[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88026#msg88026 date=1099971703]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg87682#msg87682 date=1099771924]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg87626#msg87626 date=1099753931]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

Once again, you have no evidence to support something as ridiculous as that Adron.
[/quote]

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?

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.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88221#msg88221 date=1100102724]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88026#msg88026 date=1099971703]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg87682#msg87682 date=1099771924]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg87626#msg87626 date=1099753931]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?

[/quote]

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88259#msg88259 date=1100122165]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88221#msg88221 date=1100102724]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9390.msg88026#msg88026 date=1099971703]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9390.msg87682#msg87682 date=1099771924]
[quote author=Grok link=topic=9390.msg87626#msg87626 date=1099753931]
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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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?

[/quote]
[/quote]

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.

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.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88285#msg88285 date=1100126919]
I screwed up a tag somewhere.

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

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.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88285#msg88285 date=1100126919]
The border control between US and Mexico is nonexistant and there is a huge control between states? Are you a moron?
[/quote]

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...


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88285#msg88285 date=1100126919]
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.
[/quote]

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.

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?

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

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=topic=9498.msg88328#msg88328 date=1100139739]
Drugs are banned in America, but people still seem to get them.
[/quote]

Easily too.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88320#msg88320 date=1100136560]
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?
[/quote]

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.

[quote]Probably because of the USA spreading guns all around,[/quote]

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. 

[quote author=Forged link=topic=9498.msg88352#msg88352 date=1100146736]
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. 
[/quote]

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

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88339#msg88339 date=1100142265]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88320#msg88320 date=1100136560]
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?
[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88405#msg88405 date=1100178346]
Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.[/quote]

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

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88448#msg88448 date=1100194876]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88405#msg88405 date=1100178346]
Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.[/quote]

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.
[/quote]

And I disagree, its that simple.

I may discover that one equals two in the future.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88466#msg88466 date=1100196994]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88448#msg88448 date=1100194876]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88405#msg88405 date=1100178346]
Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.[/quote]

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.
[/quote]

And I disagree, its that simple.
[/quote]

But how can you disagree with a may? It's not a will or a will not. It states that both outcomes are possible given the facts available. What facts do you have to make you exclude one?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88469#msg88469 date=1100197241]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88466#msg88466 date=1100196994]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88448#msg88448 date=1100194876]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88405#msg88405 date=1100178346]
Guns will never be banned in the United States, so we will never have that problem.[/quote]

Guns may be banned in the United States in the future.
[/quote]

And I disagree, its that simple.
[/quote]

The precedent of over 200 years of legistlation is on my side.

But how can you disagree with a may? It's not a will or a will not. It states that both outcomes are possible given the facts available. What facts do you have to make you exclude one?
[/quote]

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88473#msg88473 date=1100197633]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88469#msg88469 date=1100197241]
The precedent of over 200 years of legistlation is on my side.

But how can you disagree with a may? It's not a will or a will not. It states that both outcomes are possible given the facts available. What facts do you have to make you exclude one?
[/quote]
[/quote]

You're quoting wrong again, put your text outside the tags surrounding my text.

I can see how you'd take precedent as a good reason for thinking it won't change. But, unless there have either been serious tries to get it changed during that time and those tries have failed for some reason that cannot be expected to change in the future, I don't think using precedent to predict non-change is a good idea.

Things just don't change before they change. Yet things do change. Is the fact that this apple has been sitting on my desk for two weeks an indicator that it will sit there two more weeks? No - it's starting to spoil, and I'm going to throw it away soon.

If something hasn't happened in 200 years, that could be taken as an indication that it doesn't happen often. I don't think it can be used to say that it won't happen in 400 years though. You simply haven't observed it long enough to make a highly accurate statement about that.

Also, for this particular case, amendments have been added to the constitution before. So there is precedent that things do change.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9498.msg88285#msg88285 date=1100126919]
I'd like to start out by saying, you are an ignorant fool.
[/quote]

Cut this crap out.  Personal attacks are not a welcome part of any discussion on this forum.  Blast the content all you want, but do it in an intelligent way with clear intent to prove your position, or to disprove his content.  Name-calling does not accomplish either goal.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88479#msg88479 date=1100199178]
Is the fact that this apple has been sitting on my desk for two weeks an indicator that it will sit there two more weeks? No - it's starting to spoil, and I'm going to throw it away soon.[/quote]

Is the fact that its starting to spoil and indicator that you are certainly going to throw it away?

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88479#msg88479 date=1100199178]
If something hasn't happened in 200 years, that could be taken as an indication that it doesn't happen often. I don't think it can be used to say that it won't happen in 400 years though. You simply haven't observed it long enough to make a highly accurate statement about that. [/quote]

So take gravity. Just because gravity has effected all objects so far in history, does that mean it will neccessarily effect all objects forever?


[quote author=Adron link=topic=9498.msg88479#msg88479 date=1100199178]
Also, for this particular case, amendments have been added to the constitution before. So there is precedent that things do change.
[/quote]

If memory serves, the Bill of Rights has remained intact for over 200 years.