|
Agree 100%, used to go down to Mexico every once in awhile, then things started really heating up 2002 and on. Calderon is scapegoating.
I mean, its always been crap -but yeah, the drug war/intra-cartel fighting started escalating way before the lifting of the AWB.
Keep in mind that he said this to Congress and was given rounds of applause. These are the same people who have been charged with protecting our rights - including the 2nd amendment.
If that were true, why would the UK (with some of the worlds tightest gun laws in the world) have a violent crime rate a fraction of the US, to the point where one person getting shot is national news?
That's a common fallacy. Britain has high rates of violent crime, but lower rates of murder committed with firearms. Other violent crimes are quite common. (Here are some numbers, on the first website I stumbled across while looking....)
If that were true, why would the UK (with some of the worlds tightest gun laws in the world) have a violent crime rate a fraction of the US, to the point where one person getting shot is national news?That's a common fallacy. Britain has high rates of violent crime, but lower rates of murder committed with firearms. Other violent crimes are quite common. (Here are some numbers, on the first website I stumbled across while looking....)
I'm not sure I'd use that as my first citation.
|
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
I'm sorry, but I trust little if anything written by faux news' staff writers. The only thing worth my time on there is the AP stuff every other site has (and the opinion pieces if I need a good laugh).
Did anybody win yet?
Did anybody win yet?
Nawp. Still taking bets!
*and still singing*
...the thread that never ends
it goes on and on my friends...
TEH INTERNED IS SEROUS BIDNESS!
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.I'm sorry, but I trust little if anything written by faux news' staff writers. The only thing worth my time on there is the AP stuff every other site has (and the opinion pieces if I need a good laugh).
Here is another source's take on the issue. Do me a favor and read them both, and let me know which article you honestly think is better written, researched and cited.
|
Mexico's gun laws are MUCH stricter than the U.K.Please tell me why, then, their violent crime rate is exponentially higher than the rate in the U.S. again?
According to the Mexican President it's the fault of the US
Let me be clear on this. I fully respect, I admire the American Constitution," Calderon said. "I understand that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the right of good American citizens to defend themselves and their nation. … But believe me, many of these guns are not going to honest American hands. Instead hundreds are going to the hands of criminals," Calderon said. "The violence in Mexico started to grow … in 2006. This coincides with the lifting of the assault weapons ban in 2004."The reality is, the Mexican government decapitated the drug cartels, taking the leaders out and leaving the idiots in charge. Not a wise policy, and the exact opposite of the M.O. of U.S. law enforcement. Hilarity ensued.
For example, the Zetas were basically enforcers for the Matamoros and Reynosa cartels, and only started pushing into Nuevo Laredo after the Federales took down the guy calling the shots there.
Oh, and the war on the border was hot before the "assault" weapon ban lift. Nice of Calderon to play the blame game to cover his mistakes.
Seriously, kids, I lived it for years. I know what's up on the border.
Oh, well.
So what in your opinion, because you are were closer to it then I ever will be, the best way to tip the war in the favor of those who wished to stop the drug trade?
|
|
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.I'm sorry, but I trust little if anything written by faux news' staff writers. The only thing worth my time on there is the AP stuff every other site has (and the opinion pieces if I need a good laugh).Here is another source's take on the issue. Do me a favor and read them both, and let me know which article you honestly think is better written, researched and cited.
To be perfectly honest, I see the bias in both:
The washington post article uses a Mexican study as the basis for its article (and 100% is a ludicrous number to suggest).
The fox news article twists the numbers to support their position (is it really a lie if officials are going off of the studies they have been asked to conduct?)
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the WP article? Yes...I know how lax gun shows can be and it sounds perfectly reasonable. But to say that 100% of guns come from the US is just plain stupid.
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the FN article? Yes...we don't have the full picture if we don't trace all of the weapons used in Mexican crimes. But to throw out every other gun because the haven't been traced is just as much junk science as it is to base numbers solely off of the ones we have traced.
|
|
So what in your opinion, because you are were closer to it then I ever will be, the best way to tip the war in the favor of those who wished to stop the drug trade?
