'No More Weapons!' billboard placed on US border
Last edited Fri Feb 17, 2012, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)
CIUDAD JUAREZ, Mexico (AP) President Felipe Calderon on Thursday unveiled a "No More Weapons!" billboard made with crushed firearms and placed near the U.S. border. He urged the United States to stop the flow of weapons into Mexico.
The billboard, which is in English and weighs 3 tons, was placed near an international bridge in Ciudad Juarez and can be seen from the United States.
Calderon said the billboard's letters were made with weapons seized by local, state and federal authorities.
---------
Before unveiling the billboard, Calderon supervised the destruction of more than 7,500 automatic rifles and handguns at a military base in Ciudad Juarez.
More: http://news.yahoo.com/no-more-weapons-billboard-placed-us-border-053553960.html
(Note to hosts, I think this constitutes "really big news" and is of national interest because it involves the President of Mexico and the U.S. border)
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)It'd be like America saying, "Quit sending us weed." It's not the country exporting undesirable/illegal goods is the one to blame. If there was no one on the other end paying for the ilegal stuff... there'd be no reason to supply it. Besides, neither country is condoning the export of their illegal contraband and it's already against the law. How do you get crmiinals to respect the laws!?!
By the way, I don't see how the destruction of 7500 automatic weapons is relevent. You can't walk into gunstores and just buy cheap automatic weapons. It's been ILLEGAL for Americans to buy new automatic assault rifles or machine guns since 1986. If tey're dealing with machine guns and assault rifles... they either came from another country or were taken from US/Mexican military bases.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)I tend to agree if there is a market someone will buy the arms.
However, the flow of illegal guns into Mexico is not as simple NOR as deadly as "Quit sending us weed." (slogans which show just how callous NRA members are).
The violence in Cuidad Juarez is horrific. It has begun spilling over into El Paso (the US if you did not pass high school geography).
After rereading your post I began to wonder if you too are profiting from the sale of illegal and mass importation of illegal weapons into Mexico.
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)Firstly, I'm not a member of the NRA. I'm unaware of their talking points.
And I live I Ohio... boy, that illegal mexican arms trade is just booming up here.
Thus far, you're 0-2 with your assumptions.
Secondly, dismissing a point by associating it with an (apparently undesirable) organization else hardly refutes it. The fact still remains (aside from such association) that it is illegal to export firearms to another country without proper government licenses and it is illegal to sell a firearm to a forign citizen. Furthermore, as referenced in the OP article, "automatic rifles" are likely no coming fro US gun shops. All of these things Calderon is complaining about are already against the law... what more does he expect? Write more laws an the criminals will just be breaking more laws.
And it really is no different than the mexican drug trade. One country selling illegal goods to another country via the black market. The best any country can do is effectively police it's own side of the border. Which is what my original reply title suggests: "Tell them to quit buying them."
sudopod
(5,019 posts)then you probably know what you are talking about.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...is to legalize weed and coke.
The benefits would begin immediately and be far more effective than any other method that I can think of.
duhneece
(4,093 posts)The vast majority of violence of our alcohol prohibiton ended when we ended alcohol prohibition. The reason you don't see Bud and Coors producers and distributers shooting it out and killing each other is because of well-designed regulations.
Drugs are bad, but the drug war is worse.
Nations that don't simply criminalize drug users have nations with reduced drug use rates. See Portugal and the Netherlands drug use policies for two options.
harmonicon
(12,008 posts)Are hit men not responsible for murders they commit? They wouldn't have done it if there weren't a market for it, so they're completely innocent, right?
And why do we have child labour laws? If kids don't want to work, they shouldn't apply for the jobs, right?
OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)I'm just saying that it is illegal to export firearms to another country without proper government licenses and it is illegal to sell a firearm to a foreign citizen. Furthermore, as referenced in the OP article, "automatic rifles" are likely no coming fro US gun shops. All of these things Calderon is complaining about are already against the law here in America... what more does he expect? Write more laws an the criminals will just be breaking more laws.
