Clan x86
General Forums => General Discussion => Topic started by: CrAz3D on March 27, 2008, 05:43:47 pm
-
http://www.lcsun-news.com/news/ci_8711218
"There were six homicides in Doña Ana County last year," Franco said. "All of those were committed by illegals (immigrants). Officer-involved shootings are increasing. Smugglers and other illegals used to just give up, but now they're stopping and fighting. ...The sad thing is that (Mexican) drug cartels have better communications and weapons than we do."
So far this year, Mexican drug smugglers have driven through border fencing along New Mexico Highway 9, which parallels the border between Santa Teresa and Columbus, at least four times.
uhm, yeah ... that's not scary at all.
-
That's unfortunate, but I think people will kill regardless of race. I don't think one is particularly more passive or more malicious than the other.
-
People do kill regardless of race ... but 100% of homicide last was committed by illegals? Maybe if we stopped letting illegals over it'd stop the crime.
... or at least issue boxes of ammo and permits for drug dealer smuggler hunting, that'd be awesome
-
In my city, I'd estimate that 80% of homicides (or more) are committed by natives. However, they were here first, and we're the immigrants, so that's sort of the opposite situation.
What do you suggest?
-
Since you can't kick them out ... (A) police need to be more focused on substantial crimes than frivolous crimes; (B) people should be able to protect themselves (maybe a highschool class on self defense, then a weapons course as a STEP 2); (C) re: organized crime, policing needs to be taken to the next level. Infiltrate the organization and kill everyone starting at the top.
I'm sure I could go on, but I'm tired. Stupid allergies.
-
Oddly enough, I don't think killing people is going to solve the problem.
-
That is pretty odd seeing as how killing a murderer means that the murderer can't murder anymore. And it's an awesome deterrent, too.
-
Well, you said it's drugdealers causing the problems, right? Well, the solution is easy -- start throwing all drug users in jail (or killing them) -- cutting off the dealers' cashflow should solve everything !
-
They aren't the only problem, but around here the smugglers are a big part of it.
We tried making drugs illegal .. that didnt work. Drugs should be legal and have heavy penalties for abuse (driving while under the influence, *CRIME* under the influence, etc).
If drugs were legal we'd have way fewer issues with mexicans (and other people from the south) because there'd be not drugs, that's a large part of the criminal industry.
-
We tried making drugs illegal .. that didnt work.
Murders are illegal, and they still happen, too. Should they remain legal?
(I'm not saying I disagree, but I think that you're making too big of a jump)
-
That is pretty odd seeing as how killing a murderer means that the murderer can't murder anymore. And it's an awesome deterrent, too.
I can't argue with your first sentence as it is a fact. I can argue against your second point with statistics. States that have abolished or reinstated the death penalty have seen no statistically valid difference before and after.
-
They aren't the only problem, but around here the smugglers are a big part of it.
We tried making drugs illegal .. that didnt work. Drugs should be legal and have heavy penalties for abuse (driving while under the influence, *CRIME* under the influence, etc).
If drugs were legal we'd have way fewer issues with mexicans (and other people from the south) because there'd be not drugs, that's a large part of the criminal industry.
Alcohol is regarded as a drug.
You've been committed for DWI/DUI in the past.
By your logic, you should be heavily punished.
-
We tried making drugs illegal .. that didnt work.
Murders are illegal, and they still happen, too. Should they remain legal?
(I'm not saying I disagree, but I think that you're making too big of a jump)
Doing drugs, on its own, is a victimless crime. Doing drugs only hurts the drug user. The user can abuse the drugs then things get bad, that's why more strict penalties would be nice.
They aren't the only problem, but around here the smugglers are a big part of it.
We tried making drugs illegal .. that didnt work. Drugs should be legal and have heavy penalties for abuse (driving while under the influence, *CRIME* under the influence, etc).
If drugs were legal we'd have way fewer issues with mexicans (and other people from the south) because there'd be not drugs, that's a large part of the criminal industry.
Alcohol is regarded as a drug.
You've been committed for DWI/DUI in the past.
By your logic, you should be heavily punished.
1) I've been committed to what for a DWI?
2) I got a DWI?
-
Doing drugs, on its own, is a victimless crime. Doing drugs only hurts the drug user. The user can abuse the drugs then things get bad, that's why more strict penalties would be nice.
Let's look at a slightly different (and somewhat exaggerated) scenario. Say you buy shoes made by a brand, say, Adidiboks. The company that makes these shoes openly admits that they use slave labour to make them. While wearing those shoes isn't a crime, and there's certainly no victim to you wearing those shoes (unless they're like some bright orange shoes I saw a guy wearing today, those have plenty of victims), but you're still supporting the crimes being committed.
This is the type of activity I was alluding to in my first post here -- doing the drugs themselves may be victimless, and if they were legal, everything might be fine -- but by doing them now, you're supporting this trafficking that you're talking about, and likely a lot of the murders/other crimes that go along with it.
-
Doing drugs now, yes, supports crime.
I'm not advocating doing drugs or supporting any crime, I don't see what you're getting at.
-
So we agree on that point. Good.
Now, killing all the murderers will reduce violent crimes.
Imprisoning all the drug users will also reduce violent crimes.
Yet, you support one and not the other. That means there has to be something beyond reducing violent crime to this. The question is, what is it?
-
Legalizing drug use/manufacturing would reduce violent crime, too.
-
Hey, guess what else would lessen violent crime? Legalizing violent crime.
-
Hey, guess what else would lessen violent crime? Legalizing violent crime.
I think you're one word off. You could lessen violent crime by legalizing violence, since it would then stop being violent crime.
But it's true, the countries with the lowest crime rates have the least police. Hooray for non-reported crimes!
-
Hey, guess what else would lessen violent crime? Legalizing violent crime.
Violent crime has victims, drug crimes don't.
-
Hey, guess what else would lessen violent crime? Legalizing violent crime.
Violent crime has victims, drug crimes don't.
Unless you count the people killed to cover up the smuggling of the drugs, the people killed trying to enforce drug laws, the people killed because they are selling drugs on others' turf, and the people killed from OD. Yes, technically all death and such as "violent crime", but violent crime that wouldn't be possible without drugs.
-
Crimes that aren't specifically drug crimes are other crimes. Murder is murder, with or without drugs.
Anyway, yeah, the drug industry creates a lot of violence. SO, we legalize, regulate, and tax drugs ... then there is no more illegal drug industry.
-
Just like how we legalize alcohol and there's no more illegal alcohol activity?
-
Legalizing alcohol ended the illegal alcohol industry (which was full of violent crime).
-
There's still a ton of violent crime associated with alcohol.
I think this is an interesting problem, for sure. :)
-
But not with the illegal alcohol industry, though. And I'm fairly sure that the violent crime related to alcohol now (drunk people going on a shooting rampage, drunk-driving-crashes [if those can be violent crime, since there is no intent], etc) is WAY lower than the illegal alcohol industry violent crime (Al Capone stuff)