Not being snarky here, but the answer seems to be a no brainer...
They don't need to traffic drugs in if people can get them at their local 7-11.
|
|
So what in your opinion, because you are were closer to it then I ever will be, the best way to tip the war in the favor of those who wished to stop the drug trade?Not being snarky here, but the answer seems to be a no brainer...
They don't need to traffic drugs in if people can get them at their local 7-11.
No offense this is not a good option.
|
|
No offense this is not a good option.So what in your opinion, because you are were closer to it then I ever will be, the best way to tip the war in the favor of those who wished to stop the drug trade?Not being snarky here, but the answer seems to be a no brainer...
They don't need to traffic drugs in if people can get them at their local 7-11.
Why not? We already have legal drugs that are more harmful than some of the illegal options (alcohol vs. marijuana or shrooms). Why do people hold such vitriolic opinions regarding marijuana and think alcohol is just fine?
|
|
Why not? We already have legal drugs that are more harmful than some of the illegal options (alcohol vs. marijuana or shrooms). Why do people hold such vitriolic opinions regarding marijuana and think alcohol is just fine?No offense this is not a good option.So what in your opinion, because you are were closer to it then I ever will be, the best way to tip the war in the favor of those who wished to stop the drug trade?Not being snarky here, but the answer seems to be a no brainer...
They don't need to traffic drugs in if people can get them at their local 7-11.
If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.
|
|
If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.
Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.
|
|
If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.
Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.
|
|
Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.
Once again, trying to insert as little snark as possible here, what are the dealers going to do? Strap people down and shove coke up their noses or inject them with heroin? If people have access to soft drugs, they're going to be less likely to use the hard drugs is what I see form these numbers.
Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.
Legalizing pot would be a start in my opinion too. Of course I think everything adults do with their bodies should be legal.
Our drug policy creates the black market that feeds the cartels. Prohibition has failed again.
|
|
Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.Legalizing pot would be a start in my opinion too. Of course I think everything adults do with their bodies should be legal.
Our drug policy creates the black market that feeds the cartels. Prohibition has failed again.
At some point when people are no longer responsible for themselves it is societies responsibility to step in and take care of them. When society is unable to do so, or unwilling then the Government at times must take a stand and do so.
The Myth of 90 Percent: Only a Small Fraction of Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.I'm sorry, but I trust little if anything written by faux news' staff writers. The only thing worth my time on there is the AP stuff every other site has (and the opinion pieces if I need a good laugh).Here is another source's take on the issue. Do me a favor and read them both, and let me know which article you honestly think is better written, researched and cited.
To be perfectly honest, I see the bias in both:
The washington post article uses a Mexican study as the basis for its article (and 100% is a ludicrous number to suggest).
The fox news article twists the numbers to support their position (is it really a lie if officials are going off of the studies they have been asked to conduct?)
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the WP article? Yes...I know how lax gun shows can be and it sounds perfectly reasonable. But to say that 100% of guns come from the US is just plain stupid.
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the FN article? Yes...we don't have the full picture if we don't trace all of the weapons used in Mexican crimes. But to throw out every other gun because the haven't been traced is just as much junk science as it is to base numbers solely off of the ones we have traced.
It's a lie when they willfully misrepresent those studies, so they are lying or they are inexcusably stupid.
Some of the untraced guns may have been in the US market at one time, but there is no stated evidence to that effect. Turning the absence of statistical data into statistical data goes beyond intellectual dishonesty.
I appreciate you reading both articles.
At some point when people are no longer responsible for themselves it is societies responsibility to step in and take care of them. When society is unable to do so, or unwilling then the Government at times must take a stand and do so.Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.Legalizing pot would be a start in my opinion too. Of course I think everything adults do with their bodies should be legal.
Our drug policy creates the black market that feeds the cartels. Prohibition has failed again.
