Cheap Northern Drugs, Cheap Southern Guns,and The Mob on Top

[Floyd]

Completly off topic i know, and i'll probally get slapped for this... but does Canada still have SARS? just curious.....

Edit: Back on Topic.. how can you start a topic like this and say that you dont want to talk or reminisce about it with strangers on the internet? maybe your telling porkies... Hey Nick your canadian.. do you agree with Schme?

[Schme]

Were you being sarcastic? I certainly hope so.

No, I don't want to talk about it right now, espicially not with you, whitey.

Let me tell you something. Most people who tell stories about "There glorious days as a banger" don't know what the hell there talking about.

You can't believe everything your stupidass music videos tell you, alright?



SARS? Canada had SARS? I didn't know countries good get diseases. I don't remember that happening at all.



And just because he's Canadian doesn't mean he's going to agree with me.

Really man!

Your British, so you like the National Front, right?

Really, guy.

Don't be foolish.

[wichita]

"One death is a tragedy, a million is just statistics."
Joseph Stalin

Why did you start this thread with that in your signature?

[The Industriallist]

However, it does not help us in the least (to understate) that, when standing against the gangsters when they can shoot back at us. Believe me.

Now that's a valid arguement...I may not be sure that guns make gang violence worse, but they certainly would make gang-vs.-police violence worse for the people who matter.

However, the fact remains, our boys are still coming up here, smoking each other left and right, with guns that are stamped Smith and Wesson. (By that I mean American guns)

Yes...I doubt a single person here is denying that...that doesn't counter any sort of arguement, since they're all based on that premise.

I do quote your entire post because it's not worth the time for me like it is for some to go through the entire thing and pull out the pieces that are relevent.

Yes, airport security is important. It's the same thing. You're trying to prevent things from coming in and going out---and it's just not possible no matter what it's for, who it involves or why.

Yes. But no Canadians smuggle weed into the United States by plane, not the profitable ones anyway, and not the people I'm talking about.

Still missing the point...her post actually had nothing at all to do with air transport. It was about how it's impossible to really secure anything, let alone the US-Canada border.

In short, the guns are not helping anything, and all the same, even if they were somehow good for justice and society, our goverment and our people do not want them around, plain and simple...

Well, our government doesn't want weed around. And presumably a majority of our voting people feel likewise, or they should have gotten around to legalization.

I don't personally care much either way in principle. Just wanted to point out how that arguement could be used by either side.

Also, guns aren't exactly difficult technology. With no outside source at all, it shouldn't take logn before the first home-made firearms started appearing. They would be ugly, and likely single-shot...but they would be guns.

First, yes, but they would not be from America.

Second, no one has the time to make themselves guns and the like in there home like that, with the exeception of very few nutjobs.

It wouldn't be much of a problem, and if a guy can only fire one round, then they won't be able to do much to stop a police officer anyway.

I fail to see how the origin of a weapon matters to a gunshot victem.

I can find you several sites with directions to make such weapons, and all of them claim that these are used by gangsters back when it was harder to get standard guns. Look up "zip guns". They don't sound at all impractical, just not as good or as easy as low-cost semi-automatic illegal imports.

And...I'm not so sure that they're as little threat to the police as you think, for a number of reasons. For one, you don't actually know which one is shooting at you, so you have to give the zip gun more respect than it may deserve. Second...you could have quite a bunch of them. And third...it only takes one round to mess someone up badly. Fired from close range, preferably from behind, you wouldn't really need anything more.

Finally, the only way you could even stop more guns from becoming available would be to combine strong border patrols with an absolute lack of guns inside the country. At the least, no guns for the police...those can find their way into the wrong hands easily enough at need. For that matter, in a pinch I bet military firearms could be 'liberated' to serve in the alleys.

No guns for police? I have never, ever, in my entire life, heard of, let alone seen, a gun stolen and re circulated in the streets from a police officer.

You would have too kill the officer, and people who go out and kill officers in the street usually don't stay in the street long, let me tell you.

And so no guns for police officers is completly rediculous.

Um, you see...all those things aren't going to happen at all when it's much more dangerous and costly than buying imports. but I hardly believe that the accounting is so good that police weapons couldn't get 'lost' if enough pressure came to bear.