The best any country can do is effectively police it's own side of the border. Which is what my original reply title suggests: "Tell them to quit buying them." I'm not saying that the people committing these crimes are not to blame... I'm just pointing out that Calderon seems all to eager to pass the buck on this issue when he should be focusing o his side of the fence. It's not America's fault that Calderon's police and government are some of the most corrupt organizations on the planet.
izquierdista
(11,689 posts)Read the first sentence from your first paragraph. Then read the first sentence from your second paragraph. Now connect them with a logical deduction like "Yes, the U.S. should start enforcing the laws that are on the books."
Once you get the idea of logical deduction down, we'll move on to distinguishing contractions from the possessive.
aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)I don't know of a single gun law that we haven't started to enforce. Is that all you wish? To start enforcing a law? Which law?
I would think that we need to enforce the laws more, completely, or in every incident possible. But hey, you are the master of logic and grammar, or the master of something else.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If the rest of the article is as factual as this, it's not even worthy as low-grade bovine extract agricultural supplement.
Phale.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Were these bolt weapons? Revolvers? No.
They were automatics. Many were probably semi-automatics, some may have been full automatics, but almost all were likely automatic weapons.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)"automatic"=/="semi-automatic".
And the legal penalties for conflating the two even momentarily IRL are quite severe.
If only the penalties for shit reporting were as harsh.....
boppers
(16,588 posts)Semi-pregnant.
Full-pregnant.
Both are pregnant.
Either it is somehow an automatic weapon, or not. Most semi's are automated in some way. No manual reload, no levers to pull, no chamber to clear manually between each shot.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)In legal and colloquial terms, an "automatic" firearm is one that is "fully automatic", i.e. it continues to fire as long as the trigger remains actuated and there is ammunition to feed.
"semi-automatic" means the gun will fire one, and only one, round of ammunition for any activation of the trigger.
Conflating the two in any way is legally dangerous and ethically/morally dishonest. Doing so intentionally can only be intended to get someone detained by the government for long periods of time and have them deprived of financial and material property and/or to confuse people not educated on the subject, in order to dishonestly bias their opinions.
What are your motives for your conflation and why are you doing it here?
boppers
(16,588 posts)In *your* legal and colloquial terms, an "automatic" firearm is one that is "fully automatic".
"Doing so intentionally can only be intended to get someone detained by the government for long periods of time and have them deprived of financial and material property and/or to confuse people not educated on the subject, in order to dishonestly bias their opinions. "
Uhm, no. But maybe a tinfoil hat will help.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)If by "linguistic game play", you mean risk of a federal prison sentence, we ain't playin', chum.
There is no such thing as an "automatic semi-auto". Unless you can cite to a reputable source outside your own creation.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Wow, did you know that the first Gatling guns were crank based? Did you know you can buy crank triggers for any "semi"?
I am guessing that you are not ignorant, and know full well that the distinction is an artificiality.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I suggest you do some reading here: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/importation-verification/firearms-verification-nfa-machinegun.html
Hand-crank Gatlings are not considered "automatic" firearms under the law and are not regulated as such.
boppers
(16,588 posts)"a comprehensive examination of the firearm and/or its component parts is required to correctly determine its classification"
Modern Gatling guns use electrical motors to crank.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)as a machine gun. Unless you can find an example of one. The portion of the quote you left off: "Due to the similarity in appearance and general configuration of semiautomatic firearms,..." A hand-crank gatling can't be readily confused with any other semi-auto firearm, or any full-auto firearm. You are attempting to move the goal posts. Put 'em down and rest your back a bit.
Yes, an electrically operated gatling qualifies as a machine gun, please refer back to the single-trigger-activation/many-rounds determination.
And, for the record, I used to help maintain them on combat aircraft.
boppers
(16,588 posts)When your "arm" is electronic, the boundaries get messy. It was based on (I forget the wording) something like individual human action. Automate humans, though, and a new question needs to be resolved.
Human/machine is the wrong place to manage the boundaries, as humans become more and more machine....
And yes, we (the US) seem to have drawn the line, legally, not at "many" rounds, but "more than one" per trigger pull. Two rounds per pull=machine gun. One round per pull, but automating a pull: Not a machine gun. (And don't even get me started about double trigger, double barrel, shotguns, which are one looong pull).
