The Laughable Myth that a Gun Cannot Protect You (foreign, rant, facts)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's a LOT of guns. That's also a LOT of people that the federal government can go after for straw purchases. How many people have been convicted of smuggling guns into Mexico? If you can find information on more than a dozen convictions I will be surprised.
What our current regime doesn't tell us are the numbers of US manufactured guns sold to the Mexican army and other Mexican law enforcement organizations that end up in the hands of cartels.
Also, the article on the WASR10 makes absolutely no sense. Why would a cartel get guns that are semi-automatic versions instead of going to the Romanian source and buying full auto versions by the shipping container load for less money?
That's a LOT of guns. That's also a LOT of people that the federal government can go after for straw purchases. How many people have been convicted of smuggling guns into Mexico? If you can find information on more than a dozen convictions I will be surprised.
What our current regime doesn't tell us are the numbers of US manufactured guns sold to the Mexican army and other Mexican law enforcement organizations that end up in the hands of cartels.
Also, the article on the WASR10 makes absolutely no sense. Why would a cartel get guns that are semi-automatic versions instead of going to the Romanian source and buying full auto versions by the shipping container load for less money?
This includes guns that were given to the Mexican government from the American government and then taken by fleeing soldiers/police who work for the cartel. It also includes many guns the American government intentionally sold to the cartel and didn't track (fast and furious scandal) and doesn't include the hundreds of thousands of guns that come from overseas and cannot be tracked because they don't have a serial number and country of origin as American arms do.
Sure some guns make their way across the boarder, but in a country that you can bribe your way out of any situation, including port officials, why would you want expensive and neutered American arms when you can get anything you want from com bloc Eastern Europe, the Middle East and China? You can buy a full auto ak47 for roughly $200 in many places across the world, a semi auto am from America will cost roughly $700 right now, plus you have to pass a background check. It really doesn't make sense.
chucksnee, I don't think we'll see answers to those great questions you asked.
Just like I don't expect an answer to the below question...
Quote:
Originally Posted by numberfive
dv1033, you seem to be high on rhetoric, low on fact with your claim that we need to ban guns because other countries do. Your rhetoric part is loud and clear, but where are the facts?
Let's start with this: show me a list of countries that solved a gun problem -- like America's problem -- with a gun ban. We'd need to see where gun ban changed the overall homicide rate over time. It should be obvious by looking at the time series that "yep, the gun ban went into effect here". I'll save some time, Australia is a bad example since the homicide rate didn't change after the gun ban.
Without facts to back up your case, we're just a couple of poor people driving through a rich neighborhood, saying "we should be rich like them!" It completely ignores the fact that some of them are in debt up to their eyeballs, others inherited their wealth, etc. Just buying an expensive house doesn't make you rich; banning guns doesn't make you safe. You have to PROVE IT before you'll get us on board.
thats their problem, the gun grabbers cannot answer the questions you have posed to them, so they fall back on their rhetoric. one day though they will gain some life experience, and find that their stance will change. we can only hope that happens sooner rather than later, and that it only costs them a little time.
Yes it's the US responsibility to secure the borders, or come up with another solution. It's not my responsibility. I personally have no issue with legalization of every drug known to man and regulation, if someone wants to shoot up a speed ball, well that's their option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
But it benefits everyone who makes guns, ammo, and gear..... Just like it benefits folks who own and work the prison system....
Well then let the guns, ammo, gear, and prison system take care of themselves, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Gun bans are irrational. Rights to bear arms is not needed in the 21st century, there's a solid middle ground in there.
Well since the 20th century had more deaths caused by war, genocide and government actions than the rest of human history combined up until the end of the 19th century, why aren't they needed? The 21st century is on track to eclipse the 20th century (although I have doubts that the total deaths will exceed all deaths up to the end of the 20th century, but there are 85 more years to go, so who knows). So why are they not needed again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Uh huh.... is that a lame analogy like guns and cars? Like modern society wouldn't have a major hiccup if we banned personal automobiles over guns.... I'm just asking because it feels pretty lame....
It's not an analogy, it's an example used to illuminate the principle you're espousing.
If we are responsible for the export of items that are illegal in the countries of illicit import, then that applies in all cases. If we are not responsible for the export of items that are illegal in countries of illicit import, then that applies in any case.
So if we're concerned with guns going to Mexico (because guns are illegal in Mexico) we should be concerned with certain types porn going to the UK (because certain types of porn are illegal in the UK).
If we don't adopt one or the other principle, then the principle isn't about illegal goods being exported, so don't use it as an argument for why we should stop gun trafficking to Mexico.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
No, it's okay. I've been wondering what holds the rest of the developed world together without a 2nd amendment type of right....
