanted to provide a sense of why that is. (Hint: people who think it is necessary/prudent to be armed don't want to give up that status over non life threatening disputes ... otherwise they might not be armed when they need to be.)
And no, I don't want concealed carry licensees that draw their guns over parking spaces, etc.
If you want some reliable, accurate information about how many concealed carry licensees screw up, check this out:
http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html
The reports list law violations of concealed pistol license holders. The best part, there is a column that lists whether the license holder used their pistol in the crime. I have reviewed a few of them. I think you will be stunned at the number of times that a licensee used their pistol to assault or murder someone.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteI do want to see how many license holders commit crimes with their handguns. Not anecdotes, but the annual numbers. I then want to see a comparison made with other groups and their record of error and criminal action.
Mikeb302000,
You don't want to eliminate privately owned firearms? Laci tells us that Heller and McDonald are bad law. He says that firearms are only appropriate to those in military service, according to the Second Amendment. Dog Gone lists yards of regulations that she wants, and you agree with that. You've also said that the Supreme Court's decisions can be overturned by changing one vote.
Can you see that while you claim not to want to disarm us all, we have reason to doubt that?
My point was to reassure democommie that armed citizens who are "loose cannons" are quite rare.
ReplyDeleteA brief google search of those who 'mexican carry' because they think it will make them faster if that unlikely occurrence of meeting a bad guy ever happens proves there are a lot of 'loose cannons' out there with ccw licenses, and more who openly carry,
Sorry - but that is NOT safe, and the people who carry that way are dangerous.
It is part of the fantasy world of the gun lunatic. It is one part of why we think many of you are stupid, too stupid to know you are dangerous and too dishonest to admit it to anyone, even yourselves.
democommie,
ReplyDeleteI understand. Honestly I had no desire at all to brandish, threaten, or shoot the neighbor but I sure wanted to punch the guy ... not so much out of anger but as an incentive for the neighbor to shape up and give him a reason to respect his neighbors (us). But I would end up losing my right to be armed over that.
When it comes to people like that, their brains work differently. They did something really nasty because they figure I'm a candy-ass. And since all I did was call the Sheriff, they are convinced that I am a candy-ass. Since they have no respect for me (because I'm a "whiny tattle tail") they'll just keep dishing it out because they can get away with it.
It is adult bullying and the County Sheriff isn't going to stop it. For one thing they would never have any evidence unless I somehow manage to audio and video tape everything all the time. And even if I had such incontrovertible evidence, the County Prosecutor isn't going to pursue a case of a neighbor being a nasty, obnoxious asshole.
I really feel like I am screwed but even then I don't go over and threaten or brandish.
Let's see, Greg, I'll just comb through all the police reports for criminal incidents that occurred with handguns over the past 30 odd years.
ReplyDeleteThen I have to try and figure out who had a permit to carry.
You'd want that wouldn't you since that is the only methodology which would provide that information.
Are you willing to foot the bill for me to do that, greg? I'll happily do it if you are.
Otherwise, we are stuck with bits and bobs about such incidents--some of which have been expunged (as is the case with the person who brought the "Florida Loophole" to the attention of Seth Williams).
You see, Greg, your side really doesn't want that sort of thing coming out. Otherwise, you all demonstrate how stupid you are.
Instead, of just you making an idiot of yourself.
You've also said that the Supreme Court's decisions can be overturned by changing one vote.
Aren't you happy with that--the law can be changed by rich people buying decisions?
Especially if the decisions go your way!
Can you see that while you claim not to want to disarm us all, we have reason to doubt that?
But, Heller-McDonald said gun bans are off the table.
Are you afraid of having to register your firearms because you could be disqualified for some reason, Greg?
Are you mentally ill? is that why you don't understand what is going on?
We can see that you don't exhibit good gun safety practise.
I'll repeat that your saying that "one of my criticisms of a may-issue system is its discretionary nature" as a violation of iii (Restrictions on the exercise of discretionary power). Those abuses are only wrong if they are arbitrary. They are not an abuse if they can be done impartially and consistently.
