Live data from Hacker News

Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

nytimes.com

371–380 of 435 posts

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#371

Stopping the flow of money to the cartels would require the U.S. and others to legalize drugs and make the prices plummet. Is the upkeep of hypocrisy and the DEA really worth any amount of murder and corruption?

Legalizing wouldn't stop the flow. You think they'd just throw up their arms and walk away?

Cartels would just lower their prices and keep pushing to existing addicts and creating addicts. Once the price is driven down, how are 'legal' drug manufacturers expected to compete on price with taxes, licensing, overhead?

Legalizing won't stop blackmarket drugs, it will only increase it like in Colorado. http://kdvr.com/2017/03/03/black-market-marijuana-business-b...

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a gun you are not safer. It leads to escalation and more people die. We are not at war, guns are not the solution.

You are less likely to attack someone if there is the risk that person has a gun. Just like you are less likely to speed in your car if there's a cop driving next to you.

This presumes criminals think this through. Largely criminals exist because they didn't or couldn't think it through. If they must have money to feed their child or their addiction they will attempt to mug someone, they might pick the lowest risk target or the first target. Let's not presume these people have lots of options, if that were true most wouldn't be criminals.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#373
post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are probably not an Indian construction worker.

I'm not. Read my bio. But a fact is a fact: Dubai is one of the safest cities in the world.

I think you are willfully missing the point. You cannot compare Dubai's "Safe" to other place's "Safe" because other places view things like woman being raped as "unsafe" and Dubai does not.

Being an Indian construction worker, means being more likely to be killed institutionally. For example by ridiculous hazards at work that any other "Safe" place outlawed decades ago. It could also mean being arrested, harrassed and deported (or arrested and thrown in a hole, I don't know; racist gulag numbers are not exactly officially published) for speaking out of line.

Let's not even touch religion.

You are perfectly correct that Dubai is "Safe" for some definition of "Safe" suitable only for White or Arabian, Muslim or rich Christian Men.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The whole premise is that some states want to make it easier than that. What is a state green card even for if it's just redundant with an existing H1B visa and doesn't increase the total number of immigrants whatsoever? Look, here's some perspective. The US annually admits: 65,000 H1B visas 70,000 Refugee visas ~200,000 nonfamily immigration visas ~675,000 undetected illegal immigrants 675,000 immigration visas tot…

> If you want to just drop a kid down so they become a citizen, it is a hundred times easier to do it on a travel visa and it always will be. Regardless of how many state green cards there are, it will always be orders of magnitude easier to get a travel visa, hop on a plane, and stay under the radar for a couple months. That requires that you can afford to buy a plane ticket and then spend nine months not working wh…

>Take away the federal money and the states won't be able to afford it. Or won't want to pay it. The problem isn't social security, it's schools and healthcare.

>And it's not like you can just leave children to grow up without schools or let infections go untreated.

Having actually looked it up, federal funding is only 13% of public education ie it would be absolutely trivial to require states to fund state green card immigrants. Likewise emergency healthcare isn't federally subsidized. Plus, it's highly unlikely that allowing this program would actually even increase the number of immigrants we have, just make the illegal ones legal.

Your arguments are completely strawmen.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#375
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not make you feel better, but Holland's gun death per 100,000 is in the 0.5's compared to the U.S.'s 10's and Mexico's 10's. You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US or Mexico. Note that in the whole of Holland there are 50 gun homicides per year, so you were actually pretty unlucky to experience that. Your experience is exceptional and not a common occurrence, especially as I assume most…

> You're 20 times more likely to get killed by a gun in the US This is very misleading because this audience is primarily middle class/rich white/asians employed in the tech industry. There are 2 primary factors in homicide rates. Be poor or be a certain race. If you are not either of those things, your chances of being murdered in the US is very low. *edit 3 factors -- men. Women don't get murdered often.

Same thing applies Mexico -- if you're not involved in the drug trade or law enforcement, your odds of getting killed are almost nil. Mexico welcomes over 20M tourists a year from all over and almost all make it back home safely.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are less likely to attack someone if there is the risk that person has a gun. Just like you are less likely to speed in your car if there's a cop driving next to you.

> You are less likely to attack someone if there is the risk that person has a gun. I don't believe that. I think that the calculus of whether to attack someone skips the "is the victim armed?" question. You just make sure to bring overwhelming force, e.g. bring a gun to a (probable) gun fight or a knife to a fist fight. But what do I know. I'm just an European wuss, who has fire a handgun exactly once.

My wife was attacked and she was caring a gun. People who attack people are fundamentally not good at risk reward cost benefit analysis.

The deal is if you carry, which I did for years, you have to maintain above normal situational awareness. You have to be able to get space. Cops can do this because they arrive after the fact and get to enter the situation with the appropriate threat posture. If I have a gun and I get into an altercation the moment i'm in physical contact with the other person the gun doesn't matter. The long and the short of it is if you can be prepared and have "the drop" on someone a gun is a great way to protect yourself. That is why I feel the shotgun at home is a good idea concealed carry an overall liability.

Source. I lived in the 14th most dangerous neighborhood in the us for 15 years and carried a gun most of the time.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#377

I wish there was some mafia approach to rebuild a civil state. This is our house, our block, our town, we avoid interacting with people who support the corrupt government and we do not interact with Narcosi. Just shut out all strangers, isolate people who pose a long term thread to your community. Shun the restaurant, where the cops eat, walk your dog to where the drug dealers are. Create small economy's, which do no…

There are certain efforts with a somewhat similar idea behind them, called "auto defensas" meaning "self-defense (civilian) forces".

Basically people in towns ravaged by narcos got fed up with it and started defending themselves because they couldn't trust the local/federal authorities to defend them anymore. A very brave thing to do if you ask me.

However... the sad part is that, on the one hand, fighting an armed group with so much man- and fire-power as the different cartel groups have, it's very hard. Especially because a lot of these narco armed forces have actual military training and even when not, they are so ruthless and savage that it's hard to fight back. The sheer amount of terror these groups can inflict is staggering.

Some of these towns that chose to defend themselves were some time later attacked by huge convoys of 100+ attackers armed with grenade launchers, automatic weapons, frigging M60s and even heavier ones (some groups have anti-air guns strapped to the back of their trucks)... and most importantly, these attackers were ready to kill on sight, whereas the townspeople were armed with hunting rifles and some handguns and definitely not with the same blood lust and ability (or even the nerve) to kill people.

Lots of these towns are now deserted because people had to fled to the surrounding areas after such violent payback attacks.

And to top it all off, if you at least had the government NOT intervene either way... well, you could maybe stand your ground for some time. The problem is that in most of these places the government authorities where actually against having armed civilian forces (and in some cases even in cohoots with the narcos), so they would have to fight both against armed forces AND against government propaganda ("these are not self-defense forces, they are just another narco group taking hold of the town") plastered all over the country in major newspapers and tv stations (which de-legitimizes those self-defense forces that are actually trying to, you know, defend themselves), while at the same time local and federal forces trying to dis-arm them.

It's a really complicated problem for which I definitely have no idea how to solve.

Just imagine having to stand up and defend your town against a military force that, by some estimations, could reach upwards of 15,000 armed men... in one cartel alone. What can a town with a total population of...what... 3,000? 10,000 people? do against a heavily armed and trained para-military force?

And to be clear, those people that did try to defend themselves have my utmost respect. I can't even begin to imagine the amount of desperation you need to be in to try to fight back to such a powerful and horrific group of people.

But in the end it's heartbreaking to see them defend themselves to just later have them be wiped out or threatened with so much torture and terror that it boggles the mind.

A lot of these self-defense forces held up for maybe 2 or 3 years and are now either bought and influenced by some competing narco group or just terrorized out of their towns forever (at least that's what little info I could gather over the years of reading different news sources, both official and otherwise. Not really sure how much of that is real or not since I don't live in any of these towns).

It just doesn't seem... feasible. Maybe I'm a defeatist saying these things... but holy shit, you just have to listen to what someone like Dr. Mireles [1] had to say to get a tiny part of the terrible picture here.

The problem is much much bigger than people can imagine... and I'm not even in the front line here. I'm just some city dude "far" away (as much as "far away" can one be while living here in this country) from these realities.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Manuel_Mireles_Valve...

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#378

It's us , the USA, that is causing this paper to shutdown. The cartels are financed by the insatiable drug appetite of its close neighbor. Our inability and/or unwillingness to legalize recreational drugs is the feeding tube for these vicious groups.

I agree with you, that the US needs to legalize production and sale. However, why has Canada never been wrecked by extremely violent cartels seeking to feed that insatiable drug appetite? How do you explain nearly all of Latin America having wild murder rates? All of the most dangerous non-war zone countries on earth are in Latin America. And yet that same murder & violent crime problem isn't represented in Canada. W…

Simply because Canada doesn't have the natural climate for growing Coca nor Cannabis.

Nowadays it doesn't matter as much since a significant amount of production can be done in greenhouses and there are other more synthetic products with market share, but the damage is already done to those poorer countries, and the cartels already wield too much influence.

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#379
post #196
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard that quote before, but I don't really know its pedigree. Do you have a reference? (I also imagine the lack of sourcing is why you got downvoted).

The Nixon aide who allegedly said that quote died before it was published, so there is some reason to be uncertain about its veracity. It wasn't published until long, long after it was apparently said. I find it completely plausible and it's very much in line with my political leanings to believe it, but still.

Thanks, I have certainly seen that quote before and thought it actually had been thoroughly vetted. I was not aware that the man quoted was dead.

I've been making a point in recent months to make particular note of things that confirm my own biases, as the last six months have suggested that everything I know is wrong, at least as far as people are concerned...

Re: Mexican Newspaper Shuts Down, Saying It Is Too Dangerous to Continue

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You would be surprised, how many guns are there in Europe[1]. However, if you carry gun, it must be hidden, otherwise you could lose your permit. Breaking law with legally held weapon is a rare thing (who would like lo lose it, right?). If someone breaks law with the gun, it will be illegal one. [1] Except Britain. They can legally have only long guns, without cartridges. Basically only for hunting.

Yes, British firearms law changed after the Dunblane massacre [1] to outlaw handguns. The Hungerford massacre [2] in the 80s caused the outlawing of semi-automatics. I live in rural England, and many friends and neighbours have shotguns and hunting rifles. I was surprised to discover that a couple of the rifle owners use silencers too. Silencers do have a legitimate application; they confuse the directional hearing o…

It seems that for the first time in generations, the US is looking at loosening restrictions on guns. There has even been a law introduced to remove silencers from the NFA, which would cause them to be treated much like guns in and of themselves as opposed to how they are treated now.
Post reply on HN