[Pants-of-dog]

@XogGyux

Please present evidence that escaping custody is one of the significant factors in the current death tolls. Thank you.

[XogGyux]

@XogGyux

Please present evidence that escaping custody is one of the significant factors in the current death tolls. Thank you.

You did already and you agreed with it. So going back now is just proof that you are being disingenuous about your position. Either that or very confused.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you are once again mistaken about me agreeing with you.

Please present evidence that escaping custody is one of the significant factors in the current death tolls. Thank you.

[XogGyux]

No, you are once again mistaken about me agreeing with you.

Please present evidence that escaping custody is one of the significant factors in the current death tolls. Thank you.

I never said escaping custody. I said fighting to void being caught. You presented that evidence yourself and you agreed that arrest leads to increasing violence.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, my evidence did not say that. You must have misunderstood.

Please present evidence that escaping or avoiding custody is one of the significant factors in the current death tolls. Thank you.

[XogGyux]

No, my evidence did not say that. You must have misunderstood.

Please present evidence that escaping or avoiding custody is one of the significant factors in the current death tolls. Thank you.

You presented that evidence yourself and you agreed that arrest leads to increasing violence. You surely seem to enjoy thoroughly circular arguments.

[Pants-of-dog]

Okay, so you misunderstood the evidence, and you misunderstood my posts.

And you have no evidence.

[XogGyux]

Okay, so you misunderstood the evidence, and you misunderstood my posts.

And you have no evidence.

I think you misunderstand what I said and you have no evidence.
We are talking about hypothetical cases, good luck finding evidence of hypothetical cases.

[Pants-of-dog]

Another post without any evidence for your claims.

One could almost say that your belief in your correctness is entirley based on faith, and you have indoctrinated yourself with these beliefs so deeply that you dare not question them, even when you have no evidence to support them.

After all, you believe that a significant amount of violence happening right now in Northern Mexico is due to people trying to avoid getting arrested, despite the lack of evidence.

[XogGyux]

Another post without any evidence for your claims.

One could almost say that your belief in your correctness is entirley based on faith, and you have indoctrinated yourself with these beliefs so deeply that you dare not question them, even when you have no evidence to support them.

After all, you believe that a significant amount of violence happening right now in Northern Mexico is due to people trying to avoid getting arrested, despite the lack of evidence.

HA!. Absurd. Trying to manipulate me by using religion as if I was going to fall for that trap. I don't know if I should be proud that you are starting to think of religion so little that you are willing to use it a as cheap manipulation tactic to get your point across or to be offended that you think I would fall for that.
My position is not of believe on evidence in this case, but rather a position of logic. I arrived to my argument by logic not by evidence, you are the one chasing your own tail in a circular argument because you made the mistake of providing evidence against your argument.
I stand by the logic of my argument.
But hey... Kudos for the attempt at manipulation.

[Pants-of-dog]

Your argument is not supported by logic or evidence.

You have simply imagined that the thousands of death are due to people avoiding custody, and that this will somehow always be.

[XogGyux]

Your argument is not supported by logic or evidence.

You have simply imagined that the thousands of death are due to people avoiding custody, and that this will somehow always be.

Ok, do you want to explain why or do you simply want us to take your word at face value?

Explain how continuing arrest (which you already agreed will continue) will not lead to violence.
Explain how criminals are pacifically going to let themselves get caught.

Alternatively explain how and why arrest won't continue.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have explained it:

The arrests lead to more violence because each arrest results in a power vacuum in terms of controlling the smuggling routes, and this results in violence when people then fight for control of the smuggling routes.

If you take away the need for smuggling routes, people will not fight to control the smuggling routes. This then leads to significantly less violence.

[XogGyux]

I have explained it:

The arrests lead to more violence because each arrest results in a power vacuum in terms of controlling the smuggling routes, and this results in violence when people then fight for control of the smuggling routes.

If you take away the need for smuggling routes, people will not fight to control the smuggling routes. This then leads to significantly less violence.

