6 ms·

>shipping them guns This is occasionally obfuscated, but it is utterly true. There are basically two kinds of guns (of the kind you can use to enforce this "w

by hwillis 10y ago

>shipping them guns This is occasionally obfuscated, but it is utterly true. There are basically two kinds of guns (of the kind you can use to enforce this "war") in the world stage: AK-like (Russian, eastern European, and Chinese included) and AR-like (MXX(X) and modified civilian, from dealers and left over from military/agency operations). The AR-like guns are extremely common in Mexico, and they obviously are all American made. There are also a lot of AK-like weapons, which are... also all American. Bare minimum, they are legally bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico. These facts are often overlooked by claims that you can't be sure where the guns come from- 87% of the 4000 guns we can track come from the US, but that only represents 12% of the 30,000 guns seized. The real fact is the Mexican military has seized over 300,000 guns[1], and very few of those AK-like guns come from Russia or China. The overwhelming majority of those weapons had to have been built or sold in America. In the US there's a huge amount of disbelief that we can actually be the source of these guns. I honestly think that comes from a mistaken belief that guns actually exist everywhere... America is a giant gun store, the biggest on the block, saying they need to keep selling guns because of all these guns everybody keeps buying. [1]: https://web.archive.org/web/20090703011254/http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/05/06/international/i111117D34.DTL&hw=gun&sn=014&sc=1000 https://web.archive.org/web/20090703011254/http://www.sfgate...

WillPostForFood 10y ago
Good argument for better border control between the two countries.
- hwillis 10y ago
  There are good arguments for border patrol but this is not one of them. These guns are legal in the US and all you have to do to get them into Mexico is load them on a catapult and drive out to the middle of nowhere, or load them in one of the hundreds of small boats that make the trip. It's trivial to find guns illegally coming into mexico from a boat that can cross oceans and nearly impossible for a boat you can make in your garage. Border patrol will not solve gun violence in Mexico any more than it will solve cocaine in America. As an unrelated thing, I find it mind boggling that immigration is still an explicitly national issue in America. Refugees and immigrants would be much better handled if they were done on a per-state basis. If California wants to let in a ton of Mexicans and issue them state-only green cards, why should Texas be able to vote to stop them? Likewise if Texas wants to exclude immigrants, why should California force Texas to give them jobs? State-only green card programs would allow immigrants to be carefully tracked (national green card holders face deportation if their residence is not on file), gives them incentive to go from states where they aren't wanted to those where they are, and allows national money and patrol efforts to be focused where they are wanted. Immigrants can't steal Texan jobs if they live in California.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Leaving immigration to the states would require internal border controls. This is not something most people want.
    - jzwinck 10y ago
      You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can still reject them if they apply for work in another state.
      - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
        It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?
        hwillis 10y ago
        >To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. >The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman. Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change. >And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.
lawnchair_larry 10y ago
It's very easy to make AK-like and AR-like guns. Even if it's correct that the majority come from the US, they certainly wouldn't have to. Many hobbyists even do this kind of thing, and it doesn't require any particularly special manufacturing equipment. My guess would be that the reason they seize more ARs than AKs is not related to the source, but because they find ARs preferable. If somehow guns stopped flowing across the border, and cartels still wanted them, they'd be up and running in no time. I'd be surprised if they aren't already doing it, because they have other operations that require much more sophistication.
- hwillis 10y ago
  >It's very easy to make AK-like and AR-like guns. Preface: I know guns, I like guns, I am a competent machinist and I know all about lowers, gun laws, and the shovel AK. It is not easy to make guns. You need huge factories and while the cartels are theoretically capable of such things, its incomparable to US-based gun manufacture. Mexican factories can be shut down. Mexico can do nothing about guns that come from the US. They can do far less to stop it than we can do to stop drugs from coming into America, and we have been able to do practically nothing. Manufacturing AKs requires can be done by a blacksmith, but you can't hire ten thousand blacksmiths to produce a gun each every day. You need stamping presses, metal casting, etc. and you will never make a gun as good as a factory. That's just ignorant thinking- the steel, the manufacture, the precision all matter. >If somehow guns stopped flowing across the border, and cartels still wanted them, they'd be up and running in no time. That's nonsense. People can make cars from scratch in their garages, but if you stop selling cars to a country they will very quickly not have any more cars. Guns are not that complicated but they aren't that simple. Zip guns have never and will never be a problem in countries with even a partially functional government. This whole "we can't stop them from getting guns" is emblematic of the magical thinking I was referring to. The scale of the number of guns coming from the US is just way, way beyond what is practical or even possible in other countries. There are plenty of reasons we shouldn't stop guns from flowing into Mexico, but it is a real problem that would no longer exist if we didn't let US guns go to Mexico. There's just no way they would be able to get even a fraction as many guns, anywhere close to the same quality. The US is unique in the entire world for how many (and how many kinds of) guns it has[1]. It's not possible to just go to Russia or China- of the countries that have the most guns the only ones who don't buy them all from the US are Switzerland (where my family immigrated from, incidentally) and France, and they certainly aren't selling to Mexicans. [1]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-with-the-most-guns-1.3392204 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-wit...

