Gun control question....

[ditchdj]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35170527...news-americas/

-----Interesting that this happens so much on the southern side of the Rio Grande and not the other side where El Paso, Texas is at. And guns are illegal in Mexico. Obviously gun control in Mexico has proven to be a terrible and complete failure. And in Texas, it's even legal to shot and kill someone to protect your property. But which side has an orgy of gun crime???

Something to ponder I think......

[Greenday]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35170527...news-americas/

-----Interesting that this happens so much on the southern side of the Rio Grande and not the other side where El Paso, Texas is at. And guns are illegal in Mexico. Obviously gun control in Mexico has proven to be a terrible and complete failure. And in Texas, it's even legal to shot and kill someone to protect your property. But which side has an orgy of gun crime???

Something to ponder I think......

Or is the question who does a better job at law enforcement...

[ditchdj]

Or is the question who does a better job at law enforcement...

That's a good point. But there's a big difference between regulation and an flat-out ban.

I'm NOT against regulating it. The Constitution even calls for it when it said "well-regulated militia".

[Greenday]

Even though Mexico flat out banned it, is it REALLY being enforced? I mean, it's a tough comparison but I'm betting there's more enforcement of our laws than there is down there.

[ditchdj]

So, in other words, the criminals are NOT gonna give up THEIR guns just because the government says it's illegal and nobody's allowed to have guns.

[Greenday]

So, in other words, the criminals are NOT gonna give up THEIR guns just because the government says it's illegal and nobody's allowed to have guns.

Depends on the kind of criminal and what the penalty is for it, but for the most part, that's exactly right. Though I'm ok with at least making it harder to obtain guns than just walking into a show and getting one.

[Skelly]

Guns are certainly not illegal in Mexico. Just restricted. Which is kind of a moot point when A) police and soldiers desert their posts/jobs quite often to join the drug gangs, and they take their issued weapons with them, meaning that the drug gangs get their hands on .50 caliber machine guns, assault rifles, grenade launchers and such, and B) the drug gangs bring in firearms and explosives by the containerload either from overseas or from THEIR southern border, where a Kalashnikov is pretty cheap.
I don't see why gun shows/shops in the USA would be visited other than to perhaps procure rarities that is more for show, like perhaps a custom-engraved 1911 in .38 super or something like that. Why spend the time, money and take the risks associated with smuggling guns, especially long guns over the US border, when you can have a full-auto AK-47, or a container full of them for that matter, delivered from over seas, ready to use as soon as you've wiped off the Cosmoline, and no need to start up the metal mill to convert them to full-auto...

[Rapscallion]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35170527...news-americas/

-----Interesting that this happens so much on the southern side of the Rio Grande and not the other side where El Paso, Texas is at. And guns are illegal in Mexico. Obviously gun control in Mexico has proven to be a terrible and complete failure. And in Texas, it's even legal to shot and kill someone to protect your property. But which side has an orgy of gun crime???

Something to ponder I think......

Who has the most gun crime - is that your question?

Well, logically crime can only exist where there are laws to criminalise something. If the law allows something, it's not a crime.

So, what are the relative statistics of gun crime and death by gun in the two regions you point at? I'd find that of more interest than one news article. I suspect the statistics would back you up, but let's see them.

Rapscallion

[Wingates_Hellsing]

I've dug around a bit, but so far haven't found anything (other than wild speculation) for either region, but it's bound to be out there somewhere.

Regulation is all well and good, but I feel there's too often an incredible blur in the line between sensible regulations and nonsense bans. IMO, if something is proven to be particularly dangerous to sell AND a ban or regulation would prevent incidents, I say go for it (sat. night specials being one such occasion, 5$ guns available to any nut who walked through the door? hell no.)

But there's plenty of areas where regulation isn't actually doing anything. They banned automatic weapons despite the fact that the extensive licensing system that existed before had worked fine. Not one legally registered automatic weapon has been used in a crime under that system, there's no reason to go a step further and ban that which isn't a threat. Same for the Assault Weapons ban, utter garbage.

Besides, it's been shown (I'll try to find a link) that violent crime in general is more or less linked directly to poverty levels. There's really no accounting for the random whackjob (or pack of whackjobs), the best we can do is be ready, anyone for first aid classes?

[The Shadow]

*SIGH*

Do we REALLY need yet another gun control thread here at Fratching?

I think anyone who has a strong opinion on the subject one way or another has already had ample opportunity to argue their views and by now it should be obvious that no one on either side is going to change the minds of someone on the other. So what's the point of debating it further?

[the_std]

New members, people who haven't seen the old threads, new circumstances mean new arguments... There's a lot of reasons to debate it again.

[Nyoibo]

That and the whole point of Fratching is to debate things.

[crashhelmet]

Why do civilians need to own assault rifles and other military grade weaponry? Why do civilians that are not a part of some a legally regulated militia need to own assault rifles and other military grade weaponry? What kind of hunter needs a fully automatic weapon to make a kill?

To me "Gun Control" is controlling who has access to them and what they have access to. There is no reason why anyone outside of the military should have access to an assault rifle. ESPECIALLY one with a built in sound suppressor. There is no reason why anyone outside of the military should have access to a rifle that can kill it's target from 1000 meters or more. Hell, even 600 is a stretch for a civilian.

What is the justifiable purpose to have this type of weaponry? Where does it stop? Should some eccentric billionaire be allowed to own his own F-16 or M1 Abrams?

CH

[jackfaire]

Should some eccentric billionaire be allowed to own his own F-16 or M1 Abrams?

CH

Probably could build one if he is that rich.

[Skelly]

Probably could one if he is that rich.

Tanks are legal, atleast in some states in the US. You just can't use them on public roads from what I've understood, and the cannon would obviously have to be deactivated or turned into something that doesn't count as a firearm/destructive device. Currently used tanks is most likely a big no-no, considering there's quite likely a fair bit of technology in them that your government would like to keep to themselves.
As for an F-16, the problem would be getting all the end-user certificates and whatnot for buying it, however, from what I remember there's a fair number of people in the US who owns old (and not so old) Soviet/ex-Com Bloc fighter jets. Current US inventory seems off limits though, for some very obvious reasons. Again, the cannons and the bomb mountings on these have been disabled or taken off.