American gun suppliers responsible for arms crossing into South America, fueling the fentanyl and border problems

[coati]

MAGAts will never acknowledge the degree to which their promotion of conflict and chaos contributes to conflict and chaos.

That is too difficult of a concept for narcissists to comprehend.

 

[SmokingFap]

MAGAts will never acknowledge the degree to which their promotion of conflict and chaos contributes to conflict and chaos.

That is too difficult of a concept for narcissists to comprehend.

I always say, some people just aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

 

[coati]

I always say, some people just aren't happy unless they're unhappy.

Narcissists are rarely, if ever, happy. They are the ultimate consumers, existing only for the temporary satisfaction of their next purchase or conquest.

Treating narcissism is similar to treating addiction. First, the addict must admit they are miserable and making those around them miserable. Then, they need to seek help. This is very difficult to do in a society that has certain media outlets constantly telling people that selfishness is good, and any problems you have are not from selfishness, but rather are from <name-your-scapegoat>.

 

[Rightguide]

The biggest gun exporter outside the DOD is probably the CIA.

 

[DaddysSissySlut24]

Statistically, the US is only safer than failed nations and war zones.

Have to, uh...disagree with you on that one...I don't blame your thinking you use statistics made for mass consumption. No one number will support your claim and in fact the only way to really talk about "safer" is to model it, which I'm going to bet...you don't have the expertise to do. But I do! I'm sure you have lots of expertise I don't have, but in this context you have to model. You can't say a country is "safer" or "not as safe" based on a single or even multple numbers. What you have to do is take a multitude of predictors and regress them on an appropriate outcome, e.g. Probability of dying in any manner that would be considered "unsafe" so maybe "safer" operationally defined strictly as the prob of dying to gun violence. Then you can model the expected probability of death by a certain age etc. Obviously the U.S. is very "safe" for certain people and less "safe" for others. So "safe"...for who, where, when...because I could show you numbers demonstrating guns in the U.S. have a net effect of SAVING lives! The logic is simple; how many gun related deaths (minus suicides which is a huge chunk)...versus how many gun incidents, of which there are estimated over 1 million annual. In other words, the car-jacking that never happened or was thwarted by the appearance of a piece, etc. So if gun related deaths are well under 20k...but incidents where a gun makes an appearance over 1 million...you see? The problem with quotes like the above is that people just rattle them off without thinking, but a few minutes of thought you see how rather...idiotic a statement (common as it may be) really is. You think guns are deadly? No, guns aren't deadly, you want to reduce gun violence, quickly? One law would do it. Ban alcohol. Yes, pragmatically tried and failed. But over 50% of people killed each year consumed alcohol as do over 50% of people who kill (either violence or drunk driving, etc.). You'd quash more violence and save many more lives ridding the country of alcohol than guns. But I don't even advocate that, no, I'm ok with the tradeoff of risks that come with the benefit of individual liberty. That'll be gone completely, very soon, don't worry, and you'll be pining for the days when you could do and own a lot of things you no longer have. Everything involves trade-offs that is the most universal rule. There are so many countries with restrictive gun laws one can emigrate to. You say, why should I have to do that? You don't. Why should the majority of Americans have to give up a fundamental right? Yes, a MAJORITY of Americans, over 50% of U.S. households report owning a firearm. Report..owning a firearm.

 

[Bray123]

Have to, uh...disagree with you on that one...I don't blame your thinking you use statistics made for mass consumption. No one number will support your claim and in fact the only way to really talk about "safer" is to model it, which I'm going to bet...you don't have the expertise to do. But I do! I'm sure you have lots of expertise I don't have, but in this context you have to model. You can't say a country is "safer" or "not as safe" based on a single or even multple numbers. What you have to do is take a multitude of predictors and regress them on an appropriate outcome, e.g. Probability of dying in any manner that would be considered "unsafe" so maybe "safer" operationally defined strictly as the prob of dying to gun violence. Then you can model the expected probability of death by a certain age etc. Obviously the U.S. is very "safe" for certain people and less "safe" for others. So "safe"...for who, where, when...because I could show you numbers demonstrating guns in the U.S. have a net effect of SAVING lives! The logic is simple; how many gun related deaths (minus suicides which is a huge chunk)...versus how many gun incidents, of which there are estimated over 1 million annual. In other words, the car-jacking that never happened or was thwarted by the appearance of a piece, etc. So if gun related deaths are well under 20k...but incidents where a gun makes an appearance over 1 million...you see? The problem with quotes like the above is that people just rattle them off without thinking, but a few minutes of thought you see how rather...idiotic a statement (common as it may be) really is. You think guns are deadly? No, guns aren't deadly, you want to reduce gun violence, quickly? One law would do it. Ban alcohol. Yes, pragmatically tried and failed. But over 50% of people killed each year consumed alcohol as do over 50% of people who kill (either violence or drunk driving, etc.). You'd quash more violence and save many more lives ridding the country of alcohol than guns. But I don't even advocate that, no, I'm ok with the tradeoff of risks that come with the benefit of individual liberty. That'll be gone completely, very soon, don't worry, and you'll be pining for the days when you could do and own a lot of things you no longer have. Everything involves trade-offs that is the most universal rule. There are so many countries with restrictive gun laws one can emigrate to. You say, why should I have to do that? You don't. Why should the majority of Americans have to give up a fundamental right? Yes, a MAJORITY of Americans, over 50% of U.S. households report owning a firearm. Report..owning a firearm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...ath_rates_from_firearms_(including_homicides)

The US is the 12th most dangerous nation in the world, when rated by death by firearms per capita.
To say that it's OK because there are other ways of dying, or that you just love being able to walk around feeling brave are poor justifications.