Nothing, the rest of the developed world isn't really that old, it all fell apart in the 1910's, 1920's 1930's, what you should be asking isn't what's holding it together, but why it hasn't fallen apart yet. Perhaps because of the US acting as World Cop (which I happen to disagree with), and the threat of nuclear annihilation. The collapse of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact had as great an impact on the west as it did on the Soviet Union and Soviet satellite states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Like what stops their average citizen from indiscriminately killing another citizen without a 2nd amendment....
Nothing, happens every day in every OECD country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
Or what stops their tyrannical leftist governments from just completely taking over without the right to own a firearm in the developed world....
Nothing, as I mentioned since the end of WW2 the countries in the developed world have not been significantly tested under their current forms of government. That said, how are extremist groups doing in Europe right now? Pretty much across the whole of Europe extremism is growing, Frances FN gained the most seats in the 2014 European Elections, Germany elected a member of the NDP to the European Parliament (that's a biggie right there), the UK has growth in the UKIP.
Totalitarian regimes do not spring up when the situation is comfortable, but when it really sucks. Like Chile in 1973, or Argentina in 1976, in fact Argentina should be an object lesson in how fast countries can collapse, in 1908 it had the seventh highest GDP per capita in the world behind Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, the US, UK, and Belgium. It's GDP per capita was above Germany, France, Italy, Spain, where is it today? 53rd in GDP per capita marginally above banana republic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dv1033
It just baffles me how this can happen in other countries with our standard of living....
....it's like there is a large segment of the population who can't comprehend how some other countries can operate without a right to bear arms?
Hey nothing stopping them operating without the right to bear arms. But think about this, the UK, low homicide rate, low gun ownership rate and in Europe. Sweden lower homicide rate than the UK much higher gun ownership rate, Germany lower homicide rate than the UK much higher gun ownership rate, France lower homicide rate than the UK much higher gun ownership rate, Italy marginally lower homicide rate marginally higher gun ownership rate.
If we take the US out of the picture and just look at Europe, then there is no correlation between gun ownership levels and homicide rates. So why do we think that there is for the US? Just sayin...
dv1033, you seem to be high on rhetoric, low on fact with your claim that we need to ban guns because other countries do. Your rhetoric part is loud and clear, but where are the facts?
Let's start with this: show me a list of countries that solved a gun problem -- like America's problem -- with a gun ban. We'd need to see where gun ban changed the overall homicide rate over time. It should be obvious by looking at the time series that "yep, the gun ban went into effect here". I'll save some time, Australia is a bad example since the homicide rate didn't change after the gun ban.
Without facts to back up your case, we're just a couple of poor people driving through a rich neighborhood, saying "we should be rich like them!" It completely ignores the fact that some of them are in debt up to their eyeballs, others inherited their wealth, etc. Just buying an expensive house doesn't make you rich; banning guns doesn't make you safe. You have to PROVE IT before you'll get us on board.
Let me save him the trouble: International studies from Harvard came to the conclusion that gun laws are not inclusive of violence, that indeed countries with higher rates of firearms ownership and more permissive laws for ownership were, on the whole, less violent then gun-banning countries.
That's a LOT of guns. That's also a LOT of people that the federal government can go after for straw purchases. How many people have been convicted of smuggling guns into Mexico? If you can find information on more than a dozen convictions I will be surprised.
What our current regime doesn't tell us are the numbers of US manufactured guns sold to the Mexican army and other Mexican law enforcement organizations that end up in the hands of cartels.
Also, the article on the WASR10 makes absolutely no sense. Why would a cartel get guns that are semi-automatic versions instead of going to the Romanian source and buying full auto versions by the shipping container load for less money?
Because it fits the story. Another note, how many firearms that were "traced" back the US were a part of the Mexican military or police forces?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If we take the US out of the picture and just look at Europe, then there is no correlation between gun ownership levels and homicide rates. So why do we think that there is for the US? Just sayin...
In fact our violent crime rate is generally lower then that of European countries. Taken state by state almost every shall-issue pro-gun state would be at the bottom of the violence index.
Its no myth. If you have a gun. your given enough time. Your attacked. . the gun can offer a measure of protection. That isn't the myth
Yet your cherry picking isn't why people don't think guns are a good idea
and your straw man fallacy about guns "never protecting" is a bit out there too
The reality is in a 24x7 news cycle and internet we both can flood this forum daily with stories like "Man protects family" " Toddler shoots dad/mom".
Yet if you look at widespread gun statistics you will find
-Criminals shoot each other with guns, not normally homeowners
-Home owners shoot their friend and families with guns, not normally criminals (suicides, spouse violence, accidents).
so if you wanted to protect your family, you would . . not own a gun. Since the chance of you being attacked is far lower than one of your family doing something stupid.
And - if you secure your weapon in a good and justifiable way, you couldn't stop a zombie attack let alone a determined intruder.
Just reposting the best response in the thread. Carry on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
