HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Mexico bans "assault...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:48 PM

Mexico bans "assault weapons;" mass shootings fall to - oh, wait...

At around 3 am on 1 August 2003, the Federal Investigations Agency (AFI) confronted a group of armed men in the streets of Nuevo Laredo. Members of the AFI were staying at a hotel when Juan Manuel Muñoz Morales, the attorney general of the city, called for help. He was reportedly being chased by several individuals in a dark-colored truck. Consequently, the AFI officers followed the truck with seven of their vehicles, triggering a shootout between the police officers and alleged drug traffickers. The armed confrontation lasted for more than 40 minutes, provoking "panic" and turning Nuevo Laredo into a "battlefield." The gun detonations were heard throughout most of the city. Some witnesses, who preferred to remain anonymous, claimed that they saw over "18 armed men in black with ski-masks."

During the chase, five armed men in another vehicle shot at the police convoy. The triggermen in the two vehicles then engaged in a gunfight with the AFI for minutes, but one of the vehicles collided with a police truck. The vehicle the drug traffickers were in then caught on fire, and two of the gunmen were burned to death. The third one died on the sidewalk. According to PGR, the three gunmen that were killed were members of Los Negros, a group of hitmen under the tutelage of Joaquín Guzmán Loera (a.k.a. El Chapo) and of the Juárez Cartel. Rocket-launchers, along with an "inexact number of assault rifles," were reportedly used in the attack. In addition, the government agency stated that 198 municipal police officers were to be investigated for possible connections with the Gulf Cartel; Manuel Muñoz, the attorney general who was being chased, was detained by the Mexican authorities. It is believed that he had liberated five members of Los Zetas who had been detained during the armed confrontation. According to Esmas.com, this shooting was the first major gunfire in Nuevo Laredo between the Mexican authorities and cartel members in over thirty years.

Between 1 January and 1 August 2003, 45 homicides were reported in Nuevo Laredo, along with 40 kidnappings.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Nuevo_Laredo_massacres

An old story, true, but there are plenty more where that came from if you care to look.

104 replies, 5926 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 104 replies Author Time Post
Reply Mexico bans "assault weapons;" mass shootings fall to - oh, wait... (Original post)
derby378 Jan 2013 OP
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #1
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #2
derby378 Jan 2013 #5
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #6
rustydog Jan 2013 #83
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #8
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #10
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #11
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #12
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #14
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #20
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #33
EarthWindFire Jan 2013 #81
Hoyt Jan 2013 #27
rustydog Jan 2013 #76
Hoyt Jan 2013 #85
bighart Jan 2013 #41
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #42
randome Jan 2013 #79
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #84
randome Jan 2013 #94
ZombieHorde Jan 2013 #101
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #15
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #18
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #96
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #97
Mojorabbit Jan 2013 #99
Motown_Johnny Jan 2013 #100
backwoodsbob Jan 2013 #30
EarthWindFire Jan 2013 #82
samsingh Jan 2013 #31
Nuclear Unicorn Jan 2013 #34
samsingh Jan 2013 #93
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #43
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #44
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #46
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #47
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #49
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #51
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #56
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #62
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #66
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #70
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #73
Eleanors38 Jan 2013 #71
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #74
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #75
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #86
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #61
Erose999 Jan 2013 #65
Remmah2 Jan 2013 #69
patrice Jan 2013 #103
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #95
joeybee12 Jan 2013 #3
derby378 Jan 2013 #4
intaglio Jan 2013 #7
lyford Jan 2013 #21
neverforget Jan 2013 #22
lyford Jan 2013 #23
intaglio Jan 2013 #29
samsingh Jan 2013 #32
Erose999 Jan 2013 #68
rustydog Jan 2013 #87
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #91
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2013 #9
RomneyLies Jan 2013 #13
patrice Jan 2013 #104
MrSlayer Jan 2013 #16
Comrade_McKenzie Jan 2013 #17
NashvilleLefty Jan 2013 #19
Last Stand Jan 2013 #24
EX500rider Jan 2013 #89
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #92
JaneyVee Jan 2013 #25
Victor_c3 Jan 2013 #36
Jeff In Milwaukee Jan 2013 #26
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #28
Fumesucker Jan 2013 #35
Paladin Jan 2013 #40
baldguy Jan 2013 #37
derby378 Jan 2013 #39
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #45
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #50
derby378 Jan 2013 #55
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #57
quaker bill Jan 2013 #38
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #48
derby378 Jan 2013 #58
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #59
derby378 Jan 2013 #60
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #63
AgingAmerican Jan 2013 #72
gcomeau Jan 2013 #52
Trajan Jan 2013 #53
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #54
jpak Jan 2013 #64
Undaunted Jan 2013 #78
jpak Jan 2013 #88
nadinbrzezinski Jan 2013 #90
Agschmid Jan 2013 #67
DireStrike Jan 2013 #77
TroglodyteScholar Jan 2013 #80
moondust Jan 2013 #98
patrice Jan 2013 #102