So, Greggy, if you shouldn't have a gun, you really shoudn't have a gun to the detriment of society.
dog gone,
ReplyDeleteI understand your concern. I recommend you review the report for which I provided a link. It provides accurate, reliable data from the Michigan State Police. You can use the numbers in that report to project/forecast how many times concealed carry licensees mess up around the nation. (I am confident that whatever Michigan's concealed carry licensees do is representative of all carriers in the nation.)
As you review the report, please note that a prosecutor almost certainly charges a single person who committed a single criminal act with multiple charges. For example if a licensee shot and killed someone, the prosecutor might charge them with brandishing, assault, assault with intent to commit great bodily harm, aggravated assault, using a firearm during commission of a felony, reckless discharge of a firearm, attempted murder, 2nd degree murder, etc.
Unfortunately the report doesn't tell us whether two charges were the result of two people or one person. But it absolutely tells us the upper limit if you assume a different person corresponds to every charge listed. And some simple, sensible assumption of how many charges a person would face for a single event would get you numbers that are very close to the real picture.
Demostupid said:
ReplyDeleteMexico's northern border with the U.S. is basically a warzone. Anarchy is rampant in areas outside of major cities and in the major cities rival narcotrafficers and various government forces vie for control.
Comparing Mexico's murder rate with any country not in a similar state of anarchy is disingenuos,"
You have no fricking idea what you are talking about. Mexico is not in a state on anarchy - ANYWHERE!
The northern border is not a war zone and you obviously have never been to Mexico.
Anonumb-nuts, I've been to Mexico a number of times.
ReplyDeleteI agree with democommie.
http://www.alipac.us/article297.html
and I find it hard to define something like this as anything but a national military putting down anarchy:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57341595/mexico-kills-11-cartel-suspects-near-u.s-border/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CBSNewsGamecore+%28GameCore%3A+CBSnews.com%29
and this about the difference between the U.S. side of the border, and the Mexico side.
http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/nationworld/report/091111_perry_border_facts/factchecking-rick-perrys-claims-border-violence/
Crunch, I'm thoroughly enjoying your commenting here, even when I disagree with you. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAn example would be this:
You can use the numbers in that report to project/forecast how many times concealed carry licensees mess up around the nation. (I am confident that whatever Michigan's concealed carry licensees do is representative of all carriers in the nation.)
Given the variations between states, sorry Crunch, but I don't think we can fairly or objectively make that extrapolation - sorry.
Dog Gone,
ReplyDeleteMichigan has important similarities to New York and California. All three have large stretches of rural and wilderness land, and all three have densly populated cities. Why not compare those three?
The differences between California and New York and Michigan are huge. You really need to prove or at least demonstrate that the similarities you mention of having rural areas and urban areas is seminal to the issues for purposes of comparison.
ReplyDeleteThe sun rises in the east over all three states as well, but it is not a valid basis of similarity for this proposed comparison.
"Anonumb-nuts, I've been to Mexico a number of times.
ReplyDeleteI agree with democommie."
Of course you do, because you don't know anything more about Mexico than he does.
Mexico is no more in anarchy than the US was during Prohibition.
And your links are nothing more than stories dealing with criminals. And without idiotic drug laws, just like Prohibition, these people wouldn't be criminals, they'd be businessmen.
There were plenty of claims that areas of the US under prohibition were in a state of anarchy.
ReplyDeleteBusinessmen, unlike mob criminals and drug cartels, don't engage in that kind of violence.
To assert that the drug cartels would rather be mild mannered businessmen is ludicrous.
In prohibition there were plenty of people making home brew beer and wine, and selling it to their family and friends for a profit - THEY were businessmen and women. The people doing the small scale home production didn't kill people, and the scale of that activity by the drug cartels is very large.
That is no doubt true of some people raising small amounts of pot for sale now as well.
They appear to be very different people from the cartels now and from the mob in prohibition.
The people who live in those regions, the people who cover the news in those areas use the word anarchy.
You have yet to demonstrate it is not accurate. Do cite some sources to contradict democommie and I. Otherwise there appear to be quite a mountain of evidence to support the term anarchy, including quite a few documentaries filming the activity described as anarchy.
THAT is hard to refute.
