90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the US

You heard them right. But there is a catch as usual

"In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elec…umber-claimed/

2A doesn't grant us the right to bear arms, it serves to keep government from infringing on our natural rights. There is a big difference. It has little to do with clay pigeon shooting or hunting.

It's sad to see another lunie gunned down dozens of people in NY. Is it too hard to imagine what if some of these victims had guns?

Originally Posted by mudsling3
You heard them right. But there is a catch as usual

"In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.

But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.

In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S."

Nice spin there, what you've actually shown is that of the sample of guns that could be traced 90% comes from the US, and with a sampling rate of 32% you'd have to be fairly confident the number would be pretty similar for those not submitted (unless you had a very clear reason to believe otherwise). Not that any of this is realy supprising, most of the worlds small arms are made in the US and former USSR and Mexico is much closer to the US.

Originally Posted by mudsling3
It's sad to see another lunie gunned down dozens of people in NY. Is it too hard to imagine what if some of these victims had guns?

Not hard at all. There are plenty of (near) universally armed societies still around, where citizens are personally responsible for their own security, rather than having to rely on governmentally-run police forces. Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, to name three.

Edit: Or South Central LA, come to think of it.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Not hard at all. There are plenty of (near) universally armed societies still around, where citizens are personally responsible for their own security, rather than having to rely on governmentally-run police forces. Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia, to name three.

Edit: Or South Central LA, come to think of it.

To be fair, though, there were also studies shown that D.C.'s violent crime rate (where handguns were banned) was drastically higher then areas of similar racial/economic/urban makeup directly across the river where handguns were legal. Canada also has roughly the same % of gun ownership as the U.S. and I don't think they have the same level of violent crime as we do.

Oh, I'm not anti-gun-ownership at all. I just think the argument of gun ownership as a guarantor of democracy is completely bogus — there's plenty of empirical evidence about it, and the vast majority of it says that gun ownership is either neutral or destabilizing.

Specifically, I cannot think of a single example where an armed citizenry has successfully defended an established democracy against a self-coup by its government, whereas I can think of several examples of armed militias destabilizing or overthrowing fragile democracies. (And, of course, there are plenty of examples of violent revolutions overthrowing oppressive or foreign governments.)

Moreover, there's one particular track of social evolution that is so universal that it's as close to a law as you'll find in social sciences. Namely, *anarchy is not stable.* If you have a situation where the government monopoly on legal use of violence breaks down significantly, and citizens become responsible for their own security, you always get the same sequence. Namely, the armed populace bands up. These armed bands then start to control their turf. Turf wars between armed bands ensue. Eventually some of them form alliances. Given time, the strongest alliances defeats the weaker ones, formalizes the use of violence, and a new state is born.

IOW, mudsling's pipe dream of a universally armed populace creating an anarcho-capitalist paradise based on the gold standard and free exchange of goods remains just that — a pipe dream. Nothing resembling it has ever survived for more than a few years before devolving into mob or strongman rule. The police force really *is* the thin blue line that keeps barbarism at bay, and when it gets all blurry, there is a real danger of social upheaval.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Oh, I'm not anti-gun-ownership at all. I just think the argument of gun ownership as a guarantor of democracy is completely bogus — there's plenty of empirical evidence about it, and the vast majority of it says that gun ownership is either neutral or destabilizing.

Sorry, my mistake - most of the people I know who make the argument you did believe Michael Moore is some sort of divine angel come to destroy the gun lobby, the NRA, bush, and our evil fascist health care system.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Specifically, I cannot think of a single example where an armed citizenry has successfully defended an established democracy against a self-coup by its government, whereas I can think of several examples of armed militias destabilizing or overthrowing fragile democracies. (And, of course, there are plenty of examples of violent revolutions overthrowing oppressive or foreign governments.)