Response to derby378 (Original post)


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 03:59 PM

2. scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one aren't ya?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:22 PM

5. Come back to me with overall homicide trends instead of cherry-picked data

Then we can talk some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:24 PM

6. we are talking about specific legislation, stop trying to obscure the issue

you are the one who made the OP about assault weapons, not me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:31 PM

83. Australia bans assault weapons...read prime ministers letter in NY Times

"...In the end, we won the battle to change gun laws because there was majority support across Australia for banning certain weapons. And today, there is a wide consensus that our 1996 reforms not only reduced the gun-related homicide rate, but also the suicide rate.
The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Journal of Law and Economics found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent.
In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths.

There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996..."


Apparently, banning Assault weapons works....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:26 PM

8. What weapons were used?

It just says "Average Number Killed in Mass Shootings" That offers no data on what weapon was used.

If I recall correctly "gun-free zones" recently came in vogue. That means the increase in casusalties could also be attributed to GFZs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:28 PM

10. speculate all you want, the numbers speak for themselves

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:34 PM

11. Except they don'

Harris and Klebold acquired their weapons during the time the AWB was in effect AND they were minors.

Cho used pistols.

Loughner used pistols.

Lanza used pistols.

Holmes started with an AR and went to a shotgun when his high-capacity magazine jammed.

How does the AWB successfully address any of those instances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:37 PM

12. you are cherry picking and using far to small a timeframe

this is a multi generational problem which requires a multi generational effort to curb

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:31 PM

14. How can it be cherry-picking to ask which weapons were used?

You also claim it's multi-generational but by the admission of that very vague graphic the casualties per incident was less than half of what it was before the AWB was imposed. According to you graphic the AWB made only a ~20% dent. If the AWB was effective why didn't the number of casualties drop even further?

Why does the graphic only go back to 1982? That seems rather arbitrary and THAT hints of cherry-picked data. Perhaps there is a very good reason for choosing that year but posting the image without context or citation leads me to ask question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:34 PM

20. I didn't make the graph

so calling it mine isn't accurate. I also don't know why 1982 was picked. Reagan was shot in '81 so maybe there were some changes in the laws which make it a reasonable starting point, I honestly don't know.


Besides that, it make a ~20% dent in 10 years, Since we seem to agree that this is a multi generational issue then it is reasonable to suppose that it would continue grow in effect the longer it existed.


Your argument seems to be that saving all those lives (represented in the ~20%) somehow isn't worth it. That makes no sense to me at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:08 AM

33. "it is reasonable to suppose that it would continue grow in effect the longer it existed."

That would be an unfounded expectation as the OP demonstrates.

Your argument seems to be that saving all those lives (represented in the ~20%) somehow isn't worth it. That makes no sense to me at all.


I read an article by a professional firearms instructor that stated when rampage killers are confronted they tend to surrender or kill themselves assuming they are not killed outright by the person doing the confronting. The article went on to say that when the police were first to respond the average number of fatalities was 14 but when an armed citizen responded first the number of fatalities (I presume not including the bad actor) was under 3.

So if saving lives by reducing the number of victims is your objective...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:25 PM

81. There have been

 

62 mass shootings from 1982-2012. Of those 62 shootings there are much more handguns involved than assault weapons, so using this time frame you can get a better idea of the weapons people choose to use and pistols overwhelmingly are the favorite.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:34 PM

27. You are right, a ban on assault weapons is not enough. But it's a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #27)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:08 PM

76. You have to start somewhere

may as well be assault weapons and high-capacity Clips. (Say clips instead of magazines, it drives the nuts bat-shit crazy!)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #76)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:41 PM

85. I know, if you can't name every little internal part you can't express an opinion on guns in society


Like arguing with a 4 year old.