 

[butters]

Houston, Tuscon and Palmetto flood Mexico with guns, driving up the violence and exacerbating the flight of South Americans seeking safety in North America. But they're happy to flood North America, too, if it means profits.

Palmetto State Armory is currently offering Labor Day deals. An AR-15, the rifle most commonly used in mass shootings, can be purchased for 50 percent off. The bargain price of 25 cents per round is on offer for a box of 1,000 rounds of 9mm ammunition. Last chance to get a .45mm Glock for $600, says the Columbia, South Carolina-based manufacturer. Palmetto makes its mission clear on its website: “We want to sell as many AR-15 and AK-47 rifles as we can and put them into common use in America today.”

That’s the promise of a gun store that caters to gun enthusiasts obsessed with the idea that they will one day have to take up arms against a tyrannical government. Its rifles, however, fuel a war that is taking place thousands of miles away. In October 2020, the Mexican Army recovered a high-powered rifle sold by Palmetto after a confrontation with suspected hitmen in the Mexican state of San Luis Potosí. Mexican authorities have recovered 543 weapons manufactured by Palmetto over the past nine years; all of these weapons had crossed the border to swell the arsenal of organized crime.

The five cities that exported the most weapons to Mexico between 2015 and 2022 are Houston, Texas (2,452); Tucson, Arizona (2,156); Phoenix, Arizona (1,745), El Paso, Texas (1,658) and San Antonio, Texas (1,340).

The Iron River of Weapons
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...&cvid=eb6f61ffa307442784bb86c66beebdad&ei=214

 

[UltraChad]

Yea it's gun suppliers causing the border crisis ....Democrats ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to do their job and secure the F'ing border has nothing to do with it.

 

[butters]

Yea it's gun suppliers causing the border crisis ....Democrats ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to do their job and secure the F'ing border has nothing to do with it.

don't be so desperately naive

 

[jaF0]

Tell the Hamm that when it gets canned it isn't allowed back on the site.

 

[LLCox]

The arms dealers are doing the citizens of the US a favor, you should be happy. The cartels use those weapons to kill each other thus cutting down the number of drug thugs.

 

[UltraChad]

don't be so desperately naive

How is that naive in any way?

The "border crisis" is literally a 100% self inflicted wound..... we could end it within 24 hrs. Undoing the damage would take considerably more time but is also not a complicated or hard thing to do.

But democrats refuse to do anything effectual in any way because they've got to keep that emergency funding flowing. Big blue cities are depending on it.

 

[MajorRewrite]

How is that naive in any way?

The "border crisis" is literally a 100% self inflicted wound..... we could end it within 24 hrs. Undoing the damage would take considerably more time but is also not a complicated or hard thing to do.

But democrats refuse to do anything effectual in any way because they've got to keep that emergency funding flowing. Big blue cities are depending on it.

Hey, why aren’t you man enough to admit you’re xham6690?

 

[UltraChad]

The biggest gun exporter outside the DOD is probably the CIA.

DOJ..... but yea.

Nobody has armed more of our enemies, than Joe Biden and Barack Obama.

 

[UltraChad]

Hey, why aren’t you man enough to admit you’re xham6690?

Because I'm not xham6690.....You sound paranoid.

Is it the idea of having a border or pointing out the fact that open border/sanctuary city IDIOTS are the cause of the "border crisis" that has you triggered here?

 

[jaF0]

Does the Canned Ham get that the boom-booms are being smuggled OUT of the US, not in.

 

[Boat1]

Fully automatic/select fire weapons are, and have been, regulated to the "nth degree" in the USA for decades, thus, there's a "finite quantity" and they're EXPENSIVE AF!

That said, if you're interested in the flow of weapons to the cartels, look no further than the US State Dept. who approves weapons sales to "friendly" Central and South American countries, who in turn, have corrupt people in Govt that resell the military grade weapons to the cartels.

 

[UltraChad]

Does the Canned Ham get that the boom-booms are being smuggled OUT of the US, not in.

Are you talking to me?

Literally nobody said anything about smuggling guns in. How is anyone this lost in this conversation?

Are you old enough to be on this site??

 

[ChloeTzang]

Statistically, the US is only safer than failed nations and war zones.

Depends WHERE in the USA. Chicongo certainly is close to a war zone. But guns there are illegal so its not really a guns problem. More of an issue for local policing.

You'll find the stats are closely correlated to certain racial clusters. Where you get lots of people with little slanty eyes, for example, you do NOT get war zones.