It's the wrong place to draw a line. Two .22 bitty slugs are not the same as two .50 cal thumpers. Rounds per pull is totally non-sensical.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I got a little sloppy with my own wording there.
As far as a prosthetic arm.... you're really... ummmm... streching... the point here. ba-da boomp.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Rules made for the sake of the rules are silly... legislate firepower, not mechanisms, not aesthetics
Response to boppers (Reply #84)
AlecBGreen This message was self-deleted by its author.
boppers
(16,588 posts)So, is a burst fire weapon automatic? Your definition says no.
Is a rechambering weapon... automatic in some way?
"In legal and colloquial terms" in your head, and in my head, are different places. They are also different places in the law.
"can only be intended to get someone detained by the government"
Well, that's a mighty limited view of the world. Perhaps thinking about one's use of words, and the history of weapon design, and ways of evading laws about weapon design, are possibilities you had not considered.
Do you know what a "Hellfire" is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellfire_trigger
I get it, really, I do.
Smug gun owners complain about "ignorance", and claim that a source is bad if it does not use the boutique phrasing found in gun culture. So, since I'm spanning both cultures, let me explain it to you, as the non-gun folks, that I know, see it:
Non-automatic weapon: Each round is loaded separately, manually. Rate of fire is maybe 2-3 per second at maximum, as slow as 3 per minute with revolutionary war weapons, as fast as five in three seconds with a bolt action weapon, and single-action revolvers (in the hand of speed shooters) push the limits.
Automatic weapon: Rounds are automatically loaded. Rate of fire is easily 10 per second up to 300/500 per second with gunpowder, and a metalstorm can send 1800 rounds downrange in a single second.
This is not just a terminology debate, it's an awareness debate. It's not just "Ha ha, people who don't know guns used a word differently", it's also "Dayum, I am superior to these people, because of the way I use a word" issue.
A semi-automatic is, in part, automatic. It's in the word pairing.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)And that, young Jedi, is why you phale.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Par for the course for crap reporting, I suppose.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)All the other news sources seem to be citing AP, AP seems to have cited the El Paso Times, but did not copy the photo so no one but El Paso times has the Photo.
ellisonz
(27,706 posts)Here is a bigger image:
duhneece
(4,093 posts)I wish I'd known about this. Next week is another forum/border conference in El Paso. Any DU
'ers going?
madokie
(51,076 posts)Personally I don't like guns and don't own any but I'm tolerant of those who do and I have no intention of ever siding with the anti gun crowd. Early in my adult life I seen what GUNs can do to People and Things and when I got home mostly in one piece I decided that I don't want anything more to do with guns. Plus I'm a guy while in high school used to design gun stocks and built a few for some friends but those days are gone.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)and irresponsible gun owners who demand that the US has inadequate or non-existent gun control laws.
Johnson20
(315 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Owning and selling guns has been highly regulated for decades.
boppers
(16,588 posts)See #58.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)The sale of semi-automatic weapons by Walmart is highly regulated. Your post is more or less a non-sequitur response to my post.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Taitertots
(7,745 posts)Semiautomatic is not a variety of automatic.
Either way, both are highly regulated in the US.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Let me know when it's harder to get a driver's license. There is no proficiency test in most western states to acquire a firearm, and no regular testing to verify ongoing legal awareness.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)"Let me know when it's harder to get a driver's license. There is no proficiency test in most western states to acquire a firearm, and no regular testing to verify ongoing legal awareness."
Ok, that doesn't mean they are not highly regulated. Proficiency test =/= highly regulated. There are hundreds of regulations of the sale and/or ownership of semi-automatic firearms. They are highly regulated.
Johnson20
(315 posts)AlecBGreen
(3,874 posts)"automatic gun - a firearm that reloads itself and keeps firing until the trigger is released"
"semiautomatic firearm - an autoloader that fires only one shot at each pull of the trigger"
boppers
(16,588 posts)However, it does not " keep) firing until the trigger is released"...
