Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

pbs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 109 posts

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#71

Post by esseph »

monkaiju wrote: post #6
tejohnso wrote: post #2

So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang. I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.

Not sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.

That gang has international arms. They have logistics trains. They have industry analysts! Sometimes maybe they have Pay and HR issues. They're a global business with external trade agreements with elements in other countries. They lease other business services back and forth like B2B.

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#72

Post by BobaFloutist »

ifwinterco wrote: post #62
inigyou wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.

Reminds me of when ISIS was at its peak a few years ago and the BBC and all other news in the UK would always prefix it with “the so-called Islamic State”. Like… no, it was a state. It had borders, it had a monopoly on violence within those borders, it collected taxes, it provided some public services. Whether it offended the BBC’s sensibilities or not, it was a state

Are you sure that the "so-called" was addressing the claim of statehood, and not of being Muslim?

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#73

Post by esseph »

tejohnso wrote: post #32
monkaiju wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.

The only equating I did was to point out that either way you're stuck having to align with a group of people willing and ready to commit lethal violence with lethal weapons. Use whatever words you want but I think that's clearly violent and it's clearly a gang, which by definition is "a group of persons working together" or even more specifically, "a group of persons working to unlawful or antisocial ends". In this c…

Laws != morality

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#74

Post by esseph »

autoexec wrote: post #63
e40 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What choice do they have? This is not your usual vigilante group. This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them.

> This is a reaction to an overwhelming force of criminal gangs killing citizens and the government being powerless to stop them. Is the Mexican government, with their tens of billions in military spending, actually "powerless" to stop these gangs? I very much doubt it.

> Is the Mexican government, with their tens of billions in military spending, actually "powerless" to stop these gangs? I very much doubt it.

Then to be blunt, you don't know how a fucking thing.

The cartels have their own intelligent networks, anti-air missiles, RPGs and anti-tank weapons, encrypted radio comms and their own 5G/LTE networks. They have helicopters, armored vehicles, etc. In many cases they have the support* of the people.

* through fear, intimidation, coercion, social bonds, financial motivators, etc.

The cartels also have tens of billions.

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#76

Post by Dig1t »

tejohnso wrote: post #2

So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang. I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.

Mexico has gun laws which are significantly more restrictive than the USA. There is only one legal gun store in the country, they must all be permitted, calibers are limited, and only permitted within the place of residence. "Monopoly on violence" is an illusion that's propped up mostly by the culture of the people who live in a country.

Sweden's gun homicide rate has increased by 400% since 2010 due to nothing other than demographic change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_Sweden

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#77

Post by ButlerianJihad »

Dig1t wrote: post #76
tejohnso wrote: post #2

So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang. I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.

Mexico has gun laws which are significantly more restrictive than the USA. There is only one legal gun store in the country, they must all be permitted, calibers are limited, and only permitted within the place of residence. "Monopoly on violence" is an illusion that's propped up mostly by the culture of the people who live in a country. Sweden's gun homicide rate has increased by 400% since 2010 due to nothing other…

In the 1990s, I traveled into Tijuana from San Diego County a few times. We usually walked, because of reasons.

For people traveling north into the USA, the border checkpoint included long queues of vehicles and people alike, customs inspections, routine searches of everything, passport checks, and questions by actual Border Patrol officers.

Walking south into Mexico, there was a broad, unsupervised walkway and a one-way turnstile. Large signs read:

  WELCOME

  ¡BIENVENIDOS!

  NO FIREARMS
And that was it! We were in Mexico!

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#78

Post by scarecrowbob »

ahartmetz wrote: post #56
psionides wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally I would prefer no violence from either side…

The state monopoly on violence (+ a judicial system) tends to result in a low amount of violence... at least intra-state. Wars are another matter. Notably, there is no monopoly on violence between states. States are allowed and somewhat expected to be violent psychopaths externally.

Internally as well, given what happens to any push back against law enforcement where I live- in the US, at least, if you try to defend yourself against state violence you'll be summarily executed in the street.

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#79

Post by ASalazarMX »

inigyou wrote: post #7
tejohnso wrote: post #2

So you're forced to join a gang and fight their rival gangs, or you form your own gang equipped with rifles and grenades ready to commit violence, so that you can fight against joining that gang, or any other gang. Either way you're in a violent gang. I guess I'd rather have the state maintain a monopoly on violence.

These gangs are states. We can tell this because they have monopolies on violence.

They are not states, but a tool of regional political groups. They do the illegal things politicians in power avoid if they want to maintain the facade. They don't have the monopoly of violence, they're intentionally allowed to act without serious retaliation.

Very relevant book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_Cartels_Do_Not_Exist

Re: Civilians under siege by Mexican cartel fight back with AK-47s, grenades

#80

Post by bluefirebrand »

wmf wrote: post #58
monkaiju wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure its fair to equate a gang fueled by drug smuggling to a self-defense militia.

Without oversight, a self-defense militia may expand beyond its original scope in unfortunate ways. The history of the Italian Mafia can be instructive here.

I'm pretty sure that a self defense militia was the standard way that people would defend their farms and livelihoods against violent outsiders for the majority of human history
Post reply on HN