I can't imagine that you can make any argument that will impact my position ideologically and vice versa, but let me try a pragmatic argument. Is there some point at which the war on drugs is worse than the drugs? I think there is and I suspect we have reached that point.
|
|
I can't imagine that you can make any argument that will impact my position ideologically and vice versa, but let me try a pragmatic argument. Is there some point at which the war on drugs is worse than the drugs? I think there is and I suspect we have reached that point.At some point when people are no longer responsible for themselves it is societies responsibility to step in and take care of them. When society is unable to do so, or unwilling then the Government at times must take a stand and do so.Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.Legalizing pot would be a start in my opinion too. Of course I think everything adults do with their bodies should be legal.
Our drug policy creates the black market that feeds the cartels. Prohibition has failed again.
Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.
|
|
Yes there will be a point where the "war on drugs" will be worse then the drugs. I however disagree that we have reached that point. I have seen too many friends whose lives have gone to rot because of so-called "soft drugs" to ever agree with that opinion.
I don't want to sound like a douche, but if your friends have ruined their lives using non-addictive drugs, then that's a matter of lack of willpower, not the drugs. They could have done the same thing with alcohol...which is addictive and which I have experience with through my father being addicted.
Now if they have a ruined life due to drug convictions well...you kinda made the argument for BT and myself.
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the FN article? Yes...we don't have the full picture if we don't trace all of the weapons used in Mexican crimes. But to throw out every other gun because they haven't been traced is just as much junk science as it is to base numbers solely off of the ones we have traced.
Another analysis.
Mexico's gun laws are MUCH stricter than the U.K.
Please tell me why, then, their violent crime rate is exponentially higher than the rate in the U.S. again?
Because instituting strict gun control in places that historically haven't had it is basically telling the criminals to have a field day (Cf. Mexico, Brazil). That's not to say it's useless everywhere, though -- evidence suggests that gun control works pretty well in places that are used to it, in terms of lowering the murder rate.
Because instituting strict gun control in places that historically haven't had it is basically telling the criminals to have a field day (Cf. Mexico, Brazil). That's not to say it's useless everyone, though -- evidence suggests that gun control works pretty well in places that are used to it, in terms of lowering the murder rate.Mexico's gun laws are MUCH stricter than the U.K.
Please tell me why, then, their violent crime rate is exponentially higher than the rate in the U.S. again?
Doesn't that raise the chicken and egg question of causality?
|
|
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the FN article? Yes...we don't have the full picture if we don't trace all of the weapons used in Mexican crimes. But to throw out every other gun because they haven't been traced is just as much junk science as it is to base numbers solely off of the ones we have traced.Another analysis.
So according to this, over 1/3 of the guns used in violent crime in Mexico can, beyond the shadow of a doubt, be traced back to the US. That being said, only slightly more than 1/3 of the guns recovered were even sent in for tracing. 2/3 of the available data is being completely discounted to arrive at that 36% number.
|
|
So what in your opinion, because you are were closer to it then I ever will be, the best way to tip the war in the favor of those who wished to stop the drug trade?Not being snarky here, but the answer seems to be a no brainer...
They don't need to traffic drugs in if people can get them at their local 7-11.
Gotta agree. The drug war is about as effective as shooting cockroaches with a rubber band when you have an infestation. They give time out like it's candy and the quantity imported goes up, the quality goes up and the cost either stays steady or drops.
And, please, please, please take the DEA stats on the number of users in the US with a grain of salt. They low ball the numbers to try and marginalize users. From supply side experience, I probably imported enough product over the years to satisfy 25% of the DEA numbers, and I was a very small fish in a large ocean of narcotrafficantes.
Another analysis.
EDIT: Yes, Fox and WP are both full of it, from either end:
Both of those assumptions are total, complete, and utter B.S., as they have no foundation in fact, or even in educated guessing. They're both cynically chosen solely to support the predetermined conclusion. Neither set of statistics is worth the electrons it took to convey them through the ether.
FactCheck at least has the decency to say "we don't know."
Do I think there's a bit of truth in the FN article? Yes...we don't have the full picture if we don't trace all of the weapons used in Mexican crimes. But to throw out every other gun because they haven't been traced is just as much junk science as it is to base numbers solely off of the ones we have traced.Another analysis.