As for police selling guns from there supply, that is rediculous. First, a regular constable on patrol, the kind that goes into the street, does not have anything to do with the supplies and such, and if they sold there own gun, they would be left unarmed, and in a shiload of trouble when they get back to the station.

And the people who do work in the supplies barely have that chance. If someone notices a few things missing, there screwed. And those guys aren't in the streets anyway.

Even if there was some way it could be feasibly done, I have a feeling police are not going to sell guns to the people who are likely to end up shooting at them. Would you?

Presumably cops at risk of gun battles with the gangs wouldn't be involved in better arming them. But there are plenty of police who aren't...
Maybe I just have an unfairly high opinion of the abilities of low people, but I just think that getting some weapons from the police is entirely practicable. Just not worth it when there's an easier source.

And as for our army, same thing, execept infinitly more impossible.

Were not talking about Burkina Faso, this is Canada were talking about.

Might I add that were not talking about military grade weaponry either. What I am talking about is revolvers, nines, tech nines, and the like.

You may be right. I tend to think corruption can go a very long way. Just to note...of course the problem isn't assault rifles running loose. Probably it wouldn't be if they did come from the army. And of course going after military weapons wouldn't happen when buying them is easy.

But when it comes down to it...I doubt the arms are always transported by military personel under military guard. One truckload of sidearms would go a very, very long way, if you managed to get most of it out.

When I say this, I mean it with all my heart Scheme. Stop being so simple minded. Do you really think that those guns you speak of only come from America? Honestly, when it comes to crime some people will go to any lengths to get what they want.

Not if it's impossible, or in this case, unprofitable.

Other countries do make guns and the like.

But we do not have the same kind of relations with those countries.

There guns can't get into our harbours and airports like yours can get across the border.

People over there can't make a profit in the current situation in illegally geting us armed, nor can our people make a profit.

Our dealers can't make a profit if they have to buy that expensive.

And besides, were not looking for old soviet weaponry and such, our dealers don't have political agendas. They wan't money.

The weapons dealers want money.

If theres not going to be profit involved, there not going to be involved.

And therefore, they ARE not involved.

That market is a figment of your imagination.

The American one is not.

Are you aware that it's widely accepted that the US cannot prevent a nuclear bomb from being smuggled into the country? And it isn't the Canadian or Mexican border that's the problem, either.

If Canada were an island, but had the same gang issue...and had no native guns at all...you'd still see gangs with guns, I'm sure. The arms race principle makes sure of that. I don't think you could possible make them hard enough to get that the cost would be totally prohibitive.

[Schme]

My signature does not have anything to do with this thread. Your trying to discredit me by citing that?

Man, it's a quote that has alot of truth in it. If you would like to argue about the quote, please send me a private message.

Not here, please, Witchita.

[Schme]

Now that's a valid arguement...I may not be sure that guns make gang violence worse, but they certainly would make gang-vs.-police violence worse for the people who matter.

Tell me about it!

However, the fact remains, our boys are still coming up here, smoking each other left and right, with guns that are stamped Smith and Wesson. (By that I mean American guns)

Yes...I doubt a single person here is denying that...that doesn't counter any sort of arguement, since they're all based on that premise.[/quote]

Yes, but people are writting it off.

I do quote your entire post because it's not worth the time for me like it is for some to go through the entire thing and pull out the pieces that are relevent.

Yes, airport security is important. It's the same thing. You're trying to prevent things from coming in and going out---and it's just not possible no matter what it's for, who it involves or why.

Yes. But no Canadians smuggle weed into the United States by plane, not the profitable ones anyway, and not the people I'm talking about.

Still missing the point...her post actually had nothing at all to do with air transport. It was about how it's impossible to really secure anything, let alone the US-Canada border.[/quote]

There are many secure borders. There are many secure things.

I could cite some of them if you like.

In short, the guns are not helping anything, and all the same, even if they were somehow good for justice and society, our goverment and our people do not want them around, plain and simple...

Well, our government doesn't want weed around. And presumably a majority of our voting people feel likewise, or they should have gotten around to legalization.[/quote]

The thing about American public opnion is another thing.

No, your goverment doesn't want the Canadian weed around in your country.

But if you read what I said before, in allowing us to legalize it, without completly destroying our economy, it would stop near all of our smugglers, as your smugglers would take over.

Also, guns aren't exactly difficult technology. With no outside source at all, it shouldn't take logn before the first home-made firearms started appearing. They would be ugly, and likely single-shot...but they would be guns.

First, yes, but they would not be from America.

Second, no one has the time to make themselves guns and the like in there home like that, with the exeception of very few nutjobs.

It wouldn't be much of a problem, and if a guy can only fire one round, then they won't be able to do much to stop a police officer anyway.

I fail to see how the origin of a weapon matters to a gunshot victem.

My point is is that people are not going to be doing this, not on a wide scale.

I can find you several sites with directions to make such weapons, and all of them claim that these are used by gangsters back when it was harder to get standard guns. Look up "zip guns". They don't sound at all impractical, just not as good or as easy as low-cost semi-automatic illegal imports.

Exactly.

The point is to kill the person. Guns are easy to kill with. They will find an easier way rather than this for the most part.

And...I'm not so sure that they're as little threat to the police as you think, for a number of reasons. For one, you don't actually know which one is shooting at you, so you have to give the zip gun more respect than it may deserve. Second...you could have quite a bunch of them. And third...it only takes one round to mess someone up badly. Fired from close range, preferably from behind, you wouldn't really need anything more.

It doesn't matter if there came a point in which millions of those pea shooters. It will be our own problem.

We'd deal with it, and we wouldn't bitch to you about it.

Finally, the only way you could even stop more guns from becoming available would be to combine strong border patrols with an absolute lack of guns inside the country. At the least, no guns for the police...those can find their way into the wrong hands easily enough at need. For that matter, in a pinch I bet military firearms could be 'liberated' to serve in the alleys.

No guns for police? I have never, ever, in my entire life, heard of, let alone seen, a gun stolen and re circulated in the streets from a police officer.

You would have too kill the officer, and people who go out and kill officers in the street usually don't stay in the street long, let me tell you.

And so no guns for police officers is completly rediculous.

Um, you see...all those things aren't going to happen at all when it's much more dangerous and costly than buying imports. but I hardly believe that the accounting is so good that police weapons couldn't get 'lost' if enough pressure came to bear.

I would happen, but not on the scale in which we import your guns.

And in that case, we could crack down much more easily. In that case, we know the gun exists. In this case, we don't know shit.

And as I said above, it would be our problem, and we would deal with it.

You can't stab a pill popper to death and then say "Well, I might as well have. If I didn't do it, the drugs would have."

Well you can, but it's not right.

Do you see what I mean? I'm sorry, it's just very hard for me to explain. But you understand my point? If not, please say so, and I will make it clearer.

As for police selling guns from there supply, that is rediculous. First, a regular constable on patrol, the kind that goes into the street, does not have anything to do with the supplies and such, and if they sold there own gun, they would be left unarmed, and in a shiload of trouble when they get back to the station.

And the people who do work in the supplies barely have that chance. If someone notices a few things missing, there screwed. And those guys aren't in the streets anyway.

Even if there was some way it could be feasibly done, I have a feeling police are not going to sell guns to the people who are likely to end up shooting at them. Would you?

Presumably cops at risk of gun battles with the gangs wouldn't be involved in better arming them. But there are plenty of police who aren't...
Maybe I just have an unfairly high opinion of the abilities of low people, but I just think that getting some weapons from the police is entirely practicable. Just not worth it when there's an easier source.

I don't deny that it would likely happen, probably perpetrated by warehouse staff and the like.

However, it would, as mentioned above, be easier to control than the present situation, and much less of a problem.

Must block on leak before another can build the pressure to spring.

And as for our army, same thing, execept infinitly more impossible.

Were not talking about Burkina Faso, this is Canada were talking about.

Might I add that were not talking about military grade weaponry either. What I am talking about is revolvers, nines, tech nines, and the like.

You may be right. I tend to think corruption can go a very long way. Just to note...of course the problem isn't assault rifles running loose. Probably it wouldn't be if they did come from the army. And of course going after military weapons wouldn't happen when buying them is easy.

But when it comes down to it...I doubt the arms are always transported by military personel under military guard. One truckload of sidearms would go a very, very long way, if you managed to get most of it out.

I'm sorry if this seems annoying, I know it's rather repetitive, but we'd have to take care of it, yes. I do believe there would be profiteers. It's not unheard of up here, to make a massive understatement.

And I wouldn't be surprised if that kind of security were dangerously lax.

However, once the market opened, we would indeed have to bump it up.

When I say this, I mean it with all my heart Scheme. Stop being so simple minded. Do you really think that those guns you speak of only come from America? Honestly, when it comes to crime some people will go to any lengths to get what they want.

Not if it's impossible, or in this case, unprofitable.

Other countries do make guns and the like.

But we do not have the same kind of relations with those countries.

There guns can't get into our harbours and airports like yours can get across the border.

People over there can't make a profit in the current situation in illegally geting us armed, nor can our people make a profit.

Our dealers can't make a profit if they have to buy that expensive.

And besides, were not looking for old soviet weaponry and such, our dealers don't have political agendas. They wan't money.

The weapons dealers want money.

If theres not going to be profit involved, there not going to be involved.

And therefore, they ARE not involved.

That market is a figment of your imagination.

The American one is not.

Are you aware that it's widely accepted that the US cannot prevent a nuclear bomb from being smuggled into the country? And it isn't the Canadian or Mexican border that's the problem, either.

America cannot control it's own borders, perhaps.

But Canada is not America.

And the problem really lies with the arm dealers.

If Canada were an island, but had the same gang issue...and had no native guns at all...you'd still see gangs with guns, I'm sure. The arms race principle makes sure of that. I don't think you could possible make them hard enough to get that the cost would be totally prohibitive.

If Canada were an island, we would be talking about the ports, and not the borders, which are MUCH easier to control, as they are in a concentrated area.

And we would be talking about people landing in remote places and going into the mainland.....

But that could also be done now, going into the wilderness.

However, the smugglers do not even have to go to that trouble, thus keeping weapon prices dangerously low.


I agree that it is not possible to completly eliminate the problem. Even in totalitarian states, in which the population has backed the goverment, in which the community helped maintain law, and wherein the state had millions of trained soldiers, they could still not eliminate contraband.

And of course, the harder it is to get it, the higher market price and profit.

Yes, of course.

But remember, we are not talking about people with political or social agendas.

We are talking about poor people who want to make money. Were the price high enough, the people in question would not, believe me, be buying these guns.

There would be people with illegal guns, but among groups with political and social agendas, and not among the urban poor (unless, of course, they were in large part, a part of these groups, but I digress.)

But you must bear in mind that Canada is not an island. Were it an island, we would not be talking about the land borders, but the ports.

[wichita]

Well, I don't think I was trying to dicredit you necessarily, schme. I think it's a viable question in light of the discussion.

You start this thread pretty much trying to crucify the US for our gun culture with an apparent attempt to protect the lives of innocent Canadians and Canadian gangbangers. You have appeared to take a position of moral aversion against murder. In your signature you have this quote from the most prolific mass murderer of the 20th century that alludes to the man's overwhelming moral desensitization after years of genocide.

This strikes me as a paradox in your attitude, and in combination with your past conduct on the forums, I am just trying to understand wether you are actually trying to start an intelligent dialogue on a social issue, or if you are simply continuing the dogpile on the ever increasingly unoriginal let's hate the USA bandwagon.

And it's not possible to fix the world with legislation. Passing all the laws in the world will not make the world's problems go away. You have to change hearts and minds and maturity. So many people point to the world's governments and complain about social problems, when what really needs changed in most cases is the culture. Why do the gangbangers get their hands on the guns and shoot each other? Because they're greedy and ignorant - a result of poor education, materialism, and moral decay in general. Why do good people do with guns? Defend their families against thieves and intruders and keep their freezers full of free range game meat (more humane than farming and maintains wildlife populations if you know anything about wildlife biology). Don't blame the government. Blame the culture.


And please try to spell Wichita properly, Shmeem. It's a great city with good people that could use some appreciation.

[Schme]

Then let me explain. I like the quote, as it shows the greed and blind, uncaring ambition that is a trait in most politicians of the past several centuries. It also shows the exetreme devide between leader and people, again, which is the case most of the time. In addition to that, it shows how it is near impossible to act rationaly when important matters, such as the lives of people, are reduced to numbers and statistics, as was the case in the Soviet Union.

Again, about the blind ambition, it shows how most politicians, and for that matter, people, are willing to comprise there own morals for convenience, peace of mind, wealth and or power, as when Ioseb Jughashvili, (commonly known as Joseph Stalin) was at the height of his power, and had obviously abandoned the communist ideals he used to preach.

It really does not relate to the discussion in a big way, with the possible exeception of how the arms dealers put dangerous weapons on the market despite the death that it will cause, for the purpose of profit, or how the politicians let them do this simply to maintain there own popularity, and consequently, there high paying jobs and power.

But the quote was not selected for the purpose of this discussion, and I'd prefer not to bring Jughashvili's words into this, as they are, for the most part, irrelavent.

As for the "Hate the U.S. Bandwagon", No one, with the exeception (so many execeptions, Jesus....) of perhaps a number of politicians from around the world are doing this, to my knowledge.

In fact, the reason there is a "bandwagon" is because the reach of the United States is world wide, and in many many cases, it causes problems, or at the very least, what non Americans percieve as problems.

If it were the Algierians, we'd blame the Algierians.


And might I say also, I do not feel that "America and the yankees" (that would make a great band name........) is the cause of all the worlds problems.

However, they are the cause of many problems (or again, perceived problems) that affect me, the people around me, the people I care about, the people the people around me care about, and the people whom I consider fellow countrymen.

The Japanese goverment, for example, does not really affect me (in the short term, anyhow), and so it is possible I would think about them, but it is much more likely that I would think of the United States, as often, with me, relevance takes precedent.


Regarding legislation, I understand one cannot solve everything with it.

However, your law enforcement officials must have legislation in order to act under the law.

Or would you rather rogue officers do it? I'm sure America does not want that.

But of course, no one can make you do anything about that.

And it is very unlikely that such a thing would happen all the same.

And how likely do you think that it is that America will have a cultural upheaval in Canada's favor? The odds are not good.

And don't you think it's just a bit unfair for me to ask America to have a cultural revolution (not of the Maoist kind) for the benefit of Canada?


Alright. If you say so.

I will change me asking then.


America, have a cultural upheaval for the Dominion of Canada's benefit! Go on, do it! It's only fair!

Go on now, chop chop! Cultural revolution!

Yah, right.

Sure, it would be great if it happened. Your right that culture causes most problems, I can't disagree with you there.

But really, one must be realistic.

As for Wichita, well I apologize for mispelling it. I'm not a very good keyboardist. I had thought I spelled it correctly.

Apparently not. Sorry.

However, I noticed that you spell Wichita without capitalizing the first letter. Is that not mispelling it every time you post? Or is it not?

I'm just wondering.

And as for the "Guns are so good and wholesome and do more good than harm", well, I'm not going to go into that, not right now.

I don't have time.

[Nixit]

It really does not relate to the discussion in a big way, with the possible exeception of how the arms dealers put dangerous weapons on the market despite the death that it will cause, for the purpose of profit, or how the politicians let them do this simply to maintain there own popularity, and consequently, there high paying jobs and power.

Actually, I'm not sure about in Canada, but the President and most other government positions really do not get paid much in comparison, and to run for office, one will need millions of dollars for campaigning, in which their salary, over the course of their term, does not add up to nearly that amount.

EDIT: I know that has almost nothing to do with the basis of your argument, but I felt compelled to point that out.

[Schme]

True on both counts. It has nothing much to do with the argument, but it is indeed true.

However, most politicians make money from coarperations who pay them in return for favors, or from people who make money from coarperations for favours.

So, the jobs do get them alot of money in a roundabout way.

[The Industriallist]

However, the fact remains, our boys are still coming up here, smoking each other left and right, with guns that are stamped Smith and Wesson. (By that I mean American guns)

Yes...I doubt a single person here is denying that...that doesn't counter any sort of arguement, since they're all based on that premise.

Yes, but people are writting it off.

No, people are arguing that it makes no difference what's on the guns, or arguing that it's not a problem that you have a solution to. Or probably other things. I've yet to hear anyone say: "I really don't care that Canadians are shooting each other." I'm a little surprised, actually.

There are many secure borders. There are many secure things.

I could cite some of them if you like.

Yes, please do, with the restrictions:
-Only talk about points (or regions) of transport...I don't care how secure Fort Knox is.
-Things actually have to pass through. If a border is under strict quarentine, it's at least concievable that it'll work.

In short, the guns are not helping anything, and all the same, even if they were somehow good for justice and society, our goverment and our people do not want them around, plain and simple...