Completely right - it almost happened here in the States back when we were under the Articles of Confederation; that and attacks from barbary pirates in the Mediterranean provided a pretty good incentive to write the Constitution. Although to be fair we also have to remember the history of democracies *is* fairly short. It's possible an example may come along one day to prove us wrong but I doubt it due to reasons you outlined below. And if you want to talk about "citizens armed with guns vs. the government" I'd point to the Rodney King-inspired L.A. Race Riots. I didn't see too many American civilians armed with guns going in to put down the violence. As I recall we needed the military to do that.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Moreover, there's one particular track of social evolution that is so universal that it's as close to a law as you'll find in social sciences. Namely, *anarchy is not stable.* If you have a situation where the government monopoly on legal use of violence breaks down significantly, and citizens become responsible for their own security, you always get the same sequence. Namely, the armed populace bands up. These armed bands then start to control their turf. Turf wars between armed bands ensue. Eventually some of them form alliances. Given time, the strongest alliances defeats the weaker ones, formalizes the use of violence, and a new state is born.

IOW, mudsling's pipe dream of a universally armed populace creating an anarcho-capitalist paradise based on the gold standard and free exchange of goods remains just that — a pipe dream. Nothing resembling it has ever survived for more than a few years before devolving into mob or strongman rule. The police force really *is* the thin blue line that keeps barbarism at bay, and when it gets all blurry, there is a real danger of social upheaval.

No arguments here. There's a reason I used to cringe back when I'd hear all these arguments in international relations classes that the nation-state was no longer the "most important" entity in the world. In my mind, whoever is the legitimate user of force is the most important entity around, but I'm getting off topic now. As much as Americans like the idea of "rugged individualism" and Clint Eastwood westerns I don't think a situation where suddenly the government is gone/overthrown and whoever has a gun is now meting out justice would honestly appeal to most of us.

Not to mention having citizens armed with small arms isn't going to make much of a difference one way or the other if it came to a coup or police stae. Tanks will roll straight over that sort of resistance.

Originally Posted by mudsling3
It's sad to see another lunie gunned down dozens of people in NY. Is it too hard to imagine what if some of these victims had guns?

That is the single best argument against gun control. But what about the other effect? Is it too hard to imagine all the innocent people who would get shot and killed needlessly if our society had even more guns?

Shortly after I got married, my wife and I were awakened at 3:00a.m. one night by a sudden violent thunderstorm. Both awake and listening to the eerie thunder, suddenly we both heard a meek knock on our front door (we were in a small apartment). Then the knocker tried to turn the door knob, and hearing that really woke us up.

Finding it locked, the mysterious knocker tried forcing the door and continued trying to force it as we called the police. In the middle of the night, with the rain and the thunder…I don't know that I've ever been more frightened. If I'd had a gun and he'd gotten in — whoever he was — I'm completely certain I would have shot him.

The police came, and it turned out to be nothing more than an old drunk who had fallen asleep on our landing but was awakened by the rain and thunder. He was confused and only wanted in out of the rain.

I learned a lesson that night and will never own a gun.

I think of it this way: I'm all for the right to own guns, but I'm also all for the right *not* to own guns. I don't want to live in a society where my only realistic option is to protect my person and my property with a gun (or hire someone else to protect it for me).

(And before anyone asks, yes, I know how to handle one; I got fairly good all-around firearms training when I did my military service. I just have no interest in them at this time.)

I think the constant controversy on guns and the values issue it strokes is always the one that mystifies me the most in our body politic, since most of the arguments for and against can easily be dealt with through a logical, moderate approach if people wanted to.

Cities where handgun violence and gangs abound have a right to police their streets as they think best. People who want to own guns for sport or protection certainly should be able to do so, but it's only practical to have some accountability in the way of background checks and other regulatory strings. Owning rocket launchers and hand grenades and ak-47's seems a bit hard to justify in terms of sport or protection and ought to be competently regulated on a collector basis where weapons aren't proliferating everywhere to the detriment of law enforcement agencies and those who have to put their bodies out there to enforce the law.

What's so hard to figure out?

I'm with magerette on this one. I don't understand why gun owners are so averse to some traceability. In fighting against common sense controls, they're inviting real infringements on their rights.

Originally Posted by dteowner
I'm with magerette on this one. I don't understand why gun owners are so averse to some traceability. In fighting against common sense controls, they're inviting real infringements on their rights.