Thanks!
|
|
At some point when people are no longer responsible for themselves it is societies responsibility to step in and take care of them. When society is unable to do so, or unwilling then the Government at times must take a stand and do so.Yet you fail to take in account the drug dealers we have both in the US and Mexico who have been making major profits for years and will not just roll over and not make any more money? They have been doing this way too long to just let their money go away because of a silly little thing like legalization happen.If that was the only drug crossing the border then that might be an option. It is not. Therefor legalizing MJ will only make the other drugs worse in the effort to distribute and sell. To make up for lost profit for their other cash crop being legal.Legalizing MJ will reduce use of "hard" drugs. Just look at drug arrests per capita of the Netherlands vs. the US. Basically the only drugs that are legal are MJ and mushrooms--everything else (coke, heroin, etc.) is illegal, yet their drug arrest/conviction is much lower than that of the US.Legalizing pot would be a start in my opinion too. Of course I think everything adults do with their bodies should be legal.
Our drug policy creates the black market that feeds the cartels. Prohibition has failed again.
The government isn't taking care of anyone but prison guards, drug "taskforces" and prosecuting attorneys. If you think rehabilitation happens in prisons, I invite you to experience the seven years I spent in prison (and Federal prison is 1000% better than just about any state joint) and tell me with a straight face the government "helped" you.
And, yes, most of the people in with me were small time dealers supporting a habit. They would have been better served by rehab than five years on ice.
|
|
Because instituting strict gun control in places that historically haven't had it is basically telling the criminals to have a field day (Cf. Mexico, Brazil). That's not to say it's useless everyone, though -- evidence suggests that gun control works pretty well in places that are used to it, in terms of lowering the murder rate.Mexico's gun laws are MUCH stricter than the U.K.
Please tell me why, then, their violent crime rate is exponentially higher than the rate in the U.S. again?
Yeah, Europe has had peasant weapon control for two thousand years. They're used to it. We aren't. Hell, Texas has a much lower murder rate than before conceal/carry was passed in '94.
*shrug*
I'm missing where fact check makes that assumption.
Ooh! They cite it and then refute it. Didn't read far enough -- I've edited my post accordingly. Thanks!
|
|
I'm missing where fact check makes that assumption.Another analysis.FactCheck is FoxNews2. It uses the exact same junk statistics:
Washington Post: Assumes all untraced guns (100%) are from the U.S.
Fox News and FactCheck.org: Assume that no untraced guns (0%) are from the U.S. Both of those assumptions are total, complete, and utter B.S., as they have no foundation in fact, or even in educated guessing. They're both cynically chosen solely to support the predetermined conclusion. Neither set of statistics is worth the electrons it took to convey them through the ether.
They only take into account the guns that were traced sent in to be traced (which gives 95% one year and 93% another), yet when they go for the total percentage, they use ALL guns found at crime scenes and assume if they weren't sent in to be traced they werent from the US. Essentially, they discount about 20,000 guns as 0% US even though 11,000 traced guns show that 94% came from the US.
Thanks!See above. Say I was at Baskin Robbins for 20 minutes, and saw 5 vanilla cones and 3 chocolate ones ordered while I was there. Would you then assume that every single other cone sold all day was vanilla? No, but that's what the Post article does. Would you assume that no other vanilla cones were sold during the rest of the day? That's even more absurd, but that's exactly what Fox News and FactCheck did.
I understand the error of both of those assumptions. I also doubt the number of recovered weapons reported by Mexico. I suspect they have an interest in under reporting weapons recovered from military and police desertions.
I doubt that we can arrive at reliable numbers given the suspect nature of Mexico's data.
Doesn't that raise the chicken and egg question of causality?
I should have said, "in terms of keeping the murder rate low," not "in terms of lowering." There's no chicken/egg dilemma that I can see.
I doubt that we can arrive at reliable numbers given the suspect nature of Mexico's data.
I agree, which is why I deleted the ice cream post and edited the other one.
