If coke, heroin, meth and weed are coming over the border, what do you think balances out the trade? What gets sent back? You have to say munitions are a big part of it. Murder.
To fulfill the treacherous cycle, the murder in Mexico is tied in with the savage competition for the **US consumers **recreational drug budget.
If anything I think you should only take figures for all of North America as meaningful.
No. But if one of two rival gangs found themselves suddenly disarmed, how long to you suppose they’d exist? If you were a gang member, would you prefer to be on the side that still had guns, or would you feel safer on the disarmed side?
That’s kind of the crux of it. I’m all for disarming criminals, like every good man. But most of you guys seem to concentrate on disarming me. I’m easier, of course, because I actually obey laws.
I would imagine that it’s more likely a suddenly disarmed gang would disperse and cease to exist as a gang than be summarily executed en masse by their rivals.
But regardless, I was not arguing for disarming people. I was merely disagreeing with the assertion that shootings are prevented by more people having guns.
Why do you personalize it?
You’re advocating that only laws that criminals obey should be passed? Do you have a party?
I think you got to look it over again.
Because the restrictions many here are advocating would affect me personally, of course. I often think in terms of individual rights. Foreign concept to some, I’m sure.
…to live or die at the mercy of the armed.
This old saw is so tiresome that it’s hardly worth a response, especially when trotted out where it’s irrelevant.
I’m not advocating that at all, of course. I’m advocating against enacting laws that penalize the innocent while doing little to nothing to deter the guilty.
No, but this has no meaning. If you committed a crime you would be a criminal. Each criminal is an individual too.
Personalizing it has nothing to do with individual rights, it has to do with being self interested.
Do you want to argue for unregulation of all the guns by telling me that “criminals” will just not obey the law?
Because if you do then: What laws are you OK with? Criminals are breaking them all, all the time. They can’t stop it seems. Pass no new laws. It’s just hopeless. Let’s give up the ship?
i know one guy who was not a criminal and he kind of became a criminal sometime later on. What if he becomes a criminal by buying the gun? You act like the word “criminal” reflects a whole other race of people…
While I’m sure there are a few vocal personalities out there who are pushing for small measures of gun control with the cynical intent of poisoning the well entirely and taking a step at a time towards a total ban and confiscation, I think you’re conflating it into a much larger problem than it really is. The vast majority (the 80-90% of people overall who favor *some level of gun control/regulation) simply want there to be fewer unnecessary deaths. There doesn’t have to be an agenda behind everything.
Your example of the suppressor is particularly telling. I’m personally in favor of restricting the use of suppressors; I’d never considered the reasons you gave until reading them here. I’d always assumed bans on them were for the purpose of making it more difficult to *get away with killing someone, and thus have the chance to do it again. If you have to make an extremely loud noise in the process of shooting someone, the chances are a lot higher that a nearby cop is going to come running, or someone’s going to point a cell phone your way, or a 911 call will get lucky and a cop will show up in time to stop you from fleeing the area. It’s also nice to know that if someone isn’t fatally wounded, they at least stand a chance of having medical attention arrive before they bleed out.
As for hearing protection, there are earplugs and earmuffs. I’d say having to wear ear protection when hunting or going to a shooting range is a reasonable trade-off for the lives saved by not making it easier for people to get away with murder.