And when the trigger is a crank control, things get legally touchy.
Robb
(39,665 posts)OneTenthofOnePercent
(6,268 posts)octothorpe
(962 posts)Lasher
(27,472 posts)Who is doing the actual smuggling?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)They were either sold by the US government to the Mexican government, or imported illegally from somewhere other than the USA.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)Not every vehicle/vessel going into Mexico from the US is searched.
The cartels can also be very persuasive when it comes to getting the compliance of authorities, especially in Mexico. They have a phrase "silver or lead". The meaning is self-explanatory.
minavasht
(413 posts)but no new automatic weapons have been sold to civilians since 1986.
It is not an issue of controlling the border, it is a matter of availability.
There are about 250 000 machine guns owned by civilians in USA. They are very expensive - just for reference, a M16 runs around 20K - and very well guarded by their owners.
Trafficking semi-automatic guns from USA into Mexico is a problem, about 12-15% of the guns seized over there come from USA.
Trafficking full auto machine guns from USA into Mexico is not an issue.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Wal-Mart, sells automatic weapons, baby. See #58.
Notice that even in your own post you differentiate between "automatic" and, "semi-automatic", and "full automatic".
minavasht
(413 posts)It is evident that you don't understand what you are talking about.
Automatic weapons = full auto = machine guns. With one pull of the trigger they keep shooting until the magazine is empty. Those things in Walmart you can't buy.
Like previously mentioned, they are very expensive, and there are very few of them.
Semi-automatic weapons on the other hand require pilling the trigger for every shot.
There is a very big difference that you seem to miss entirely.
Have a nice day.
boppers
(16,588 posts)I'm not sure what "pilling" is either.
Of course, if you were a gunsmith, you would know about self loading, about paper cartridges, about brass loading, and about what makes "automation" over the last 100 years.
minavasht
(413 posts)Have a nice day.
boppers
(16,588 posts)"With one pull of the trigger they keep shooting until the magazine is empty."
No, burst fire weapons do not work this way. They automate chambering, and firing, of one or more rounds, usually 1 round, three rounds, or as many as you have in the clip, for a trigger pull.
Not available at Wal-Mart, though.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Not a single new transferrable one has been sold in the USA since 1986.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Not all weapons that are "automatic".
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Used by people who want to ban semi-automatic rifles.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Used by people who want to avoid bans on semi-automatic rifles.
minavasht
(413 posts)Do you believe that semi-automatic rifles should be banned?
boppers
(16,588 posts)I am in favor of a 3 shot clip.
Revolver, rifle, whatever...
3 shots.
Aim Well.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)I'm pretty sure they don't for any other rifle I'm aware of.
There are some restricted-capacity magazines intended to comply with hunting laws for a variety of removeable-magazine-fed rifles.
And yes, the semantics are quite important in the eyes of the law.
minavasht
(413 posts)One more time, slowly:
D-o y-o-u w-a-n-t t-o b-a-n s-e-m-i-a-u-t-o r-i-f-l-e-s?
boppers
(16,588 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 21, 2012, 09:21 AM - Edit history (1)
It's not about the mechanics, it's about the speed of delivering lethal force. A modern semi is faster than a original Gatling gun.
So, don't ban based on the mechanics used, ban based on lethality, regardless of the machining used to get there. Focus on DPS (Damage Per Second, for non-gamers).
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If they really did crush 7,500 automatic weapons, which I doubt, then those are machine guns.
The cheapest machine gun you can legally purchase as a civilian in the United States costs about $10,000.
So assuming they were all the cheapest, you are talking about $75 million dollars worth of firearms.
This is pretty unlikely.
More likely the news article says "automatic" weapons when in fact they were probably semi-automatic weapons.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I think perhaps Calderon's meaning got lost in translation.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Which is what this article is about.
expatriate2mex
(148 posts)Lasher
(27,472 posts)One can kill a lot of folks with an airplane too. That doesn't mean there is little difference between an airplane and a fully automatic machine gun.
Please don't try to justify the hyperbole.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Maybe not enough for some, but plenty.