The other favorite is "define assault weapon."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:32 AM

41. Does this help?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:37 AM

42. Then they should be banning hammers.

 

The numbers speak for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:17 PM

79. That is always a bogus argument.

The point to be made is innocent children being slaughtered. Hammers have nothing to do with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #79)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:39 PM

84. Children are being slaughtered in the inner cities, many more by handguns.

 

Where are the economic, crime and social initiatives to fix the drug and gang problems?

What good does it do to criminalize people who have never committed a crime? That's the real bogus argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #84)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:15 PM

94. One of the EOs is to study the cause of violence. Maybe something can come from that.

But banning assault weapons -despite the OP's contention that it didn't work in Mexico so...- will lessen the occurrence of mass slaughter of children.

Owning an assault weapon, IMO, does not make one innocent since, as we've seen, such weapons can be stolen and used by someone else. They are too deadly to have around. Anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:34 PM

101. How many mass killings have there been with hammers in the last 30 years or so?

Zero? I think you're right. The numbers speak for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:35 PM

15. Hasn't this graph been debunked many times on this board> nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:27 PM

18. not that I am aware of, if so I will self delete

any links?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #18)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:08 PM

96. Here is one of the threads that discusses it

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022210377#post1
You could still buy assault weapons under the ban just not the ones
with certain cosmetic items added.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #96)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:38 PM

97. I don't see anything that debunks the graphic

*Edit to Add* Post 14 was incorrect. Please go to that link and see my post correcting it.



Post 14 claims that more assault weapons were used during the ban than after the ban expired, but it does not dispute the number of deaths (which is what the graphic is illustrating)


One post claims that facts can be found to support anything, along with an un-sourced graph that anyone could make.


Then there are the standard complaints about how the AWB didn't really do anything, which makes no sense. If it did nothing then why are all the gun nuts fighting against reinstating it?


If anything that thread backs me up.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #97)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:09 AM

99. I guess what I am saying is that

you could still buy them as it was not really a ban. So it makes no sense that the ban had any effect. They were on the shelves to be bought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #99)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:24 PM

100. In the very short term, yes. But supplies run out

and the longer a ban is in place the more effective it becomes.

Ten years was not long enough, but even then there were some measurable improvements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:44 AM

30. does that graph say the

average number killed per mass shooting since 2004 is 54.8?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to backwoodsbob (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:31 PM

82. the average is

 

8.72 there has been 157 deaths, in 18 shootings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:54 AM

31. exact;ly, the evidence shows that the AWBan works

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to samsingh (Reply #31)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:15 AM

34. What the graph says is

The number of victims before the ban was less than half the number after the ban expired.

It also says that since the viewer is not entitled to see the source or cross-tabs they're expected to accept the graph on faith.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:04 PM

93. there are other graphs that show a decrease in gun crime after the bill was adopted and an increase

when it expired

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Motown_Johnny (Reply #2)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:38 AM

43. How many of those were ATF supplied weapons?

 

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:01 AM

44. Cool NRA talking point, bro (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:19 AM

46. The NRA is opposed to illegal gun sales.

 

Isn't that a good idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:27 AM

47. Cool NRA talking point, bro, and that goes for #42 as well, of course (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #47)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:29 AM

49. Thank you comrade.

 

Long live the party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:30 AM

51. All joking aside, do you have any connection to the Democratic Party?

Voting for it, agreeing with most of its policies, that kind of thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:38 AM

56. Do you? I see little evidence. Show some. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #56)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:58 AM

62. Search for "muriel_volestrangler" "obama"; you'll find plenty of my posts supporting him

So far, "remmah2" "obama" is not turning anything positive up.

You could, of course, ask Skinner if he was happy with my multiple terms as a mod.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:11 PM

66. Talk is cheap.

 

Do you put moderator on your resume?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #66)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:18 PM

70. Talk is what we do on DU

So people can see my position; I put it here. My history here on DU is relevant to my posts on DU. Your position, on the other hand, seems to be "I'm a real Democrat, but the party has left me, so I don't need to bother saying anything pro-Democrat". Your 'resume' is a claim that your family was Democratic. We have no idea if it's true, but 'Democratic by relation' seems a poor claim anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #70)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:26 PM

73. Some people have made it clear they don't want others to talk.

 

I obviously need to attend a re-education camp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #62)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:19 PM

71. You could, of course, quit questioning fellow DU members as to

their Democratic standings. That is mean-spirited, holier-than-thou, and rather un-Democratic, esp. since your standard if judgment seems mainly based on gun prohibition, not very much of one at that. Respectfulness could make something of a comeback in DU.