by hwillis 10y ago

WillPostForFood 10y ago

Good argument for better border control between the two countries.

hwillis 10y ago
There are good arguments for border patrol but this is not one of them. These guns are legal in the US and all you have to do to get them into Mexico is load them on a catapult and drive out to the middle of nowhere, or load them in one of the hundreds of small boats that make the trip. It's trivial to find guns illegally coming into mexico from a boat that can cross oceans and nearly impossible for a boat you can make in your garage. Border patrol will not solve gun violence in Mexico any more than it will solve cocaine in America. As an unrelated thing, I find it mind boggling that immigration is still an explicitly national issue in America. Refugees and immigrants would be much better handled if they were done on a per-state basis. If California wants to let in a ton of Mexicans and issue them state-only green cards, why should Texas be able to vote to stop them? Likewise if Texas wants to exclude immigrants, why should California force Texas to give them jobs? State-only green card programs would allow immigrants to be carefully tracked (national green card holders face deportation if their residence is not on file), gives them incentive to go from states where they aren't wanted to those where they are, and allows national money and patrol efforts to be focused where they are wanted. Immigrants can't steal Texan jobs if they live in California.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Leaving immigration to the states would require internal border controls. This is not something most people want.
  - jzwinck 10y ago
    You could make a single-state work permit without internal borders. If workers from California want to spend their vacation money in Nevada, let them. You can still reject them if they apply for work in another state.
    - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
      It's not just about work. To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime?
      - hwillis 10y ago
        >To make that effective you would have to eliminate federal birthright citizenship, or anyone could easily make their children US citizens (and then too many would). This is irrelevant; you can do this on a visa just as easily. Additionally, this exists for a reason even if you don't like it. If anything it reduces the incentive to do this, because you can get 99% of the benefits without doing it. Regardless all you have to do to make this birth-neutral is make it as hard to get a state green card as it is to get a visa. >The "state immigrants" would also have to be disqualified from all federal programs or unwilling states would still be paying for them. You are ignorant of the laws regarding legal and illegal immigration. Education, for instance, is explicitly provided to illegal immigrants. Social services almost all have a multi-year "pay-in" period. Additionally, immigrants pay more into taxes than they take out. I believe you are unintentionally arguing a strawman. Also, those states don't get a say in what they do or do not pay for. Massachusetts pays for Alabama. In fact, Massachusetts pays for immigration control that they don't want. In reality this would be a doubly more fair distribution of federal taxes. Even hypothetically it's an insignificant change. >And if that isn't enough to make it intractable, what do you expect to happen when an immigrant crosses into another state to commit a serious crime? I don't understand what you're trying to say at all- this would no different from anyone else, citizen or not, committing a crime.

lawnchair_larry 10y ago

It's very easy to make AK-like and AR-like guns. Even if it's correct that the majority come from the US, they certainly wouldn't have to. Many hobbyists even do this kind of thing, and it doesn't require any particularly special manufacturing equipment. My guess would be that the reason they seize more ARs than AKs is not related to the source, but because they find ARs preferable. If somehow guns stopped flowing across the border, and cartels still wanted them, they'd be up and running in no time. I'd be surprised if they aren't already doing it, because they have other operations that require much more sophistication.

hwillis 10y ago
>It's very easy to make AK-like and AR-like guns. Preface: I know guns, I like guns, I am a competent machinist and I know all about lowers, gun laws, and the shovel AK. It is not easy to make guns. You need huge factories and while the cartels are theoretically capable of such things, its incomparable to US-based gun manufacture. Mexican factories can be shut down. Mexico can do nothing about guns that come from the US. They can do far less to stop it than we can do to stop drugs from coming into America, and we have been able to do practically nothing. Manufacturing AKs requires can be done by a blacksmith, but you can't hire ten thousand blacksmiths to produce a gun each every day. You need stamping presses, metal casting, etc. and you will never make a gun as good as a factory. That's just ignorant thinking- the steel, the manufacture, the precision all matter. >If somehow guns stopped flowing across the border, and cartels still wanted them, they'd be up and running in no time. That's nonsense. People can make cars from scratch in their garages, but if you stop selling cars to a country they will very quickly not have any more cars. Guns are not that complicated but they aren't that simple. Zip guns have never and will never be a problem in countries with even a partially functional government. This whole "we can't stop them from getting guns" is emblematic of the magical thinking I was referring to. The scale of the number of guns coming from the US is just way, way beyond what is practical or even possible in other countries. There are plenty of reasons we shouldn't stop guns from flowing into Mexico, but it is a real problem that would no longer exist if we didn't let US guns go to Mexico. There's just no way they would be able to get even a fraction as many guns, anywhere close to the same quality. The US is unique in the entire world for how many (and how many kinds of) guns it has[1]. It's not possible to just go to Russia or China- of the countries that have the most guns the only ones who don't buy them all from the US are Switzerland (where my family immigrated from, incidentally) and France, and they certainly aren't selling to Mexicans. [1]: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-with-the-most-guns-1.3392204 http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/small-arms-survey-countries-wit...