11-08-2019, 01:32 PM
(11-08-2019, 10:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: The first two "blame" the US because so many of the guns in Mexico comes from here.
Clinton blamed violence on US drug use and admitted many of the guns being used come from the US.
The New Yorker cited actual illegal gun sales made possible by US gun laws.
Newsweek's article was based on Trump administration saying the guns come from America.
Obama is quoted saying this:
You're citing reasons they blame the US, I simply stated they did, which they do. The reasons vary, but the constant is that Mexico's gun violence is frequently blamed on US gun laws. I stated this was frequently claimed and it is.
Quote:Maybe I misinterpreted your statement:
(I mean that Fast and Furious went off the rails under Obama's watch is high irony but that's the entirety of the article linked.)
I thought you meant the US policies and perhaps were tying it into immigration somehow.
No, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with immigration.
Quote:If there is proof the guns are coming from the US and the drug cartels are making money selling drugs in the US then that seems to be a levelheaded answer. If the guns are entering Mexico illegally we need to address that and try to stop it either with current laws or better laws with fewer loopholes. I'm not an expert on current gun laws and how they work when crossing country borders.
Drugs enter the US illegally from Mexico all the time despite huge efforts to prevent this. Guns are not flowing into Mexico from the US because we don't have any issue with that or don't try and prevent it. As for crossing the Mexico/US border with a gun, it is highly illegal. Mexican gun laws are very strict, as noted in the video in OP. Criminals obtain them illegally nonetheless.
Quote:I will say I appreciate the links to actually back up your claim though. Very refreshing around here.
No problem.
Quote:That's kind of the point. When a schp the folks who want to find answers to people doing it are told to not talk about the guns. "Too soon". But this one is being used within a week of the tragic event by you here (I don't know if there are others) to say we don't need to look at the other events because this one shows why everyone should be armed.
Actually, I think every single example shows why we should be armed. There are bad people who will use our rights to commit harmful acts. The police are not going to be able to instantly teleport to the scene of such an act. In the beginning of an incident you can only rely on yourself or those with you for protection. The "too soon" argument has been roundly derided by the control side of this debate, so they can't exactly pull it out now. You do make a good point though, right after an incident is a terrible time to make policy decisions. Emotional decisions are usually poor ones. I had the exact same reaction to New Zealand's obscene reaction to the Christchurch shooting. One bad person means millions lose their firearms. yet the NZ government was roundly praised for acting "too soon".
Quote:Obviously I don't disagree that we have a right to own guns, but I don't see how this tragic event should be used to either disarm American citizens in America or as an iconic moment to defend the 2nd amendment.
I believe her point, based on listening to her, is that when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns. Kind of hard to argue with in Mexico were the military can't hold their own against cartel gunmen. What chance does an unarmed civilian have in that country? There are hundreds of bodies hanging from freeway overpasses with narco banners draped on them to answer that question, and thousands of more people who just "disappeared".