Demonstratin' in the streets since '67,
Eleanors38

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:27 PM

74. You, you, you! You're overdue for re-education camp too!

 

Bring donuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:33 PM

75. Remmah2 was the one who brought up parties

They thought that criticising someone for putting forward the 'hammers kill more' and 'ATF are evil people responsible for our gun problems' right wing talking points was like being a communist party member. Someone so quick to see anything to the left of themselves as communist, and who spends nearly all their time on DU complaining that Democrats are out to grab their guns, should be questioned about whether they have any link with the Democrats at all. Gun prohibition is the only thing I can have as a standard with Remmah2, since they post about practically nothing else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #75)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:41 PM

86. No problem.

 

I wasn't expecting a birthday card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #51)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:53 AM

61. Too bad your memory is short and life experience so little.

 

I've posted before.

I've the son of a life long labor democrat, a life long labor democrat myself. The party today is not the party of my father and grandfather. I saw JFK and RFK when they came through town on campaign stops. My dad and granddad were both lifers at the steel plant (and regular union picket line marchers.) Many of my older uncles worked on Roosevelt's CCC projects. When the 99% were encamping my wife and I were dropping off hot soup/coffee so they could stay in place.

Because of threats against union people and bigger threats against union loudmouths my family has always kept that rifle/shotgun/handgun handy. Not so much today but back in the 60/70's that was the norm. It was also inclusive of an occasional rock through the window. My brother is a union rep at his chemical plant (read: another life long Democrat) he was advised by the local president to expect intimidation from management in various forms. So pardon me if I dislike goons.

"Ask not what your country can do for you but you can do for your country." I think JFK would cry now if he saw what the party has become.

I've written letters to and manned election phone banks for my union but only when I thought the Democratic candidate was worth a shit.

So smooch my buttocks if I don't tow the "thin" party line. I detest corruption in politics across the board. There are many like me who see more takers than contributors to the party as it currently stands.

I do not vote blindly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #46)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:10 PM

65. The NRA is also opposed to any regulations on gun sales. And please tell me what measures the NRA


is supporting to curb illegal gun sales.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:14 PM

69. I'm not an NRA obsessionist.

 

This question would be better answered at one of the firearm forums.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erose999 (Reply #65)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:38 PM

103. None & that includes sales in their Bushmaster markets in foreign countries. Link:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Remmah2 (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:32 PM

95. Oh about 0.0000000001% in a single year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:02 PM

3. Hmm...you cite a massacre right across from the US border, where the Mexicans

probably got their guns...nice try, pathetic in a sense, but there was some effort to this attempt at obfuscation

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeybee12 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:08 PM

4. Well, if someone is going to cite Australia as a model for our gun laws...

The drug cartels did get some weapons from America, but they also got them from Guatemala, Columbia, and even their own army. How do you think the Zetas got started? They were renegade military units who turned into narcoterrorists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:24 PM

7. Yup, and people are going to cite other developed countries with gun control

and the significant fewer per capita death by criminal use of guns

and the significantly fewer total suicides because of the lack of guns

Now say why you think guns are so great.

Hunting? A black powder muzzle loader was good enough for the pioneers
Target? Ask Alvin Yorke if he needed a multishot military grade weapon
Playing soldiers? Well you got me there ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:37 PM

21. Multishot military weapons

 

Sgt. York used a semi-automatic pistol and a magazine-fed repeating rifle, both military issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lyford (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:43 PM

22. We were at war and your point being??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to neverforget (Reply #22)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:52 PM

23. Just clarifying

 

The "Ask Alvin Yorke if he needed a multishot military grade weapon" in the post above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lyford (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:29 AM

29. Not at home for target work

When he was forced into the military he used military weapons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to intaglio (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:56 AM

32. what you're saying appears to me to be a valid point!

i don't understand the difference - the guy used the gun at hand and someone that is relevant?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lyford (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:12 PM

68. The rifle was a bolt-action which was state of the art in WWI. Stone-age compared to an AR-15 though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:51 PM

87. Australia curbed mass shootings since the ban. it works

Your point is moot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:01 PM

91. Once again one corporal hardly a unit makes

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 04:27 PM

9. Large areas of Mexico are in a state of near-anarchy, run by violent drug cartels.

Mexico's problems with gun violence are directly related to the USA's war on drugs and the appetite of American consumers for the cartels' product. Full stop. You can't point to a country that's in a state of near-civil war, with a corrupt government and police force that in any case lacks the resources to deal with the problem, and say "see? it doesn't work there, so it won't work here either!"