Thanks!See above. Say I was at Baskin Robbins for 20 minutes, and saw 5 vanilla cones and 3 chocolate ones ordered while I was there. Would you then assume that every single other cone sold all day was vanilla? No, but that's what the Post article does. Would you assume that no other vanilla cones were sold during the rest of the day? That's even more absurd, but that's exactly what Fox News and FactCheck did.
I just took a quick glance at the Fox article, so maybe I'm missing something, so please let me know what it is.
Now I agree, it is silly to assume that the Federales were 100% correct on those 68% and that none of them were from the US. Still though, I think it is at least equally silly to assume that they were wrong 100% of the time as well.
EDIT: I guess fundamentally I'm saying someone needs to take a 101 Stats class again and learn to take random samples before they start shooting their mouths off either way (by this I mean the news articles and the government officials).
Doesn't that raise the chicken and egg question of causality?I should have said, "in terms of keeping the murder rate low," not "in terms of lowering." There's no chicken/egg dilemma that I can see.
I think I follow. The issue I'm thinking of would be something like "Is Japans low homicide rate the result of gun control, or does Japan have a low homicide rate and strict gun control laws because of other social and historical reasons?"
The more I think about it, the fact that 90-something% of the weapons sent to the US for testing actually come out with them being US weapons, might mean we can have a 90% confidence level in the Federales abilities to correctly identify weapons from the US and weapons not from the US. Either that or they are just randomly picking weapons, and 90-something% are actually from the US.
The more I think about it, the fact that 90-something% of the weapons sent to the US for testing actually come out with them being US weapons, might mean we can have a 90% confidence level in the Federales abilities to correctly identify weapons from the US and weapons not from the US. Either that or they are just randomly picking weapons, and 90-something% are actually from the US. I guess, it depends if you think that the Federales are actually trying to correctly split the weapons up or if you assume they are totally incompetent.
I'm not sure which direction I'd go with that.
For me it doesn't ultimately matter insomuch as I believe self defense is a basic human right.
Houston is correct: Prohibition (1) doesn't work, and (2) causes crime.
I still don't see the link between drug cartels and illegal immigrants the OP was hand-wringing about.
The reason that is stated why the other 68% of the guns are not sent to the US for testing is because those weapons were already determined not to be from the US and thus eliminated from the pile.
Or because they have no serial numbers to trace. Which I personally would guess would be most of them; if I were a criminal, the first thing I'd do with a firearm is file off the serial number.
Some people think guns make murder easier. Those people are correct.
Some people think guns make self-defense easier. Those people are also correct.
I don't know with 100% certainty which factor ultimately weighs more heavily in violent crime numbers, and frankly, neither does anyone else. As long as the 2nd Amendment is in place, guns are legal here. End of story.
Still not seeing the link to illegal immigraiton.
Or because they have no serial numbers to trace. Which I personally would guess would be most of them; if I were a criminal, the first thing I'd do with a firearm is file off the serial number.
No way, man. That's the second thing. The first thing is to stuff it down the front of you pants. Don't you watch TV?
The reason that is stated why the other 68% of the guns are not sent to the US for testing is because those weapons were already determined not to be from the US and thus eliminated from the pile.Or because they have no serial numbers to trace. Which I personally would guess would be most of them; if I were a criminal, the first thing I'd do with a firearm is file off the serial number.
True, but there are ways to retrieve even serial numbers that have been attempted to be filed off, not 100% of the time of course. But you'd think if the Federales thought there was even a chance, they'd send more of those to the US for testing.
Houston is correct: Prohibition (1) doesn't work, and (2) causes crime.
I still don't see the link between drug cartels and illegal immigrants the OP was hand-wringing about.
I presume the issue would be the security issue of not securing the boarder.
I presume the issue would be the security issue of not securing the boarder.
It may well be true that all Mexican drug cartel members in the country are illegal immigrants (doubtful, but let's assume). It does not, follow, however, that all illegal immigrants are Mexican drug cartel members. There is overlap, but there is also significant overlap between being male and being a rapist.
The original post is a classic case of confusing coorelation and causation.