Lasher
(27,472 posts)But hyperbole away as you insist. 'Machine gun' certainly sounds scarier than 'semi-automatic rifle'. Why don't you just call them all grenade launchers? After all you can kill a lot of people with a grenade launcher.
Do you know the primary sources for grenade launchers and fragmentation grenades that are being smuggled into Mexico? I'll give you a hint: The US is not one of them. Do you know the primary sources for actual full-automatic machine guns being smuggled into Mexico? The US is not one of those primary suppliers either.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Neither option does much for credibility.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It would be easier to believe in ignorance if it were not for the admitted intentional deception of the gun-control crowd.
From the VPC:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm
"Assault weapons - just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms - are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons - anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun - can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."
DUIC
(167 posts)Gun manufacturing is good-paying blue collar work for many Americans. Would Calderon prefer that the guns were manufactured in Mexico?
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)It would fit the milieu of this forum if it was sarcastic.
Calderon smashes 7,500 weapons with an even bigger weapon, the tank. He has clearly demonstrated that he is pro-weapon.
ellisonz
(27,706 posts)...that was not sarcasm. Let freedom ring!
minavasht
(413 posts)but it doesn't offer any real solutions.
In 2008 the Mexican government sent the information of 7000 of the 30 000 seized guns to ATF. 4000 of those were traced back to USA. The rest (about 85%) apparently came from somewhere else.
Illegal trafficking of guns across the border is just that, illegal. Making it more illegal will not change a thing.
Now, the only thing that can possibly stop the illegal import of guns in Mexico is controlling the border. You see, it goes both ways - mexicans and drugs cross the border in USA, guns go the other way.
Since it will never going to happen, the sign will be just that - a cool sign.
jpak
(41,724 posts)never mind
yup
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Who knew?
montanto
(2,966 posts)is in no way proof, all by itself, of "gun running from the U.S. to Mexico." Most of us Gun Luvers would like to know serial numbers, makes, and models of fully automatic weapons that they crushed. Fully automatic weapons aren't available on every grocery-store shelf in the U.S., contrary to popular belief. Unnumbered weapons could have come from anywhere, including Mexico. Some of us would like more information before we take aim at innocent and law abiding gun owners here in the states.
yup
jpak
(41,724 posts)yup
DUIC
(167 posts)expatriate2mex
(148 posts)Mexican military and police have to be providing them. See post 52, they destroyed grenades and rocket launchers also.
EX500rider
(10,448 posts)remember we are talking about well established smuggling operations with millions of $ at their disposal. They can come from anywhere. (except the US where full auto is hard to come by) I would bet Africa and other Central/South American countries supply a large number also.
expatriate2mex
(148 posts)Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 03:11 PM - Edit history (1)
grenades and rocket launchers are not being smuggled across the border. The point is that our illustrious hypocrite, calderon, needs to clean up our own back yard first. Not to mention most who cross the border this way rarely even interact with a human unless they want to claim something. The military mainly just bothers the honest people after something happens.....unless another group of narcos pays them to bust their competition.
There's a media bias also. In the canadian and mexican links I posted below they mention the grenades and rocket launchers, the us articles that I have seen do not.
Kurska
(5,739 posts)texas gun shops. Fully automatic weapons in the united states are several thousand dollars for legal purchases.
Lasher
(27,472 posts)FFL obligations are not trivial. The feds frequently show up unannounced to see if fully automatic machine gun there where it is supposed to be. If it is not, they will lock you up and throw away the key.
boppers
(16,588 posts)They said 7,500 "automatic" weapons.
Not 7,500 "fully automatic" weapons.
See the difference?
See #58.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)The amount and proportion of guns being bought at US gun stores with NICS checks is only a fraction of the total guns being smuggled into Mexico.
The truth doesn't help the cause for keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding folks in the US.
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)Dreamer Tatum
(10,926 posts)And we need to address that?
Gee...
Kurska
(5,739 posts)Alternatively, legalize drugs and end demand/cashflow for the weapons.
aikoaiko
(34,113 posts)Only a minority of the weapons seized at Mexican gun crimes were bought at US gun stores (FFLs), smuggled over the border and purchased by Mexicans.