And another large hole in the argument is the fact that many or most of the cartels' weapons come across the border from the USA where guns are much easier to obtain. (What do you think "Fast & Furious" was about?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 08:39 PM

13. That's because the cartels sell drugs in America and buy assault weapons over the counter

 

then ship back to Mexico.

Plenty of straw buyers for 'em.

Yep, those guns come from our lax gun laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #13)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:41 PM

104. And cannabis is on track for massive legalization here, so there's a fight for what's going to

happen in those markets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:38 PM

16. Ah ok, let's just do nothing then.

 

Because hey, we're just like Mexico after all.

Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 09:41 PM

17. No one wants to see your NRA terrorist propaganda on here. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 10:32 PM

19. An OLD STORY....

That's what I would like to see, all examples being "Old Stories". Which also means "no longer relevant".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:15 PM

24. 90% of the illegal guns in Mexico come from the US.

30,000 a year.

Actually, we supply most of the terrorists, too. We are THE world leader in arming terrorists and cartels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Last Stand (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 03:30 PM

89. "90% of the illegal guns in Mexico come from the US."

Actually not...that story gets so miss-reported....80-90% of guns submitted to the US for ID were from the US....that's because the ones made in China or Romania or where ever else were not submitted to the US because they came from somewhere else..about 20% of the total were thought to be from the US.

And about 100% of terrorists use the Russian AK. And the Cartels use mostly full auto guns stolen or bought from the Mexican military.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to EX500rider (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:04 PM

92. This must be the latest talking point.

Oy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:23 PM

25. Doesn't this kind of shred the notion that "more guns = less gun deaths & more safer environment"?

I mean, is Mexico strictly enforcing these bans or are cops being paid off to turn a blind eye?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JaneyVee (Reply #25)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:33 AM

36. Yup

and don't forget about Iraq

Iraq should be a safe haven with all of those military-grade weapons floating around too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Wed Jan 16, 2013, 11:23 PM

26. Because other than firearms, Mexico is a fucking PARADISE

This attempt doesn't even rise to the level of "pathetic"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:06 AM

28. So Drug Cartel Violence = Mass School Shootings

Really??? You want to go there and compare what drug cartels do with school shootings? How about at least trying to compare apples to apples. Come back with a story about all the schools, malls, hospitals, and public political events that get shot up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:26 AM

35. You're hardly a n00b so your OP has to be trolling

Trolling in that you've been on DU long enough to know better than the apples to zucchini comparison you're making here, this is a talking point that has been beaten until all that's left is a bloody red mud puddle.

Cast the bait out and slowly reel the line back in and see what bites, trolling.

And that's some seriously stinky bait you're using.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fumesucker (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:25 AM

40. Very Perceptive. Thanks, Fumesucker. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:31 AM

37. And *where* are the Mexican drug gangs getting their weapons?

Their purchased legally just across the boarder in Texas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #37)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 09:19 AM

39. The Zetas sure as hell didn't need to go over the border...

They got their guns straight from the Mexican government, because they're renegade military units. As for all the punk kids they've been training and equipping since then, if you want to use the Texas argument, you may have a point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:04 AM

45. So your point is that renegade US army units will still have weapons?

Nice bit of fearmongering you're doing here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:30 AM

50. Wrong One Corporal does not make a unit.

Some, a very small number, came from dead troops or rogue officers, as in very small percentage.

You got no fucking clue what you are talking about. Oh and that corporal was killed last year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:37 AM

55. Oh, please...

Do some reasearch into the origin of the Zetas before you go on. "One corporal," my ass. You've at least acknowledged that there are rogue officers involved in this whole sorry affair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:41 AM

57. Oh please I have done the research

The few rogue officers who sold guns early on are no longer part of the army.

They were court martialed. And it was a single corporal with dreams of glory who was trained with the fuerzas especiales, special forces, in fact, he was attached at one point to the presidential guard, one of the most elite units.

Again. You have no fucking clue. He's dead. The zetas have been having internal issues ever since.

