U.S. Role In Mexican VIolence: 3 Out Of 4 Guns In Mexico Crimes Come From U.S. Border States

ABC News:

A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S. The numbers bolster complaints by Mexican officials that the country's unprecedented bloodshed -- 28,000 people have died in drug-cartel violence since 2006 -- is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons.

Read the whole story: ABC News

Comments

[wyb]

12:41 PM on 09/09/2010

US gun running on the border goes back to the revolution of 1910. The US armed both sides. Same today, talk to any state dept. operation down on the border, go to a gunshow, or watch straw purchases in shops. This gun denial is the same as overlooking the fact that it's US substance abuser who smokes the pot, shoots the meth, and snorts the coke that fuels the homocides. A huge portion of the US is addicted to drugs and guns and will not change, no matter how many people are killed south of the border.

[Dimensio]

01:38 PM on 09/09/2010

I am curious: are you unaware that a significant percentage of firearms recovered from Mexican criminal organizations are not readily available to United States civilians, or are you merely ignoring this fact due to its failure to corroborate your assertions?

[wyb]

04:41 PM on 09/09/2010

I don't need any canned sermons. It's a nice Colt "El Commandante" 38 super in the picture. Do you think that will show up at an Ipsic match? It's 2500 bucks without the grips and you know who made it and where it is going. I've heard this, not us sthick, talk to the state department. Because there is one real Austrian AUG doesn't mean there aren't two hundred pieces from AZ or Texas.

[benEzra]

04:21 PM on 09/09/2010

I would suggest that a huge portion of the U.S. is addicted to the concept of Prohibition and will not change, and *that* is the real issue driving Mexico's problems.

Last time I checked, Anheiser-Busch wasn't conducting drive-bys on Coors factories, and Ernest & Julio Gallo distributors weren't murdering their competitors. That wasn't always the case; during alcohol prohibition, we *did* have cartel wars on the streets of our major cities, and had we kept prohibition in force, it would undoubtedly have continued to escalate.

IMO, we need to think long and hard about our current militaristic approach to the drug issue, particularly toward the soft drugs that comprise most of the market. Our current policies not only fail to reduce availability at all (cannabis, and even heroin, are arguably easier to get in most U.S. cities than prescription foot powder), but they greatly multiply the social harm caused by drug abuse, and not only here in the USA.

Our current policies provide the Mexican drug cartels with approximately $40 billion in tax-free revenues annually, which is more than the entire defense budgets of most nations. In light of that, is it any wonder that they are fielding restricted ex-NATO and Warsaw Pact military hardware in their turf wars?

There needs to be debate on where to go from here on the drug issue, because our current policy of ever-harsher Prohibition is utterly counterproductive.

[wyb]

04:33 PM on 09/09/2010

I agree with you lock stock and barrel. The hard nut to crack the huge resistance to this by law enfocement and corrections lobbys. There is very big money in these funding streams that have become entitlements. I was talking to an academic who has lived in Cuidad Jaurez for years, and he literally begged the US to decriminalize. as prohabition was destroying his country.

[FirearmsTruth]

11:55 AM on 09/09/2010

This is not close to accurate. The post says: "A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S."

That's not true. It should read, "of the guns sent for tracing, three out of four were found to come from the United States." That is a big difference. This is why we watch Huff and Post at FirearmsTruth.com. This is just another example of liberal anti-gun bias.

[Ohio9]

12:12 PM on 09/09/2010

Indeed, the fact is that the only reason Mexico submits certain guns to the ATF for tracing is if they already have reason to believe they came from across the border. Otherwise it wouldn't be worth the effort. Thus it is perfectly natural that most gun submitted for tracing are determined to have come from the US. But it doesn't say anything about the vast majority of guns siezed by Mexico, which are not submitted for tracing at all.

[Bogstomper2]

01:14 AM on 09/09/2010

This is not a gun problem. This is a prohibition problem, and this is not the first time we've seen prohibition lead to well-armed criminals.

