This is how we do the things here in Yankeeland, boy



The problem is not outlaws having guns but regular people not wanting to give up their guns.
To take the guns off them would result in a lot of violence and possibly civil war.

Thats the real problem. Regular folks with guns.
Once guns were outlawed the supply of guns would dry up very quickly.

Outlaws with guns can be dealt with by much better armed and resourced police and army and justice system.


Let’s all move to Mexico. That’s a failed state, a Third world country, AND it has strict gun control laws!

By the way, are you a certain hedge fund hawker who hallicinates mountains of studies?


In Nazi Germany, the outlaws with guns WERE the police and army and justice system.

That’s how we ain’t never gonna do things in Yankeeland, boy. Though the gun grabbers keep trying.


Don’t really care how you do it I don’t live there but neither do you interestingly enough.

Anyway the US certainly is Not Monolithic in its attitude to guns.


No need to be monolithic when gun ownership is democratized.

The people with the guns make the rules. That’s why widespread gun ownership guarantees democracy.


No it doesn’t. It pretends to have strict gun control laws. That sort of thing represents the basic difference between failed states and proper ones.

If you need me to spell it out for you, it all boils down to the fact that humans can only be in one place at a time.

If you have, say, an armed robbery in the UK, there will be a disproportionate response from the police. They’ll pull out all the stops to make sure that one person, and that gun, is removed from society.

In the USA, they can’t do that, because there’s an armed robbery every weekend and they just don’t have enough manpower to deal with it. Criminals come to believe that armed robbery is just another career choice.

In Mexico … well, it’s Mexico, so whatever’s written in the statute books is ignored by pretty much everybody. It’s just words on paper. Even if Mexico had a functioning police force, whatever miserable funding is left over after 90% of it has been stolen pays only for keeping the lid on Mexico’s low-level problems.

And the Germans were all seething about it and saying, if only we had guns, we could put a stop to this? :rofl:


The True Scotsman fallacy! Somehow I knew it was coming.


The fallacy fallacy is fun for a while, but eventually it gets dull. :disappointed:


Dude, it’s a fair cop and you know it. Own it.

(Not that kind of cop.)


It’s tired trope, and I believe you know it too.

Swedish health care can’t work because, uh… Cuba! :smile:

Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela… what is it with you guys and your obsession with Latin America?


You can’t dismiss a completely obvious fact with the word “fallacy”. A lot of countries have superficially sensible laws on paper. A good fraction of them don’t really understand the nature of the technology we call “Law”, and believe that merely writing some high-falutin’ legalese on paper will make magic things happen.

Do you:

a) actually think that Mexico has a functioning judiciary, customs, border control and police force on par with (say) Sweden or Singapore, and is therefore capable of enforcing a gun ban?

or b) dispute my assertion that a police force with a finite number of people in it can only deal with a certain number of crimes in a day?

In any case, Mexico does theoretically allow private citizens to own guns; they’re just not allowed to carry guns around in public.


You can’t have it both ways. You want to cherry pick your data to manufacture a correlation, you can damn well bet I’ll call you on it.


What exactly did I “cherry pick”? You don’t appear to understand what the phrase means. You can’t “cherry pick” data which can be objectively verified and which nobody disputes - for example the fact that two-thirds of the guns that come to the attention of Mexican police turn out to be illegal imports from the US, and a further 10% or so are illegal imports from other countries.

Unless you have some other ingenious explanation, the only logical conclusion is that Mexico has an extremely porous border, ie., it is not effectively enforcing its gun ban. In practice, therefore, Mexico doesn’t actually have a gun ban, does it?


Finley, Maybe the Mexicans should build a wall? I am bad , Merry Christmas :yum:


That would be a win-win, as Mr Trump would say :slight_smile:


And bigley?


Extenuating circumstances for me, but not for thee.

No multivariate analysis under that kilt.




When in doubt, obfuscate. Seems to be SOP these days.


I don’t know what you’re talking about. :whistle: