comment: >
  
  Thank you for that
context: How do you shoot a baby in the back of the head? I can't believe I just wrote that sentence. I'm done with news for a while. >
  
  The cartels are very violent and depraved individuals. >
  
  But the Latin people don’t need to be saved because they don’t have oil and illegal drugs is good for maintaining the American socioeconomic status quo. >
  
  Have you seen the way America “saves” countries?  It’s pretty to think that some heroes could roll in and round up the baddies, but what you get is heavy weaponry reigning indiscriminate death down from the sky, and a decade of occupation.  The military is a blunt instrument. >
  
  The poor Afghan women able to go to school because of American occupation might have considered themselves “saved” from the Taliban.
  The military can do more than you give it credit for. >
  
  Why do they keep bringing up cartels. When cartels had nothing to do with it. It was Northern California prison gang members. >
  
  There's a lot of cartels. Trash people, olive oil, sugar, so many more cartels >
  
  True, but out of all the cartels, there are only a few that do summary executions. >
  
  Executions are about sending a message. The other cartels don't send messages like that. >
  
  Hey and violence is a huge part of unions history. Strikes became all out battles. People died. The violence is escalated in the drug world, as most involved are a lot more unhinged from reality. >
  
  I have no problem reading about violence, but this? Too much, it's a fucking baby. >
  
  There's a simple answer:  legalize all drugs.  The Cartels would still subsist on human trafficking, guns, etc, but the revenue from those industries wouldn't drive this level of depravity.
  Legalize all drugs, and you turn the cartels in to law abiding, tax paying, road-and-school building Central American Big Pharma.
  We've been trying the criminal route for over a hundred years now.  It's never worked, and has served to only flush trillions down the toilet along with millions of lives.  Our police forces have militarized...
  It's insanity.
  We can find other means to deal with addiction, as well as admit that the vast majority of drug users are not addicts, and don't behave in a way that requires the criminal justice system to be involved.
  End the War on Drugs. >
  
  I’m glad you only exist on Reddit and your opinion means nothing in the real world 😀
  Legalize all drugs he says…LMAO >
  
  If you have an argument, provide one.  If you don't, you're not adding to the conversation, and you're honestly part of the problem. >
  
  No argument needed to combat such as asinine statement as the one you made. >
  
  Buh-bye. >
  
  Really? Baby? California needs death penalty for this cruelty. >
  
  The death penalty is not a deterrent nor is it financially effective nor is it perfect in preventing innocent people from occasionally being put to death. Have them rot in a box for the rest of their lives.
  Edit: and legalize all drugs. >
  
  It’s a fitting punishment for someone who shoots a baby in the back of the head. Just kill them. Doesn’t need to deter them, and the cost issue would be solved if we just fixed the process.
  Edit : to the person who deleted their comment about me skipping over killing innocent people, I feel like “fixing the process” covers that. Just because it’s happened doesn’t mean it always has to happen.
  Also, if an innocent person is being put to death and evidence can’t be gathered to exonerate them, why would they have enough evidence when faced with a different punishment? Sounds like an innocent person “rotting in a cell” for their lives isn’t exactly a favorable outcome either. >
  
  There are no changes that could be made to the criminal justice system that would ensure that 100% of people executed were guilty. There is no way to create a perfect legal system. >
  
  I don’t think that’s a good argument against the death penalty honestly. >
  
  We know for a fact that innocent people have been executed. You don't think that is a compelling argument against the death penalty? >
  
  No. I don’t think that “we can never have a perfect system and there will always be a chance,” is a flimsy argument for giving up on the justice system. Hate to play the slippery slope game but, that same argument can be played against life in prison or just prison time in general.
  If someone can’t get exonerated while going through the endless appeal process that comes with a death sentence, I don’t see how they could get exonerated from life in prison. And in both cases they’re killed by the state, one just makes people feel better because no one is throwing a switch. But leaving them in a cell their whole life is the same thing. >
  
  You can take someone out of prison but you can’t unkill them you complete numbskull >
  
  Not if they can’t beat the charge. You can’t unkill an innocent person who spent life in prison either. It’s why the whole “lock them up forever! Its better than killing them because what if they’re innocent!?” argument is lame.
  Well ok, if they’re innocent but can’t beat the charge they’ll die at 80 years old in a cell still an innocent man. If they’re innocent and can beat the charge they can still do so while on death row. It’s not instant you knucklehead. >
  
  Great, I agree, let's abolish life in prison without the possibility of parole too >
  
  The urge for the death penalty is high for me on this one...but if they plead 'Not Guilty', life with no parole must satisfy me...and if they plead 'Guilty', I'm inclined to give them the life with no parole sentence, too. >
  
  Many parts of rural CA are desperately poor and have a lot of crime, including cartel activity. There was another mass killing at a grow op in the inland empire a couple of years ago. Just lots of land that’s very sparsely policed. Blaine County in GTA isn’t too far off from reality. >
  
  Anyone think cartel style is slang for cartel >
  
  You killed a baby?
  Now that changes things. Now you deserve a slow torturous death. Followed by hunting down and exterminating every last cockroach in your den. >
  
  The cost of 2a is paid everyday in American blood and lives 🇺🇸 >
  
  Respectfully how do you think getting rid of the second amendment would prevent cartel members from killing people?
  Honestly. 
  What a low IQ take. >
  
  The ubiquity of firearms in the USA makes any local laws meaningless. The retailers and manufacturers of firearms and ammo are accomplices in every mass shooting. Same way the corn syrup made America fat, 2a has made America like Somalia >
  
  A massive chunk guns used for criminal purposes in California are driven across state lines from states with far looser gun laws.
  EDIT: I previously said “a vast majority”. That’s probably wrong, but it’s still a MASSIVE amount of guns used in violent crime that come from outside of the state. >
  
  Thats just bullshit and you know it.ATF says otherwise.Vast majority of guns used in crime sourced in California.
  Traces for 2020 combines 25K crimes and 15k of those from California.
  Do you want me the post actual data? >
  
  “Not all firearms traced are used in crimes and not all firearms used in crimes are traced”.
  Even that being said nearly half of all guns traced come from outside of the state. >
  
  15k out of 27k..good thing is we can 3D print guns and those belongs to dream states hahahhahahahhahajjahahahahhahahahjahaja..
  Plus these numbers includes people moving in between states.Since time to crime rate is minimum 3 years in California you ll never know if they actually smuggled to firearm or they actually moved with firearm.
  California average time to crime : 10 years
  Hahhahahahhahajahahhahahaha >
  
  I edited my original comment because the data you sent suggests that I was incorrect, but it’s still a massive amount. That being said, this comment you just wrote is weird buzzword gibberish.