Mexico drug war: the new killing fields

[Peikko 1,575]

probably because there would be a hell of a lot more of them!

So what? Unless they are actively engaged in eliminating the problem and have the authority to do so,their numbers are totally irrelevant.

You did not answer why the US does not simply arm the civilian populations in the areas of armed combat that it is engaging in. What do you think doing so would achieve?

What are you, some kind of pacifist tree hugging vegetarian?

I like trees and meat. I am not a fan of violence though, that is true.

[mawilson 2,133]

You did not answer why the US does not simply arm the civilian populations in the areas of armed combat that it is engaging in. What do you think doing so would achieve?

The local populations are not exactly friendly to us.

[Peikko 1,575]

The local populations are not exactly friendly to us.

What difference does that make? I thought in your theory the civilians need to take care of their own interests because they can't expect anyone else to?

[evli1966 88]

Did you even read the OP piece? You think you have a chance against these thugs? There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect your family but to imagine that somehow owning a gun in this situation would make you safer is laughable, in an ironic hollow laughable kind of way. It is a horrible situation - the only solution is to cleanse the police force from corruption and have a government that genuinely wishes to restore law and order, simply increasing the anarchy by arming people who do not want to be involved in violent conflict and have no training is ridiculous.

I read it and someone who does not defend his family and life when no one else will is useless.

Lives will be lost but unless the people stand up togetehr and make a statement enough is enough and fight the violence with violence then

It would make them less of a target. Criminals tend not to attack people with guns.

As more became armed and the worked together there would be less victimization.

These gangs do not care.

Agreed so defending yourself is the only answer.

Or just die as they want you too.

They are violent thugs for the most part, why would armed citizens bother them when armed police and military do not?

Knowing that they put their lives on the line for victimizing the innocent will create deterence.

No resistance? The gangs fight each other in a constant battle for supremacy and you think a few armed citizens are going to register as resistance?

No but it will begin the deterence neccessary to stop the gangs from victimizing them.

What are you, some kind of pacifist tree hugging vegetarian?

Whether she is or not is her choice.

But I state again anyone who would not stand and defend their child or family really needs to reassess their personal values and what their family means to them.

So what? Unless they are actively engaged in eliminating the problem and have the authority to do so,their numbers are totally irrelevant.

You did not answer why the US does not simply arm the civilian populations in the areas of armed combat that it is engaging in. What do you think doing so would achieve?

I like trees and meat. I am not a fan of violence though, that is true.

[Peikko 1,575]

I read it and someone who does not defend his family and life when no one else will is useless.

Lives will be lost but unless the people stand up togetehr and make a statement enough is enough and fight the violence with violence then

As more became armed and the worked together there would be less victimization.

Agreed so defending yourself is the only answer.

Or just die as they want you too.

Knowing that they put their lives on the line for victimizing the innocent will create deterence.

No but it will begin the deterence neccessary to stop the gangs from victimizing them.

Whether she is or not is her choice.

But I state again anyone who would not stand and defend their child or family really needs to reassess their personal values and what their family means to them.

For the most part, the civilian populations are not a direct threat and they are not targeted specifically but they simply do not want to live in a climate of violence and leave. I would do the same thing - faced with political and police corruption - owning a gun would not strike me as the best way to care for my family, moving to a safer area would.

[evli1966 88]

For the most part, the civilian populations are not a direct threat and they are not targeted specifically but they simply do not want to live in a climate of violence and leave. I would do the same thing - faced with political and police corruption - owning a gun would not strike me as the best way to care for my family, moving to a safer area would.

What do you do when your government does not provide it?

You expect to move to other countries illegally and expect to be recieved in open arms while you ignore their laws?

Seems like cowardice is leading you to corruption.

[Peikko 1,575]

What do you do when your government does not provide it?

You expect to move to other countries illegally and expect to be recieved in open arms while you ignore their laws?

Seems like cowardice is leading you to corruption.

Where did you get that red herring from? You think a gun would be your friend in the situation outlined in the OP. I think that makes you a fool, all be it an arm chair brave one

[Atencio 43]

For the most part, the civilian populations are not a direct threat and they are not targeted specifically but they simply do not want to live in a climate of violence and leave. I would do the same thing - faced with political and police corruption - owning a gun would not strike me as the best way to care for my family, moving to a safer area would.

And what if the family doesn't have the means to move? If so, exactly where in Mexico for example would it be safe to live in?

[IncorrectPolitics 26]

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

What difference does that make? I thought in your theory the civilians need to take care of their own interests because they can't expect anyone else to?

if you want to arm aghfanis that are hostile to the us, you go do that. be sure to have a good story for the fbi when they come knocking.

[Peikko 1,575]

if you want to arm aghfanis that are hostile to the us, you go do that. be sure to have a good story for the fbi when they come knocking.

I don't want to arm anyone; your argument is that everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves by having access to arms. My argument has consistently been that from a civilians point of view, it is better to allow the police and military to do their jobs and putting more arms into an anarchic situation really does not do anyone any good. If the armed forces are corrupt or not able to deal with the situation, as a civilian the best direct action you can take is to moving to a safer place, no matter how limited an option that might be. I expect the civilians in this situation are hoping that eventually the politicians and policemen will in fact do their elected duty instead of getting fat at the expense of others - they may even try to agitate in that direction which is perfectly understandable, but saying everything would be ok if only the civilians hasn't been denied access to arms is sad.

[Ban Hammer 13,469]

I don't want to arm anyone; your argument is that everyone should have the opportunity to defend themselves by having access to arms. My argument has consistently been that from a civilians point of view, it is better to allow the police and military to do their jobs and putting more arms into an anarchic situation really does not do anyone any good. If the armed forces are corrupt or not able to deal with the situation, as a civilian the best direct action you can take is to moving to a safer place, no matter how limited an option that might be. I expect the civilians in this situation are hoping that eventually the politicians and policemen will in fact do their elected duty instead of getting fat at the expense of others - they may even try to agitate in that direction which is perfectly understandable, but saying everything would be ok if only the civilians hasn't been denied access to arms is sad.

so maybe if they had a second amendment, this problem never woulda got to this point

moving may be the easiest option to throw out there. however, did you ever consider maybe they have a mortgage? a business that has been in their family for generations? or just maybe - they are so poor they can't afford the cost of moving.

i'd not be surprised that while they are moving, they are targeted by other unsavory elements of the criminal underworld. and from what i've seen in the news stories on vj, moving is quite often unable to solve the gangs from coming after them.

[IncorrectPolitics 26]

so maybe if they had a second amendment, this problem never woulda got to this point

agreed