Actually, most guns used by Mexican druglords are produced and paid for in the USA. Mexico is hell on Earth precisely because of availability of guns (produced in USA) and the inability of Mexican government to suppress the violence. When guns are available as easily as cigarette packs it is obvious everyone and their dog will have them. Demagogues use this an excuse and switch cause&effect by saying "well since all criminals have them, it is only natural law abiding citizens have them as well". Dealing with people like Pabst only reminds why I have the deepest contempt and hatred for the republican party and everything it stands for.
Do you have any evidence for that statement other than the movies? http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1449 This article has a lengthy list of citations that dispute your claim.
Tigerjaw, One of the best arguments for gun ownership also comes from Florida. Florida was the first state in the Union to legalize concealed carry laws for ordinary citizens. At the time of its passage the anti gun crowd railed against it proclaiming that the Florida would become the modern day equivalent of the OK Corral. Carnage would be the inevitable result of so stupid and irresponsible legislation. What actually happened was that violent crime went down. One unexpected uptick in crime though was against foreign tourists. Inexplicably, innocent visitors from abroad became the target of criminals. No explanation could be given until a few perpetrators were caught. It turns out that after the law was passed and the possibility that a mark just might be carrying a weapon it made sense to find a group of people who could be reliably targeted. People in rented cars, which at that time those cars had company logos on them, could presumably be expected to contain tourists who would be unarmed. Criminals may be less than rocket scientists but they can calculate those odds. Hence, a spate of tourist targeted crime until the rental companies took their banners from the rental fleet. An armed citizen is a good deterrent to crime. Any inmate will tell you that they prefer things as easy as possible. Facing someone that might be able to kill them is not something they will readily seek.
Nevadan - thank you for the link. I am a bit of a fan of history, especially the history of the Old West. So, I just had to reply even though I swore off this thread as too tempting a way for me to procrastinate from doing my tax work. The real history is so much more fascinating than the Hollywood baloney that many people seem to actually believe today. I bet many people believe that it was common for men to line up on the street for a 'shoot out' just like in all those Clint Eastwood movies ! I bet they still believe that total fraud Ward Churchill who claimed that the powers that be gave the native peoples blankets infected with the small pox virus in order to wipe them out ! Thanks for the link. I'm afraid those that should read it won't - - wouldn't want to let historical evidence, statistics, or facts interfere with strongly held beliefs or what some ivory tower prof told them. Regards, - - -
It's pretty easy to prove that. If "armed" or "arms" has no limit, then why not include ICBMs, tank divisions, and tactical nukes in there? Thus there has to be some kind of limit. I would say a fair limit is where you have enough firepower to defend yourself against a plausible and defeatable enemy, but not so much as to pose an extreme risk to overall security. Tank divisions, artillery pieces, gunboats and warplanes are out. Shotguns, rifles are obviously fine, handguns IMO are fine (non-auto). Semi-auto IMO is essential for self-defence, and I would argue that full-auto is necessary to defend many homes such as mansions, detached houses, farms etc. In a situation like the LA riots, if a mob comes to burn your place down, you need to be able to take out 30, 50, 100 people if necessary (in reality you'd only need to kill a few before the rest ran). A semi-auto Glock isn't going to save you. And it's kinda hard to tote an AK-47 or more potent weapon around without drawing attention to yourself. So I think a reasonable line to draw is full auto assault weapons allowed on your own property, but not to be carried out in public e.g. on the street, shops, stadiums etc. Semi-auto and single-shot allowed everywhere in public, subject to the decision of the property owner or relevant authority (that handles stuff like schools, hospitals, courts etc). Note that in 19th century England, it was legal to own artillery pieces and Gatling guns, yet the murder rate was one of the lowest in recorded history, even lower than modern Switzerland. They had more liberal gun laws than Texas and were much safer. Now guns are almost totally gone and the murder rate is 4 times higher, despite the country being much richer and better policed than in 1900.
Nevadan - - I just read your last post after you wrote this one on FL. The person making the gun control argument is from FL and asserts that violent crime is up there. I did a quick search and found news accounts from their local paper that also mentioned this. It was stated that the crimes were due to those associated with the illegal drug trade against each other. I also did a search of the FBI crime statistics and they state on their website that both violent crimes and murder was down from 2007 to 2008 in Orlando. So this is a disconnect that I find interesting. Are the papers wrong ? Are the FBI stats wrong or do they under report ? - - In either case, it seems to me that it would be best to form opinions based on facts rather than just assertions. I don't know what the truth is in regard to the situation in Orlando. - - -
Switzerland has more guns than Mexico, per capita, it seems pretty safe. 1900 UK had lots of guns and was safe - now it has none and is dangerous (check UK/London crime rates vs USA/NYC since 1990). In the US itself, the places with more guns e.g. Texas, Florida, are safer than places with less e.g. Washington DC. If your stats backed your position I would be the first to concede the *facts* (although I think arms are a fundamental human right, even if they result in somewhat more deaths), but I don't see this clear link you claim.
I abhor racism and racists. I happen to be a registered independent, not a Republican. (Don't even get me started on some of the policies of George Bush !) But look at the kind of bigoted emotional prejudiced generalizations that you just made. You undoubtedly feel theyre 'true'. I'm afraid that underneath all your unsupported arguments is . . . feelings of contempt and hatred. Its pretty tough to reason with that.
Presumably he wants to be able to defend himself? I'm not scared of a down day or even a down year in my trading, that doesn't mean I won't try to prevent it happening. I insure my house but don't sit up at night shaking at the thought of it burning down. Equally, someone does not have to be 'scared' of violence or the minority of dangerous individuals to want to take steps to protect themselves.
More pesky statistics (from the government no less). This article was written by Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns, 6th Cong. Dist. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30405