Re: Guns? Ridiculous?

[Adron]

If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.

Once again, you have no evidence to support something as ridiculous as that Adron.

Is that ridiculous? Tell me why? It seems logical to me. If the government of California started producing free drugs for everyone, would that not make drugs more available in Oregon?

[muert0]

When I was doing spead about 5 years ago we were getting it from california. If it hadn't been for the labs over there we wouldn't have crap here.

[Hazard]

If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The relationship between two states is not even close to the relationship between the US and Mexico. Get your head on straight. 1 is not equal to 2.

Once again, you have no evidence to support something as ridiculous as that Adron.

Is that ridiculous? Tell me why? It seems logical to me. If the government of California started producing free drugs for everyone, would that not make drugs more available in Oregon?

[Adron]

If Mexico has strict anti-gun laws, why are guns freely available?  Adron?  Apparently death by gun is prevelant enough that a priest has to carry a weapon because several of his friends were shot.  Doesn't sound too isolated.

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around, and insufficient border controls between Mexico and USA. Which is also the reason gun control in a single state in the USA is inefficient.

You're comparing apples to oranges. The relationship between two states is not even close to the relationship between the US and Mexico. Get your head on straight. 1 is not equal to 2.

Once again, you have no evidence to support something as ridiculous as that Adron.

Is that ridiculous? Tell me why? It seems logical to me. If the government of California started producing free drugs for everyone, would that not make drugs more available in Oregon?

That post of yours was very confusing Hazard. But what I think you are trying to say is that border control between US and Mexico is less nonexistant than between states in the US? I'll agree with that. I still don't think it would be very hard to smuggle guns from the US to Mexico. You're getting a lot of illegal immigrants from there, and comparatively, a gun is much smaller and easier to smuggle across.

[Hazard]

I screwed up a tag somewhere.

I'd like to start out by saying, you are an ignorant fool.

The border control between US and Mexico is nonexistant and there is a huge control between states? Are you a moron?

You just killed your own argument. Even if we outlaw guns in the US, you JUST SAID that they could very easily be smuggled from Mexico and brought to market in the United States. So if what you say is true, outlawing guns will still make it easy for criminals to get them because they will just be smuggled from Mexico. Your own argument backfired.

[Adron]

I screwed up a tag somewhere.

I'd like to start out by saying, you are an ignorant fool.

Let me start by saying: If you start reading the posts you're replying to a bit more carefully, you won't come out as an ignorant fool as often.

The border control between US and Mexico is nonexistant and there is a huge control between states? Are you a moron?

How about you read that post again? Ever heard of double negations? And maybe you should stop calling other people morons? It's not really permissible on this forum, but since I'm participating, I'm not moderating or banning anyone myself...

You just killed your own argument. Even if we outlaw guns in the US, you JUST SAID that they could very easily be smuggled from Mexico and brought to market in the United States. So if what you say is true, outlawing guns will still make it easy for criminals to get them because they will just be smuggled from Mexico. Your own argument backfired.

If an argument was killed by a single statement, yours would be long dead. I'm not afraid of pointing out weaknesses or arguments against my side. It's important to be aware of where the weaknesses lie, and take those into consideration.

Yes, guns could be smuggled from Mexico and brought to market in the United States. Outlawing guns will be more efficient the more states outlaw them. If the United States does, Mexico will probably follow. It's just like how you're having trouble fighting drugs because they're "legal" in Colombia.

[Hazard]

So much of your argument is based on the fact that guns will be less accessible to criminals if they are banned, but you just said how easily they can be smuggled. Doesn't that negate your argument?

[hismajesty]

Drugs are banned in America, but people still seem to get them.

[Hazard]

Drugs are banned in America, but people still seem to get them.

Easily too.

[Adron]

So much of your argument is based on the fact that guns will be less accessible to criminals if they are banned, but you just said how easily they can be smuggled. Doesn't that negate your argument?

No. It's a counterargument I had expected you to make a long time ago, that I was expecting. It's like how a gun ban in Europe is still rather effective, even though guns are available in the USA. You might have trouble with Mexico or Canada if they don't also decide to ban guns, but other than that, distance works well to reduce.

It won't work well at all between states in the USA though. No control is not enough.

[Forged]

Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around,

Have you ever been to mexico?  They don't need the U.S spreading guns.  They have Columbia, Panama, Venezuala, and the rest of South America...

The cops in mexico carry around fucking machine guns. 

[Adron]

Have you ever been to mexico?  They don't need the U.S spreading guns.  They have Columbia, Panama, Venezuala, and the rest of South America...

The cops in mexico carry around fucking machine guns. 

Only been there once, and don't really remember anything about cops and guns. But if you say so, there probably are.

[Hazard]

So much of your argument is based on the fact that guns will be less accessible to criminals if they are banned, but you just said how easily they can be smuggled. Doesn't that negate your argument?

No. It's a counterargument I had expected you to make a long time ago, that I was expecting. It's like how a gun ban in Europe is still rather effective, even though guns are available in the USA. You might have trouble with Mexico or Canada if they don't also decide to ban guns, but other than that, distance works well to reduce.

It won't work well at all between states in the USA though. No control is not enough.

Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem. The United States prides itself on not having to cross military checkpoints to move between states.

[Adron]

Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.

[Hazard]

Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.

And I disagree, its that simple.

I may discover that one equals two in the future.