Democrats demanding USA has Mexico's murder rate

Comparing to US to what is essentially a corrupt narco state is dishonest at best

 

Crazy how we’ve been importing so many people who’ve created a corrupt narco state over the past 50 years. We should import people who don’t do that.

 

Created?...or been afflicted by...

 

People make the country, not the other way around. It’s no surprise that MS13 and other problems from the Hispanic world made it here once we let these people in.

 

Last time checked looked there were not too many states that allowed guns to be taken into places that serve alcohol and even in those states the owner of the establishment had the right to prohibit guns.

The upshot is that there are not too many bars in the US where you can take your gun. The point of bringing up bars (and I would include universities) is that there is a place for sensible restrictions that do not interfere with someones right to own a firearm.

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa!! You fool!! If Democrats wanted to make us just like Mexico then they'd oppose the wall, so....oh.....er.....uh....ok, um, well maybe they DO want to make us like Mexico (by allowing unlimited Mexican immigration), so ok, maybe you're onto something there.
Carry on.

 

Why are they poor? Corporations send lots of work to them and then after they make the stuff, they sell it back to us. There's a huge trade deficit.

 

Well, it would benefit the upper classes. We could all be in their service and expendable.

 

Yeah you realize selling guns is a business we run too right? That's not even functional in a practical sense, much less the moral horror associated with still further prison corruption.

 

This.

Meantime, I'm in one of those other first world nations, and I would hazard the guess that the average teenaged boy here would never have seen any kind of gun in his life, much less an assault rifle. It's unlikely that the vast majority would even know someone who's seen a gun up close.

So, when our teenaged boys go postal, they drive a car too fast and wrap it around a power pole, or they off themselves. In rare instances, they kill a parent in a fit of rage. Death may well ensue, but it's almost always limited to the self or a familiar.

 

I have been fortunate to have lived abroad ( traveled extensively abroad for work for extended periods of time - sometimes many months or more ... long enough to get a sense of the culture) and so I totally understand where you are coming from.

 

The "upshot" is that changing the subject to guns in bars has nothing to do with anything that we were talking about. Particularly when by your own admission there are not too many US bars that allow that. I'm really unclear why you changed your argument that first world nations have lower gun crime because of restrictive gun laws to suddenly availability of guns is only one factor and something something guns in bars.

 

I did not change my argument .. just went on a tangent.

While there are many factors in comparing first world nations such as the USA to Mexico (not a first world nation), this is less the case when comparing First world nations such as the USA to other first world nations such as Canada, Britain, Germany, France and so on.

 

They are poor because of their culture. Culture defines a society's technological advancement.

 

US has a far higher rate of violent crime than most of the first world also.

A very good article I just came across showing how hard it is to compare violent crime rates with other countries.

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.co...e-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

 

Technological advancement does not necessarily bring wealth to a culture, but a culture may benefit by proxy. Technology does not make wealth spread through a society. It generally promotes it's movement toward the upper end of the spectrum.

I may be misunderstanding you.

 

Cause humans in America are somehow different than humans in Mexico.

 

Actually they are. Cultural differences among people even in close proximity can be startling at times.

Just look at the differences between France and Germany.

 

So you're argument has gone from first world nations have lower gun crime because of restrictive gun laws, to that's only one factor, to, once again, it's the main factor.

Whew...hard to keep up.

 

When you have restrictive gun laws, say the banning of the general population owning guns, you give the edge to those finding profit outside the law. Armed gangs have no problems with an unarmed population. Why is it that Liberals do not seem to be able to grasp the reality of criminal intent? You will give up your gun, but the criminal will not. You're screwed. Even if the three thugs eyeing you and your wife one night don't have guns, they can be pretty sure you don't have one either. You're screwed.

 

Well ... you should try following the thread which was a comparison of Mexico to the US. Obviously in the case of Mexico there are numerous other factors such that despite gun laws ... there is still a whole lot of gun crime.

If we compare the US to first world nations this is not generally the case on a relative basis.

This does not mean that there are not other factors that make the US different from other nations and nor does it mean that restrictive gun laws are the main difference.

The post you were responding to initially was simply pointing out the flaw in the claim "Mexico has restrictive gun laws but .. look at the violence there".

Would a ban on assault rifles help in the US ? Perhaps, or perhaps there are other social factors that just make the US more violent and crazy than in other places. I don't profess to know the exact answer. It is not like there have not been similar incidents in other first world nations... they are just not as common.

Look at the vegas dude. There is no identifiable reason why that fellow snapped, why he woke up one morning and decided to make a sophisticated plan to kill a large number of people that he didn't know.

 

At least up until 10-25 years ago, almost all first world nations did not have the type of population demographics the U.S. has had.

Therefore it's a false comparison to try to selectively compare the U.S. to only other first world nations.

The U.S. might have been as developed as, say, Europe or Australia, but it also had a higher percentage of population living in poverty and various social problems. Why this is exactly has been controversial and a subject of debate.

Traditionally the U.S. has been somewhat of a paradox compared to all the countries in the rest of the world. By various social measures it has been both simultaneously first world and third world at the same time.

 

stupid strawman argument.

 

The U.S. even went so far as to have Prohibition in the early part of the 1900s. So apparently people didn't see a problem with having government control alcohol.
Question: Why weren't guns seen as such a big issue back then?

Is there more problems now than there was back then? If so, why are there more problems now?

 

In general a criminal with a gun has the edge over an unsuspecting civilian with a gun. It is called the element of surprise.

Sure there are specific cases, such as the one you bring up, where a gun might protect someone but, this is generally not the case. More guns lead to more gun crime and someone with a gun is more likely to get shot in a gun altercation than one someone without a gun.

In the Thug example you bring up. Lets suppose one of the three thugs gets aggressive and you pull your gun. Chances are good that one of his other two buddies (who also have guns) will shoot you. The thugs will not be convicted because it was you who pulled the gun on them and they were just defending themselves.

You had a gun, your dead, what have you gained ?