As is the Zetas are no longer as crazy dangerous, due to internal fights. The Cartel del Golfo and the Templar Knights...FYI, the latter is making inroads in the US as I type.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 06:45 AM

38. You know we haven't had one of these locally

perhaps if we get enough high powered weaponry out there we can start having some real shoot-em ups like they do in Mexico. It would make the local news a more compelling program to watch. Like in Syria, instead of weather and traffic reports, they focus on where the lead is really flying today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:28 AM

48. You know where most of those guns are coming from?

Care to look what is across the border from Nuevo Laredo? (Here is a hint, Laredo Texas)

There is gun control in Mexico. Legal owners are an infitiseminal part of the population, mostly ranchers, hunters and competitive shooters.

Those who hold these weapons illegally, and I have been down range from them and had a round go through my ambulance, have obtained these weapons very legally in the US and broken the law when they bring them south in ones and twos, in what is called the Camino de Hormigas. Some of this have been later converted to full auto.

At least they did not use the very legally obtained, in the US, 50 cal BMG.

This is a well known issue and a point of serious contention between the Mexican Government and the US government.

You really are reaching here.

Oh and the gun show loophole is the other source for these guns. Trust me, Mexican officials are looking forwards to the 100% background checks...the cartels, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #48)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:41 AM

58. At least we're dealing with this whole Fast and Furious situation

That boondoggle alone was responsible for many weapons crossing the border - and getting one of our own border guards killed.

And I can be persuaded on background checks - I know I've met resistance from other gun owners who are afraid this will unduly cut into private sellers who just want to unload a shotgun or two, but if they can be coached on the NICS system and made to feel like they're part of the process, I'm for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:44 AM

59. The number of guns that crossed in that

Was 0.000000001% of what has crossed best case. Way out of your depth here.

It came partly, from a demand from the Mexican government to do something about it. Trust me, the 223 that went through my rig came from the US well before fast and Furiosy by more than a decade. Way out of depth, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #59)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:49 AM

60. It was still enough to get that border guard killed, regardless of the percentage

And Fast and Furious wasn't even the whole story on our end. I remember reading too many stories of corrupt FBI agents from Louisiana and Texas arrested for sending even more rifles south of the border, and these agents weren't even part of F&F - they were simply doing it out of greed.

It's a big mess, and yes, a lot of guns did come from America, so we bear some of the blame, but it's been documented that the cartels also procure weapons from Guatemala, Columbia, and elsewhere. I've even heard of a cartel grabbing a shipment of hand grenades from South Korea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:03 PM

63. At least you admit where most guns originate.

The US...good. And you read...I lived some of this mess.

And yes 30% or so originates in the black market elsewhere. Now, I am not the quickest with math, but 70% is still larger than 30%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:21 PM

72. "fast and furious" was debunked last year

Manufactured outrage right wing tripe.

70% of the assault weapons used in the Mexican drug war come from the US. Mostly from gun stores along the US/Mexican border.

Straw purchases.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:33 AM

52. And a better than even chance...

...those weapons came from the US, where the *ridiculously lax* gun regulations have turned the country into what is effectively a buffet for anyone who wants to get their hands on a weapon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:33 AM

53. Derby ...

How long before you follow the others?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:36 AM

54. How do you propose to solve the problem?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:06 PM

64. Mexican Drug Cartels get their assault weapons from US gun shops and dealers

The NRA prevents any attempt by the ATF to deal with this....

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jpak (Reply #64)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:13 PM

78. You mean they get them from the ATF.

 

An attempt by the ATF to deal with it would mean more weapons to Mexico.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Undaunted (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:57 PM

88. Bullshit GOP/NRA talking points

The Mexican government knows different.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Undaunted (Reply #78)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 04:23 PM

90. I will be kind.

0.0000001% of guns in a single year that came from fast and furios does not a majority of weapons make. And I will grant you this, I ain't the sharpest when it comes to math.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 12:11 PM

67. Well then we should all just give up!



A little extra sarcasm was deserved with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:12 PM

77. Mexico? Really? lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 01:21 PM

80. Yep, this is relevant because the USA is exactly like Mexico in so many ways...

...just in case:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:36 PM

98. Damn Mexican gun makers!

Flooding all of North America and the rest of the world with assault weapons and huge clips and armor-piercing bullets and exploding bullets and...

Them bastids!



Oh yes, and Mexican law enforcement is famously known for its effectiveness, especially those "incentivized" by bribes or watching their colleagues slaughtered by drug gangs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:36 PM

102. What the fuck does a ban mean when we have stuff like Fast and Furious going on? & THAT'S

ONLY the stuff that we know about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread