Spike Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/14/politics/alexandria-virginia-shooting/index.html Ridiculously under reported. Many people would be dead if Scalise didn't have the capital police escorting him. An assassination attempt on GOP Congress members is incredibly serious yet this has flown under the radar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 It was only a matter of time before this happened and it won't be the last time I'm sure. This is America, land of the gun. And political discourse has gotten so extreme and devisive. Let's also not forget we've Senators like Rand Paul (who was shot at) saying "Why do we have a Second Amendment? It’s not to shoot deer. It’s to shoot at the government when it becomes tyrannical!" Nor is it the first time a congressperson has been shot in recent history as Gabby Gifford's political career came to an end because of a bullet to the brain (that miraculously didn't kill her - though she's got permanent damage). The American media, to it's credit, almost universally condemned it - I think they're scared of the acceptance of violence in politics tbh. Between antifa & Trumpster violence, congressmen battering journalists, and politicians getting shot at... it's clear American politics is not at it's greatest moment. I think the parties and their politicians are to blame - they've become more extreme and partisan, it's no coincidence we're seeing idiots do stupid things. I wonder if this incident will make the American right less opposed to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill though. That really shouldn't be a partisan issue tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 Oh, I understand the second ammendment is to oppose tyranny by arming the citizens and to a degree I can't condemn an individual trying to excercise that right but I also can't abide the cold slaughter of unarmed men. When it is all said and done this will be an effective tool for the media to use as a character assassiantion on Sanders and his supporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 I remember having a debate with an American in Oz about gun control over there, he went on a massive rant about how people needed guns to defend themselves from tyranny etc, about how it wasn't a far fetched idea that the government could turn on its people. The topic turned back to the much more realistic idea of school shootings and other shootings that happen constantly and he honestly had no idea how to prevent those...which took us full circle in the debate as my answer was to make gun laws much stricter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 20, 2017 Author Share Posted June 20, 2017 7 hours ago, Danny said: I remember having a debate with an American in Oz about gun control over there, he went on a massive rant about how people needed guns to defend themselves from tyranny etc, about how it wasn't a far fetched idea that the government could turn on its people. The topic turned back to the much more realistic idea of school shootings and other shootings that happen constantly and he honestly had no idea how to prevent those...which took us full circle in the debate as my answer was to make gun laws much stricter. Wouldn't matter too much at the end of the day. Oz if so different the USA in terms on import and export of guns. Think about this, Australia is an isolated island; if it difficult to acquire guns internally and externally where will the guns come from? The same isn't true for the USA. Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, and many other nations are all in a leap of the USA and many already have illegal drug smuggling routes established, it wouldn't be difficult for them to increase their already large arms trading. By heavily restricting gun ownership it merely just narrows legal and legitimate channels and opens up a larger demand through the black market. I've no doubt a lot of school shootings would end before they began but I don't think huge planned incidents like Columbine and Virginia Tech would be averted, as the people that perpetrated those massacres would have done it regardless. It will do nothing for gang violence and would indirectly increase or maintain the amount of deaths due to guns; just in different manners. An armed thief is more likely to rob a house in a country that he knows doesn't have armed citizens; that is arms deterrence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 On 6/20/2017 at 7:11 AM, Spike said: Oh, I understand the second ammendment is to oppose tyranny by arming the citizens and to a degree I can't condemn an individual trying to excercise that right but I also can't abide the cold slaughter of unarmed men. When it is all said and done this will be an effective tool for the media to use as a character assassiantion on Sanders and his supporters. Is it? I don't see the media effectively using the Pizzagate would-be-murderer or the Portland Islam-stabber to attack Trump or his supporters. I think we live in a new age where the media won't shape views as effectively as what people already believe now. This will reinforce the view that the American left are crazy hypocrites with violent tendencies to those who already believe it. To say that the US's issues with gun control are due to it's neighboring countries is most likely incorrect. Mexico has strict gun laws, the US has much more lax gun laws - guns sold in America are the most typical weapons used in crimes in Mexico. https://www.kpbs.org/news/2017/jun/19/tijuana-police-rising-homicides-us-gun-laws - that's a pretty recent story from San Diego's sister city. Although it's also worth mentioning that cars kill more people than guns in San Diego (the drivers here are fucking terrible, so I'm not surprised). Drug-trafficking related deaths are all related to the US's drug policy, which is outdated and proven over decades to be ineffective. Prohibition of illicit substances means you create a profitable black market - because people will want to get high. More common sense drug laws would go a long way in reducing drug and gang related violence in the US and abroad. It's a different issue entirely, tbh, but if you live on a border town... and one with a pretty cool, albeit sometimes very unsafe neighboring city that's incredibly easy to get to... you get a fairly decent sense of what the US's drug war has done to these places. But like I said, it's a totally different issue entirely. Personally, I think the idea of gun ownership being a fundamental right is absurd as fuck to me. However, I don't see a major problem with it in America... other than the fact that it's so easy for criminals and the mentally ill to get weapons. And that's either unstable crazy people with firearms, or criminals who will use those weapons in the commission of a crime. So I don't see why so many Americans are opposed to common sense gun control. To be honest, I think the 2nd Amendment is pretty outdated. Firstly, the states doesn't follow the text of the constitution because it says you have the right to bear arms if you're in a well regulated militia. Few (if any, like seriously, any at all) gun owners are in a well regulated militia. Secondly, if there's going to be a rebellion against a tyrannical US government... it will be small arms fire vs. tanks, drones, and fighter jets. Yes - the US might struggle with an insurgency (as proven by Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan), but in any sort of major conflict most gun owners will get totally obliterated. It seems that more people want to hang onto them because: 1.) guns are cool, 2.) tradition, and 3.) guns are cool, 4.) some people are hunters. I can respect those beliefs more than saying shit about wanting to shoot a tyrannical government or being a part of one of America's "well regulated militias." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 Mexico has strict gun laws? Doesn't matter: https://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day Legalising drugs won't do a thing unless they are sold cheaper than the illegal counterparts and made as readily available. I don't think a smackhead is going to go through government regulations to buy more expensive heroin, much easier to continue to use established channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 Besides you said it yourself ' Prohibition of illicit substances means you create a profitable black market - because people will want to get high.' the exact same thing applies to guns. They are illegal in Cook County, Illinois, yet it still has hundreds of gun murders a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Just now, Spike said: Mexico has strict gun laws? Doesn't matter: https://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day Legalising drugs won't do a thing unless they are sold cheaper than the illegal counterparts and made as readily available. I don't think a smackhead is going to go through government regulations to buy more expensive heroin, much easier to continue to use established channels. Did you read that source though: an estimated 2,000 weapons illegally enter Mexico from the United States every day. That's guns coming into Mexico illegally. That's why 70% of Tijuana's murder weapons are guns originally sold in the US. In Mexico it is hard to legally purchase a gun - you need to be in a shooting club, have the proper permits, buy the gun from the military, and then be on a registry. That is infinitely more strict than any US gun law. Your source itself proves my point. US gun laws have led to a rise in gun crime by criminals in both the US and in Mexico/Latin America generally. Because you are right - criminals will take advantage of systems that are easy to exploit to get guns illegally. And the system they are exploiting is lax US gun laws. Portugal's got something to say about ending prohibition and having legal but regulated drug control. Obviously legalisation by itself will not cure the problem - see opioid abuse in the US right now. Legal & easy to obtain drugs that are very addictive. But Portugal didn't just reduce drug crime and addition by legalisation and regulation alone - they invested money into providing treatment to addicts who request help. And for the junkies that want to keep using, even their health was improved through needle exchange programs. Ultimately, the US drug war is costly as fuck and is incredibly ineffective. If anything it's made the drug trade more profitable, thus more enticing for criminals. The money wasted right now could be better spent to address America's drug problem, reduce organised crime, and provide treatment to addict. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 Just now, Dr. Gonzo said: Did you read that source though: an estimated 2,000 weapons illegally enter Mexico from the United States every day. That's guns coming into Mexico illegally. That's why 70% of Tijuana's murder weapons are guns originally sold in the US. In Mexico it is hard to legally purchase a gun - you need to be in a shooting club, have the proper permits, buy the gun from the military, and then be on a registry. That is infinitely more strict than any US gun law. Your source itself proves my point. US gun laws have led to a rise in gun crime by criminals in both the US and in Mexico/Latin America generally. Because you are right - criminals will take advantage of systems that are easy to exploit to get guns illegally. And the system they are exploiting is lax US gun laws. Portugal's got something to say about ending prohibition and having legal but regulated drug control. Obviously legalisation by itself will not cure the problem - see opioid abuse in the US right now. Legal & easy to obtain drugs that are very addictive. But Portugal didn't just reduce drug crime and addition by legalisation and regulation alone - they invested money into providing treatment to addicts who request help. And for the junkies that want to keep using, even their health was improved through needle exchange programs. Ultimately, the US drug war is costly as fuck and is incredibly ineffective. If anything it's made the drug trade more profitable, thus more enticing for criminals. The money wasted right now could be better spent to address America's drug problem, reduce organised crime, and provide treatment to addict. That was the point. They've created the black market you've spoken out against. 3 minutes ago, Spike said: Besides you said it yourself ' Prohibition of illicit substances means you create a profitable black market - because people will want to get high.' the exact same thing applies to guns. They are illegal in Cook County, Illinois, yet it still has hundreds of gun murders a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 Just now, Spike said: That was the point. They've created the black market you've spoken out against. The black market of guns was created because it's profitable to be a criminal when you can sell drugs to the most drug addicted nation in the world. Look at how those guns are illegally being sold in Mexico. It's guns that are legally acquired in the US and then smuggled over. And that gun-running is in large part because of the profitability of the drug-trade. You bring Chicago & Cook County up as an example. Take a look at the prohibition of alcohol that led to Chicago being overrun by violent mobsters like Al Capone. Chicago is the hub of the Mid-West; that applies to all businesses, even illicit ones. So as a result, it is an important part of the drug trade. Thus, you'll have gangs fighting to control important territory in a profitable industry. The guns are a necessity for them. They need the guns to control their territory and effectively fight off rival gangs in the South Side of Chicago. In Mexico the Cartels are doing the same thing, controlling the route linking South America to the United States. The illegal gun trade is uniquely tied to the US Drug War. And the fact the guns are so fucking easy to get in America is a contributing factor to this gun violence in the US and in neighboring countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 27 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: The black market of guns was created because it's profitable to be a criminal when you can sell drugs to the most drug addicted nation in the world. Look at how those guns are illegally being sold in Mexico. It's guns that are legally acquired in the US and then smuggled over. And that gun-running is in large part because of the profitability of the drug-trade. You bring Chicago & Cook County up as an example. Take a look at the prohibition of alcohol that led to Chicago being overrun by violent mobsters like Al Capone. Chicago is the hub of the Mid-West; that applies to all businesses, even illicit ones. So as a result, it is an important part of the drug trade. Thus, you'll have gangs fighting to control important territory in a profitable industry. The guns are a necessity for them. They need the guns to control their territory and effectively fight off rival gangs in the South Side of Chicago. In Mexico the Cartels are doing the same thing, controlling the route linking South America to the United States. The illegal gun trade is uniquely tied to the US Drug War. And the fact the guns are so fucking easy to get in America is a contributing factor to this gun violence in the US and in neighboring countries. What do you propose? Decriminalising drugs does not solve the issue of illegal drugs, nor does it solve the gun problem. The USA cannot be expected to develop public entities that produce drugs like cocaine/crack, heroin, and meth, and expect to be able to fully reach the market and create enough product to satiate the demand. Nor should you expect private companies to willingly make themselves targets of rival (gang) manufacturers. Thoroughly regulating gun control won't necessarily limit the gun trade as gun runners don't necessarily have to go through regulation, and even if they did it wouldn't necessarily exclude them from purchases. Marijuana for instance, is a pervasive drug (kinda like alcohol during prohibition), it is everywhere and not strictly controlled by gangs; I wouldn't say the same for crack. I find it hard to imagine any scenario where a legal crack store opening in LA wouldn't get shot up within a week. Gangs wouldn't wrest control easily. If it were easy, I'd be all for it, I just don't see it being feasible. Chicago was already controlled by gangs before Prohibition; just without a consolidated power that the Chicago Outfit had. Most of the current gangs sprang up after the Civil Rights movement, the gangs that control Chicago are not the same one as during prohibition, completely different. Drugs aren't the only source of revenue for a gang, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Profesor Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 From personal experience, I can tell strict gun laws do not solve the violence problem. Brazil has very strict gun laws and yet every year more people are murdured here than in Syria. Our land board is huge and any simpleton can buy guns in Ciudad de Leste, Paraguay. Drug Gangs have the best israeli, american, european weapons on their arsenal and at many times they're much better equipped than the police. I'm in favour of legalizing drugs, but in the case of guns I believe it only reflects a violent society. It is the sympton, not the cause in my opinion. Having a large young male low-skilled population is a recipe for crime and violence. Latin America will probably become at least a bit less violent in the next decades and it will have nothing to do with any government but with demographics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo Posted June 23, 2017 Share Posted June 23, 2017 38 minutes ago, Spike said: What do you propose? Decriminalising drugs does not solve the issue of illegal drugs, nor does it solve the gun problem. The USA cannot be expected to develop public entities that produce drugs like cocaine/crack, heroin, and meth, and expect to be able to fully reach the market and create enough product to satiate the demand. Nor should you expect private companies to willingly make themselves targets of rival (gang) manufacturers. Thoroughly regulating gun control won't necessarily limit the gun trade as gun runners don't necessarily have to go through regulation, and even if they did it wouldn't necessarily exclude them from purchases. Marijuana for instance, is a pervasive drug (kinda like alcohol during prohibition), it is everywhere and not strictly controlled by gangs; I wouldn't say the same for crack. I find it hard to imagine any scenario where a legal crack store opening in LA wouldn't get shot up within a week. Gangs wouldn't wrest control easily. If it were easy, I'd be all for it, I just don't see it being feasible. Chicago was already controlled by gangs before Prohibition; just without a consolidated power that the Chicago Outfit had. Most of the current gangs sprang up after the Civil Rights movement, the gangs that control Chicago are not the same one as during prohibition, completely different. Drugs aren't the only source of revenue for a gang, Portugal's method of dealing with drugs has been more effective than the USA's methods, as stated earlier. It's not perfect, but it's definitely got teachable lessons. The notion that the US must stick with it's failed drugs policy because there are no suitable alternatives is flat out wrong. Furthermore, the idea that drugs cannot be produced to satisfy the demand in a legal market that is regulated is absurd. Firstly, I never suggested that the government should be actively involved in the business of selling drugs. Using the USA's prohibition as a very relevant example, booze manufacturers did not resort to gang warfare tactics to compete. Gang control of these industries, like we saw under alcohol prohibition, will wane as the profitability doesn't match the risk. This makes hypotheticals like gangs seizing legal crack stores unrealistic. Manufacturers and retailers would instead they operate like... companies. As that's what they are. It is a business. Drug manufacturing can easily cope with the demand. Heroin was invented by Bayer (the Asperin company). Synthetic heroin is legal and widely abused in the form of OxyContin. Adderall is meth. Colorado has shown that growers, sellers, and the state itself can benefit from this. Tobacco companies have bought fields in Humbolt County, CA (weed country USA) in anticipation of being able to farm and sell the Devil's lettuce. I never said the gangs from prohibition are the same as the ones involved in drug trafficking today. It would be fucking hard to confuse Italian Mafioso types with Chicago gangbangers. I also never said that drugs aren't the only source of revenue for a gang. There's shit like prostitution, protection money, and other seedy crap. But if you take away a major revenue stream for organised crime, you're hitting criminal institutions where they care about it the most - their wallets. Drug money doesn't just keep gangs afloat, it keeps them thriving. It makes joining a gang an appealing prospect to improve your future. It lets gangs to grow in size, scope, and power - it's more money to pay people, buy guns, bribe cops/politicians, etc... If we took a major revenue stream away from any business enterprise, one that overwhelmingly brings in most of their money, they will feel it. It will make organised crime... less organised. I agree this is not an easy problem to fix. But most complicated problems aren't easy to fix. But making attempts to try to actually solve these problems seems like a much better response than letting failing policies that are making things worse overall. I don't disagree that thoroughly regulating gun control won't necessarily limit the gun trade as well. But I think it's pretty clear to see that more regulations means it's harder to own a gun. Also gun owner registries create more accountability... if I buy a gun, then sell it to you, then you go off and give it to the Hells Angels to take it to Mexico and sell it to a cartel, and then it shows up at a murder scene - you can hold me accountable if there's a paper trail that has me as the registered gun available. I don't disagree that criminals will find a way to get guns if they want/need them to survive as criminals. But the idea that US gun regulations won't make a difference to gun crime because Mexico is a neighbor is just flat out wrong. Mexico has strict gun laws, yet it can't control US gun sales. Then these guns make their way to Mexico and into the hands of criminals. And yes, they want these guns because the narco-trafficking cartel wars necessitate it. Yes, they are breaking the law to get them. But they are exploiting a weak system to facilitate this illegal gun trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 I didn't suggest you said anything of those things, geez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted June 23, 2017 Author Share Posted June 23, 2017 Anyway, there are so many variable we just couldn't know what will happen. Even the 'drys' during the Prohibition period didn't foresee the rise of organised crime. Never put it past people to make a quick (illegal) buck, completely ingenious some methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.