You are RIGHT! Once they realize the routes do not exists criminals will start walking themselves passively and happily into prisons and closing them themselves. You are such a genius!

people will not fight to control the smuggling routes.

They will fight for other things... Including staying out of prison. You are ignoring other sources of violence, including the decrease of money to bribe/persuade people which as illegal and bad as it is prevents violence.

[Pants-of-dog]

You are RIGHT! Once they realize the routes do not exists criminals will start walking themselves passively and happily into prisons and closing them themselves. You are such a genius!

They will fight for other things... Including staying out of prison. You are ignoring other sources of violence, including the decrease of money to bribe/persuade people which as illegal and bad as it is prevents violence.

Once again, you have misunderstood my psition and think I am claiming something I am not.

Criminals will still try to avoid arrest, but that will not be a significant cause of violence, just as it is not a significant cause of violence right now.

[XogGyux]

Criminals will still try to avoid arrest, but that will not be a significant cause of violence, just as it is not a significant cause of violence right now.

So your official position is that when they try to escape the police they will become pacifist, when they try to diversify into the crime business of other crime lords to maintain the cash flow (a position that many in this thread also agree with) they will be pacifist, that when they run out of money to bribe the police/military/politicians/government they be pacifists instead of resorting to violence, kidnapping, extortion. You think that they will not try to continue to produce drugs to compete with a hypothetical legal establishment, you think they will not try to attempt to gain control of other non-US markets including the rest of Latin america and even Europe. That is an interesting claim.

[Pants-of-dog]

I believe that criminals can resist and avoid arrest violently.

This violence is still insignificant when compared to the violence associated with control of the smuggling routes.

[Drlee]

Ok, so at this point we both agree that this type violence won't go away at least in the immediate future of a hypothetical legalization (it might go away months, years or perhaps decades later, fine).
Regarding to the level of fighting. I disagree. You see, now they have money and violence to combat getting caught. They use the violence to intimidate and the money to buy supporters and to bribe police force. So if you take away the money, it is not unreasonable that they will make up the difference with more of the violence.

It is completely unreasonable. Your argument has one huge hole in in and several small ones.

1. People engage in crime primarily for money. This is particularly true of organized criminals like the drug cartels.

2. If you take away the source of that money the leadership will likely turn to some other pursuit. The nature of that pursuit will determine the level of violence they employ.

3. Drug operations are labor intensive. They require a large number of people. If the cartels turned, for example, to extortion they might need fewer people. Therefor the number of criminals would go down.

4. Criminals at the worker level in the cartels are not criminals because it is in their nature to be criminals. They are engaged in criminal activities because that is where the money is. Take away the money and many of them would have to turn to selling moon shoes or burglary. Neither of which has the potential to be as violent as the drug business.

5. Most of the violence associated with the drug trade is in-fighting. Criminals are not primarily being killed by the police and killing the police in return. People are being killed because they are protecting the drug business or attempting to rip it off.

There is absolutely no question that if the US drug market were to go away that drug related violence in Northern Mexico would also dramatically diminish.

I don't know what all of this nonsense about violence associated with arrests is about. Violence between the police and the cartels pales in comparison to the killings between rival gangs and within gangs.

I am not calling for the legalization of cocaine, heroin, prescription drugs and other dangerous drugs simply to solve Mexico's drug crime problem. That is a minor factor to be considered. It is definitely not up to the US to solve this problem for Mexico.

Mexico could simply make the trafficking in drugs legal. It would in all probability hit their economy very hard indeed. Our closing our border with them as a result would be devastating to their economy.

So can we get off this who tangent you have gotten on to? You are not making any sense.

[XogGyux]

So can we get off this who tangent you have gotten on to? You are not making any sense.

Yeah I think you are not making any sense but we should continue.

[Drlee]

Why don't you take a shot at rebutting one or two of my points. Or do you agree with me?

My guess is it is just too hard for you to actually debate.