Cause then the Black helicoptors will know where to find them dont'cha'lknow?

Originally Posted by V7
Cause then the Black helicoptors will know where to find them dont'cha'lknow?

Haha! Yeah, we'll need the guns to fight back when the UN tries to deport us to the FEMA concentration camps.

I agree with everything Magerette/dte/PJ have said thus far. I think it's fine for people to own handguns, hunting rifles, what have you; I think it's probably even okay for a very small and specific subset of civilians to own things like an assault rifle or having a conceal-carry license if they are background checked to hell and are upstanding (and sane) citizens.

I don't get this whole argument that I hear that owning a gun is a natural right, though. A constitutional right - yes, probably, although the "well-regulated militia" bit obscures the issue. But a natural right? Even assuming natural rights exist, I highly doubt owning a gun would be one of them.

Edit: Side note, my friend just linked me to this sweatshirt on Amazon and I immediately thought of dte. http://www.amazon.com/America-bailin…8965465&sr=8-7

That's a great shirt, Rithrandril. I just might have to make a purchase.

Very appropriate. It's even black. Perfect for holding up the occasional convenience store as well.

Ha! Take that, you naysayers who didn't believe His Hopefulness wouldn't inaugurate a golden new age of peace, love and understanding — we're talking about GUN CONTROL ferchrissakes, and can't manage to produce a flame war about it!

(OK, not counting mudsling, but there has to be *someone* to keep things interesting!)

Originally Posted by Rithrandil
I don't get this whole argument that I hear that owning a gun is a natural right, though. A constitutional right - yes, probably, although the "well-regulated militia" bit obscures the issue. But a natural right? Even assuming natural rights exist, I highly doubt owning a gun would be one of them.
url]

If you consider self preservation a natural right, then yes having a gun would be a natural right. Animals have their weapons and defenses with them when they are born. We create them.

I've never owned a gun nor do I ever intend to buy one. However, I can see why people would want and demand a right to defend themselves if need be.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
(OK, not counting mudsling, but there has to be *someone* to keep things interesting!)

I think I can help you out there

On a side note, the first thing I thought of when I saw the title for this thread was
"Well we send 90 percent of the guns used in crimes there and they send us 90 percent of the cocain back"

Originally Posted by skavenhorde
If you consider self preservation a natural right, then yes having a gun would be a natural right. Animals have their weapons and defenses with them when they are born. We create them.

I've never owned a gun nor do I ever intend to buy one. However, I can see why people would want and demand a right to defend themselves if need be.

In that case having a gun would allow you to defend your natural right better. Self preservation is in no way dependent on owning a firearm. Our body does have natural weapons; if people don't want to hone and develop them, fine, but it doesn't mean that owning a gun is a natural right because it's easier to use. It might make it easier to fulfill the natural right of self preservation (once again, assuming natural rights exist) but that doesn't make it a natural right.

I have a huge problem with the whole concept of "natural rights" anyway. It has the same problem as any appeal to the "natural" — it brooks no argument, and leaves no way to test the assertion. Appeals to "nature have been (and in some cases are) used to defend all kinds of things. Slavery, not allowing women the vote or the right to own and dispose of property, criminalizing gays, what have you. IMO if a right is important enough to defend, it should be pretty easy to support with reasoned argument, without appeals to constructs like "natural law."

Originally Posted by Prime Junta
Ha! Take that, you naysayers who didn't believe His Hopefulness wouldn't inaugurate a golden new age of peace, love and understanding — we're talking about GUN CONTROL ferchrissakes, and can't manage to produce a flame war about it!

(OK, not counting mudsling, but there has to be *someone* to keep things interesting!)

You can't really chalk that one up to Hopey Change, though. I've always been pretty *spit* liberal on social issues, so I'm not really properly representing the counterargument. Rithrandril didn't pick up the torch on this issue and bn hasn't checked in so far. That's pretty much your entire pool of potential candidates around here.

I'm not by any stretch advocating outlawing guns like some of the peace-n-love hippies, but it seems to me that the NRA giving on inch on traceability would keep Uncle Sam from taking a mile at some point in the future.