Scoobes said:
sc94597 said:
Scoobes said:
sc94597 said:
Most of Western Europe is not next to Russia. If you want to make that comparison, I might as well through in all of Central and South America. The distances between England and Russia is something like 3,000 miles. Meanwhile the distance from Pennsylvania and Columbia is 2,500 miles. Alaska is closer to much of Russia. ;)
Anyway, I would argue that drug cartels are more responsible for criminal activity in the U.S than the Ukrainian civil war in most of Europe outside of Ukraine.
|
Using that logic I could easily say that New York isn't exactly next to Mexico either, but has its fair share of crime. Or that the bible belt shouldn't really count as part of the US stats as the culture is so different to the coastal states.
Europe is Europe, and the US is the US. Throughout history, and today geographically, it is far more vulnerable to violence from neighbouring states. Where do you think a large portion of terrorists come from?
The border with Mexico doesn't really compare considering this is the same country where many go for Spring Break (don't see that happening in Ukraine, Libya, Iraq or Syria at the present time).
So now we come full circle to the topic at hand, because you're right, in most of Europe criminal activity isn't anywhere near as bad the gun crime/homicides you get via the Cartels even with the more dangerous neighbouring countries as we haven't had the huge gun culture the US has had over the years. Less guns coming in, less going out.
|
The effects of drug prohibition and cartels travel all the way to New York, however. That's a empirical dataset. Can the same be true with regards to Ukraine's civil war and London?
"From neighboring states" is the key word here. A lot of crime isn't commited by de jure states though, but by smaller organizations.
The question is how does the border affect crime rates. It isn't about where one will vacation to. The crime rates of the U.S are more influenced by Mexico's situation, than European countries with regards to Librya, Iraq, or Syria.
It has very little do do with "gun culture" and much more to do with power differences between those involved in the drug trade. Cartels are worst in "gun controlled" Mexico than they are in the U.S, for example.
|
Hmmm.. sounds like we're arguing two different points.
For the cartels, I would argue they have more to do with the "war on drugs" and general drug policy than actual gun control. The cartels have grown ridiculously powerful over the years due to the failure of sucessive Mexican and US governments to get a handle on the issue.
I don't get your point on "gun controlled" Mexico however. The laws might be stricter than the US but they have the right to own firearms for protection in private residences, and with reason, can carry guns outside. Laws in Europe are generally far stricter. In both Mexico and the US, there is very little gun control compared to most countries in Europe.
|
The gun crime is the main argument being used for gun control. You can't separate the crime part from "gun crime." What causes people to kill others, is the question being asked. The answer is disputes over drugs and no common legal procedure to settle these disputes. Then you have gangs and cartels killing one another. If said issues weren't existent, then the gun murder rate in the U.S would drop significantly, possibly putting the U.S in line with European countries in terms of homicide rates (from 5 out 100,000 to 2 out of 100,000.)