I agree with Dog Gone on this point: Mexico is in a state of anarchy in its northern region. This comes not just from news reports, but also from my students who have family in that area.
ReplyDeleteNow to disagree, or so I imagine. I saw a news article of several months ago about how Mexican citizens are wanting a loosening of gun laws to allow them to arm themselves against the gangs. Mexico does ban handguns of greater caliber than .380 and any firearm that uses ammunition that is also used by the military. Of course, that ban doesn't trouble criminals too much.
"There were plenty of claims that areas of the US under prohibition were in a state of anarchy."
ReplyDeleteRight, just like claims of anarchy you are making that don't hold water.
Here's link to The Monitor, the largest paper in the Rio Grande Valley
http://www.themonitor.com/
Use their search engine to find articles on 'anarchy' and see what you get.
Has the State Department issued travel warnings that Mexico was in a state of anarchy? No.
Is there violence? Yes. Is the government in control? Yes.
Do relatives who live and work there say it is anarchy? No.
You can pretend to know everything, but the fact is, you don't know zip, zilch, nada about Mexico, pendeja.
Greg asked me, "You don't want to eliminate privately owned firearms?" And then said if I say I don't he has reason to doubt that.
ReplyDeleteI'll try not to be offended, and strive once again to explain my position.
For me the 2A is out. But, just because of that, you can still own guns, but you have to qualify. My idea of who qualifies would probably eliminate half of the present day gun owners. But I object to characterizing that as wanting to disarm people. Rather I call it wanting people to be qualified, so in a sense if you don't qualify, you eliminate yourself.
So, no, I don't want to remove all guns in civilian hands, believe it or not.
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteTo you, I never intend offense. I don't know how you arrive at your half number. I believe that most gun owners are responsible. But then it's likely that neither belief is based on hard numbers. Am I correct in understanding that you do oppose concealed carry in most cases?
Oh, anonumbnuts sez the gummint's in control in Mexico and that dog gone's links are all to stories about teh criminulz.
ReplyDeleteWell, here's a link:
http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war
to a FEW more stories that seem to suggest that maybe the gummint of Mexico is having a wee bit of trouble governing the U.S./Mexico border states.
Somethink like 40,000+ Mexican Army troops being used to combat narcotraffickers in northern Mexico. But, but, that's ZACKLY what happened during prohibition when several divisions of U.S. Army troops were used in cities like Detroit, Chicago and New York to interdict liquor shipments and have major battles with the various mobsters who were engaged in bootlegging and smuggling liq--oh, I'm sorry, that's WRONG.
"Am I correct in understanding that you do oppose concealed carry in most cases?
ReplyDeleteDecember 17, 2011 6:17 PM"
No, you're incorrect. Concealed carry with proper justification and training are fine with me. It would probably mean that you and likemindlessed morons would be prohibited from doing so, but I can live with that.
This:
ReplyDelete"There is no evidence that U.S. tourists have been targeted by criminal elements due to their citizenship. Nonetheless, while in Mexico you should be aware of your surroundings at all times and exercise particular caution in unfamiliar areas. Bystanders, including U.S. citizens, have been injured or killed in violent incidents in various parts of the country, especially, but not exclusively in the northern border region, demonstrating the heightened risk of violence throughout Mexico. TCOs, meanwhile, engage in a wide-range of criminal activities that can directly impact U.S. citizens, including kidnapping, armed car-jacking, and extortion that can directly impact U.S. citizens. The number of U.S. citizens reported to the Department of State as murdered in Mexico increased from 35 in 2007 to 111 in 2010.
The Mexican government has deployed federal police and military personnel throughout the country as part of its efforts to combat the TCOs. U.S. citizens traveling on Mexican roads and highways may encounter government checkpoints, which are often staffed by military personnel. You are advised to cooperate with personnel at government checkpoints and mobile military patrols. TCOs have erected their own unauthorized checkpoints, and killed or abducted motorists who have failed to stop at them.