Well, our government doesn't want weed around. And presumably a majority of our voting people feel likewise, or they should have gotten around to legalization.

The thing about American public opnion is another thing.

No, your goverment doesn't want the Canadian weed around in your country.

But if you read what I said before, in allowing us to legalize it, without completly destroying our economy, it would stop near all of our smugglers, as your smugglers would take over.

...So...we worsen our situation (from the anti-weed perspective) in order to help with your internal crime problem? I can't imagine why the government isn't interested. Governments are selfish things, and rightly so in international politics.

I can find you several sites with directions to make such weapons, and all of them claim that these are used by gangsters back when it was harder to get standard guns. Look up "zip guns". They don't sound at all impractical, just not as good or as easy as low-cost semi-automatic illegal imports.

Exactly.

The point is to kill the person. Guns are easy to kill with. They will find an easier way rather than this for the most part.

And my point is that this is an easier way than your alternatives, other than the imported guns you want to stop.

It doesn't matter if there came a point in which millions of those pea shooters. It will be our own problem.

We'd deal with it, and we wouldn't bitch to you about it.

You greatly overestimate the importance of your complaints. Who you blame for something has very, very little significance. You're not in the US political system, so your opinions don't have much impact on it.

Even the people who debate with you on forums don't necessarily care about your opinion. I can handle a great deal of you blaming my country for your problems, so long as I think you're wrong. (this probably sounds harsher than it is. Be sure to read what I actually wrote, rather than blowing up because I "don't care about your opinion")

Are you aware that it's widely accepted that the US cannot prevent a nuclear bomb from being smuggled into the country? And it isn't the Canadian or Mexican border that's the problem, either.

America cannot control it's own borders, perhaps.

But Canada is not America.

And the problem really lies with the arm dealers.

Yes indeed. Canada has such vastly superior military surveillance of every point of entry. No one would ever get in or out without permission.

Oh, wait. This whole discussion would mean nothing if that were true, because no illegal guns would get in.

And if you axiomatically consider arms dealers to be the basic problem, then there's no point in talking to you, since that's sort of at the center of the whole thing.

If Canada were an island, but had the same gang issue...and had no native guns at all...you'd still see gangs with guns, I'm sure. The arms race principle makes sure of that. I don't think you could possible make them hard enough to get that the cost would be totally prohibitive.

If Canada were an island, we would be talking about the ports, and not the borders, which are MUCH easier to control, as they are in a concentrated area.[/quote]
My point is that ports aren't at all easy to control. See the nuclear weapon point...most of the things that come through US ports are never even opened for inspection. Do you honestly think Canada is that much better?

[Schme]

However, the fact remains, our boys are still coming up here, smoking each other left and right, with guns that are stamped Smith and Wesson. (By that I mean American guns)

Yes...I doubt a single person here is denying that...that doesn't counter any sort of arguement, since they're all based on that premise.

Yes, but people are writting it off.

No, people are arguing that it makes no difference what's on the guns, or arguing that it's not a problem that you have a solution to. Or probably other things. I've yet to hear anyone say: "I really don't care that Canadians are shooting each other." I'm a little surprised, actually.

Sorry, I got confused as to what I had been talking about.

My bad.

Rather, see what I told you about the foreign gun market earlier. I exeplained it there.

There are many secure borders. There are many secure things.

I could cite some of them if you like.

Yes, please do, with the restrictions:
-Only talk about points (or regions) of transport...I don't care how secure Fort Knox is.
-Things actually have to pass through. If a border is under strict quarentine, it's at least concievable that it'll work.


Well, if your going to start putting restrictions on things, it can get rather rediculous. But fine.

The French/Belgic border, the Canadian/Alaskan border, the Italian/French border.

In short, the guns are not helping anything, and all the same, even if they were somehow good for justice and society, our goverment and our people do not want them around, plain and simple...

Well, our government doesn't want weed around. And presumably a majority of our voting people feel likewise, or they should have gotten around to legalization.

The thing about American public opnion is another thing.

No, your goverment doesn't want the Canadian weed around in your country.

But if you read what I said before, in allowing us to legalize it, without completly destroying our economy, it would stop near all of our smugglers, as your smugglers would take over.

...So...we worsen our situation (from the anti-weed perspective) in order to help with your internal crime problem? I can't imagine why the government isn't interested. Governments are selfish things, and rightly so in international politics.