Johnson20
(315 posts)Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)Yeah, that's it.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)so we would actually be able to tell where they came from.
Until they do, Calderon is a lying sack of shit.
Johnson20
(315 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)It will probably be just as effective.
expatriate2mex
(148 posts)narcos are getting caught with right now are full auto, grenades and rocket launchers. These are only coming through a military, our (mexican) military and from south of us. Many of these ARE traceable to the us, but they sold them to our military. Calderon is leaving that part out.
Sure some are coming across illegally, but these guys have long graduated from semi auto carbines.
I notice this article says nothing about the grenades and rocket launchers.
"Shortly before Calderon's speech in Mexico's most violent city, military authorities destroyed thousands of weapons including dozens of grenades and rocket launchers seized from drug traffickers in Mexico during 2011.
http://www.canada.com/news/Mexico+calls+halt+flow+weapons+gangs/6166460/story.html
"El ejército mexicano destruyó en Ciudad Juárez (norte) miles armas, granadas y lanza cohetes decomisados a narcotraficantes en 2011
http://nuevaya.com.ni/?p=19887
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)After all, if guns are readily available, shouldn't crime be LOWER?
Seems to me that Mexico needs MORE guns! EVERYONE in Mexico should have guns!
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Mexico has never had a very effective government, at least in the non-corrupt and law-enforcement aspects. That may have something to do with their problems.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)In his book, "El Narco," journalist Ioan Grillo says the cartels love the AK-47, that they buy the knock-offs in the US, and convert them to full auto.
He also says the ATF had traced 63,000 weapons seized in Mexico back to the US. That's a lot of guns.
I think some of our 2nd Amendment types are being disingenuous on this issue.
hack89
(39,171 posts)by Federal law, any weapon that can easily be converted to full auto is regulated as an automatic weapon.
Semi-automac knock offs only look like the real thing from the outside - the internal workings are completely different.
The world is awash with real AK-47s - they don't need to overpay for semi-auto knockoffs and them take time and money to convert them.
boppers
(16,588 posts)For dummies (I didn't title it), google yields this in seconds:
http://www.angelfire.com/anime5/unclero/books/AK47_Full_Auto_Conversion_for_Dummies.pdf
hack89
(39,171 posts)that full auto parts kit is also highly regulated. You just can't order it on line.
And did you look at those instructions? It would take a skilled machinist with access to a well equipped machine shop nearly a day to do all that work. Full auto receivers are machined to pretty high tolerances - it requires a skilled worker to do this.
The point is that many seem to think that all it takes to convert an AK to full auto is to swap out a few part in a matter of minutes. As you have proven, it is actually very hard to do it.
boppers
(16,588 posts)Wow, that's a lot of time and effort.
hack89
(39,171 posts)my only point is that there is a common misconception that an untrained guy on the street can order a kit and by swapping out a few parts, have a fully automatic AK.
The current situation is perfectly acceptable to me. Rifles are the least likely murder weapon in common use. Baseball bats kill many more annually. Full auto AKs are not making the news so I don't think it is worth fussing over.
Dr_Scholl
(212 posts)The instructions are sketchy at best, plus the machinery and equipment required run over $10,000.
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)It's still 63,000 weapons seized from criminals or at crime scenes in Mexico--63,000 weapons that came from the US. I really don't understand the need for some people to deny this is happening or to try to minimize it.
Which is not to say that the cartels are not getting weapons from other sources, too. Some have been traced back to the Mexican military, some to Central American military stockpiles left over from the '80s (Thanks, Reagan).
PavePusher
(15,374 posts)The problem is that we don't know the break-down. (Or at least I am unaware if a reliable break-down is available.) How many came from drug gangs? How many were seized from people who were actually trying to defend themselves from the drug gangs, or corrupt police, but couldn't legally buy guns under Mexico's really fucktarded gun laws?
There are way too many unknowns in the equation to get any meaningful answers. And yes, that's actually a very small number of guns in the big picture.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I imagine a sign reading "No more weapons" would indeed, in and of itself, incite the ire of many people. Very sad.