Violence along Mexican roads and highways is a particular concern in the northern border region. As a result, effective July 15, 2010, the U.S. Mission in Mexico imposed restrictions on U.S. government employees' travel. U.S. government employees and their families are not permitted to drive from the U.S.-Mexico border to or from the interior of Mexico or Central America. Travel by vehicle is permitted between Hermosillo and Nogales."
from here (http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_5440.html)
appears to be a warning to travellers from the U.S. to Mexico that the Mexican government might be having a little trouble controlling some unruly elements in the mexican states that border the U.S.
Oh, but that's not "anarchy", or is it?
"an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/Noun: 1.A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2.Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."
from here (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=ie7&q=anarchy+definition&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rlz=1I7_____en)
Well done democommie.
ReplyDeleteI've usually felt safe in border towns in Mexico that rely heavily on tourism.
Here is another example of what you describe, in a city in northern Mexico that I used to visit as a child. This is, btw, in the same general area, as the one we were discussing earlier where the kids were shot on the playground during a basketball try out. Reynosa's just over the border from McAllen, Texas. As a child, I felt very comfortable walking around Reynosa, trying out the Spanish we were being taught in elementary school.
As an adult NOW? Not so much. But I still wouldn't feel a need for a firearm to deal with it, any more than I have required a firearm to deal with it.
I will confess to not correcting people in some of the most dangerous places that had a truly intense hatred for Americans who mistakenly thought I was South African or Canadian.
But then I like to live more dangerously while traveling than the average tourist.
In support of democommie:
"With violence rising, U.S. Consulate closes office in Reynosa, Mexico
DRUG CARTEL
February 25, 2010
The U.S. Consulate in the border city of Matamoros, Mexico, temporarily closed its Consular Agency in the nearby city of Reynosa because of heightened drug-related violence in recent days.
A "Warden Message" was issued by the consulate "to advise U.S. citizens of recent gun battles in Reynosa, Mexico, and cities surrounding Reynosa in the last week."
The mayor of Reynosa, located across the border from McAllen, Texas, told a Mexican newspaper that recent shootings have not been between authorities and drug cartels, but between two drug trafficking organizations operating in the region, the Gulf cartel, and the Zetas.
Sorry - that preceding news item was from here:
ReplyDeletehttp://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-25/world/us.mexico.consulate_1_drug-cartel-violence-gulf-cartel-municipal-police-officers?_s=PM:WORLD
dog gone:
ReplyDeleteThis:
"The mayor of Reynosa, located across the border from McAllen, Texas, told a Mexican newspaper that recent shootings have not been between authorities and drug cartels, but between two drug trafficking organizations operating in the region, the Gulf cartel, and the Zetas"
just goes to prove ananocephalic's assertion that it's not ANARCHY. It's just a little tussle between a couple of groups of gangbangers and the killings are just like what happens when companies shuffle their boards of directors, except for the machine guns and stuff.
I went looking for other news on violence in Reynosa and I only got a measly 248,000 results (0.18 seconds) on teh google. I'm just betting that most of them are articles by The Monitor, the largest paper in the Rio Grande Valley, decrying the scandalously sensationalist writing of stories such as the one you linked to.
Greg: "Am I correct in understanding that you do oppose concealed carry in most cases? "
ReplyDeleteNot oppose, disapprove of and think stricter much standards should be upheld.
Not oppose, disapprove of and think stricter much standards should be upheld.
ReplyDeleteDecember 19, 2011 1:04 PM
Mikeb302000:
Any thoughts on the overlap in the Venn diagram of "People who shouldn't be allowed to have guns" and "People who insist they need to carry a gun like, say, a .45 cal. 1911, under their shirt"?
We see that Democommie's standard is that if you want a carry license, that's reason to deny you.
ReplyDeleteGreg Camp:
ReplyDelete"We see that Democommie's standard is that if you want a carry license, that's reason to deny you."
Another of your many FUCKING LIES.
See, Greg Camp, the thing is this, I KNOW plenty of people who I would trust to carry a concealed weapon. These are people who are a lot less likely to insist on being armed when they shop for groceries or walk the dog. They MIGHT want to have a CCW when they go somewhere that is demonstrably dangerous, but otherwise they elect to rely on their intelligence to keep them out of harm's way. Perhaps you need the gun, because you're too fucking dumb to use your head, but that WOULD be a reason to keep you from having a dangerous weapon of any sort.