In letting Canada legalize weed, America would weaken inter nation crime gangs, stop the flow of capital from the American weed market into Canada, be able to use there much greater resources to directly deal with smugglers rather than having to go through Canadian judicial system, continue it's war on drugs, and drastically boost firearm sales in the Northern United States.

I can find you several sites with directions to make such weapons, and all of them claim that these are used by gangsters back when it was harder to get standard guns. Look up "zip guns". They don't sound at all impractical, just not as good or as easy as low-cost semi-automatic illegal imports.

Exactly.

The point is to kill the person. Guns are easy to kill with. They will find an easier way rather than this for the most part.

And my point is that this is an easier way than your alternatives, other than the imported guns you want to stop.

It doesn't matter if there came a point in which millions of those pea shooters. It will be our own problem.

We'd deal with it, and we wouldn't bitch to you about it.

You greatly overestimate the importance of your complaints. Who you blame for something has very, very little significance. You're not in the US political system, so your opinions don't have much impact on it.

I never said my opnions made any different whatsoever. Me stop bitching about, rather, means the problem is shifted over to the Canadian goverment, freeing up American money to be used on stopping sikhs from crossing the border, and other top priorities.

However, I do believe what I am saying is correct.

Even the people who debate with you on forums don't necessarily care about your opinion. I can handle a great deal of you blaming my country for your problems, so long as I think you're wrong. (this probably sounds harsher than it is. Be sure to read what I actually wrote, rather than blowing up because I "don't care about your opinion")


I know full well that the opnions of losers on the internet such as you and I make no difference.


However, I find it odd that it is easier for you when you think someone else is wrong.

That usually frusterates me (having people make non sensical arguments and me not getting my point, which I believe is right, across)

It is easier for me when I believe someone else is right, in truth.

Are you aware that it's widely accepted that the US cannot prevent a nuclear bomb from being smuggled into the country? And it isn't the Canadian or Mexican border that's the problem, either.

America cannot control it's own borders, perhaps.

But Canada is not America.

And the problem really lies with the arm dealers.

Yes indeed. Canada has such vastly superior military surveillance of every point of entry. No one would ever get in or out without permission.

Oh, wait. This whole discussion would mean nothing if that were true, because no illegal guns would get in.


What I mean is, that there is much less traffic to Canada, and it can control it's borders in regards to foreign nations other than the United States and the like. Not many non Americans want to smuggle a bomb, or any other such harmfull thing, into Canada, apart from for the purpose of getting it to the United States.

America cannot control its borders because it has made itself an international target. Canada has not, and we can and do stop near all unwanted non-US smuggling,

And if you axiomatically consider arms dealers to be the basic problem, then there's no point in talking to you, since that's sort of at the center of the whole thing.

Arms dealers and the American goverments insanly zealous support of them in there indiscriminante sale of weapons to everyone including violent criminals and arms smugglers.

If Canada were an island, but had the same gang issue...and had no native guns at all...you'd still see gangs with guns, I'm sure. The arms race principle makes sure of that. I don't think you could possible make them hard enough to get that the cost would be totally prohibitive.

If Canada were an island, we would be talking about the ports, and not the borders, which are MUCH easier to control, as they are in a concentrated area.

My point is that ports aren't at all easy to control. See the nuclear weapon point...most of the things that come through US ports are never even opened for inspection. Do you honestly think Canada is that much better?[/quote]

Canadian ports, even if the greatest convential entry and exit for goods and people into the country (if Canada were an island) would still not have nearly the amount of traffic as United States ports, thus allowing us to have great control over them.

[Schme]

The confusion is largely (by largely, I mean entirely) my fault, as I was rather unclear.

Most all of your points were valid had I not left things half or unsaid.


I'm very sorry to have wasted your time with the confusion.

[rklenseth]

However, most politicians make money from coarperations who pay them in return for favors, or from people who make money from coarperations for favours.

So, the jobs do get them alot of money in a roundabout way.

Actually this is illegal in the US. It is simply bribery and would be political suicide in this country to do so. For example look what is happening to Tom Delay now.

[Schme]

No, politicians, espicially in the states, consistently do coarperations political favors in exchange for campaign funds and party donations.

Look at the countless environmental disasters that the Republican and Democratic partis of America have allowed coarperations to negotiate, not to mention social disaster.