[Thirdpower]

10:34 PM on 09/08/2010

How is the confusion on so called 'Assault Weapons' encouraged? Let's take a look at some campaign literature from Brady Campaign endorsed Illinois Representatives Kathy Ryg (now resigned) and Naomi Jakobsson (who also sponsored the local ammo encoding bill).

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/09/why-confusion-on-assault-weapons.html

Textbook examples of the VPC's MO:

"The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

[Bogstomper2]

01:17 AM on 09/09/2010

"How is the confusion on so called 'Assault Weapons' encouraged?"

That confusion was deliberate. It was also effective. I think it was Florida governor Lawton Chiles who supported a ban on "assault weapons." When it came out that one of *his* guns would be covered under the ban, he protested, saying it was just a turkey gun.

[Rooster Coburn]

01:46 PM on 09/09/2010

I'm from Florida. I think it was his Ruger Mini-14 to be exact.

[kaveman3]

10:26 PM on 09/08/2010

Some people here may want to read what the BATFE has to say about full-autos...

"(b) Machinegun. The term 'machinegun'
means any weapon which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily restored
to shoot, automatically more than
one shot, without manual reloading, by a
single function of the trigger. The term
shall also include the frame or receiver of
any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination
of parts designed and intended,
for use in converting a weapon into a
machinegun, and any combination of
parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession
or under the control of a person."

Page 76 of the National Firearms Act...

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/laws/

Glad I could help.

[Ohio9]

09:12 PM on 09/08/2010

New article, same old lies:

Does it even need to be pointed out that the "3 of 4" number only applied to guns submitted for tracing, which make up a tiny number of guns siezed by Mexico? To the ignorant it does, since it proves that number is meaningless, but I think most people are catching on.

[Dimensio]

09:19 PM on 09/08/2010

As benEzra has also noted, many of the weapons recovered from criminal organizations in Mexico that did originate from the United States are military issue weapons not readily available to civilian purchasers in the United States, that were in fact obtained from corrupt individuals in Mexican military and police branches.

[FirearmsTruth]

11:56 AM on 09/09/2010

The ABC News story buried that fact, and Huff and Puff ignores it.
www.firearmstruth.com

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

07:43 PM on 09/08/2010

Good idea for the left to start fanning the flames of gun control before the election with 80 Million Americans legally owning guns. Talk to Clinton about how that worked out for him in '94.

[benEzra]

07:50 PM on 09/08/2010

It wasn't the Left that was pushing so hard to ban popular guns in the 1990s through 2004, it was the self-styled "Third Way" center, in the mold of Amitai Etzioni and his idealogical protogés. In terms of political organizations, the primary driver was the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which attempted to bridge Left and Right by adopting the more authoritarian aspects of both.

William Clinton and Dianne Feinstein were and are not liberals; they generally plot out center to center-left on the political spectrum. In my observation, one's view of Authority has a lot more to do with one's position on gun issues, fourth amendment issues, censorship, etc. than where one stands on the left/right spectrum.

[mackbolan]

06:42 PM on 09/08/2010

@Boobuzuela......

gun control as known and hoped for by the left is dead....dead and gone...

[Rooster Coburn]

07:50 PM on 09/08/2010

Even the "Daily Kos" as turned of the issue as the following article shows.
"Why liberals should love the Second Amendment" from Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/7/4/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

[OdinsEye]

05:07 PM on 09/08/2010

The Mayors Against Illegal Guns and ABC do not give you all the data.

Key points of data.

1) How many firearms were recovered by police and military in Mexico in any given year.

2) How many of those firearms were submitted for tracing to the BATFE.

3) How many of those submitted for tracing were successfully traced.

4) Of those succesfully traced, how many came from each stat or the US.

MAIG likes to only focus on the number of firearms traced and how many came from a partricular state or the US. This makes the percentage look much higher than it actually is.

[OdinsEye]

04:55 PM on 09/08/2010

" three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S."

The correct statement is that three out of four firearms recovered in Mexico and then submitted for and successfully traced come from border states.

The math basically works like this:

The Mexicans recover 100 firearms.

They submit 50% (50 firearms) for tracing.

Of those 50 firearms, 40% (20 firearms) are succesfully traced.

Of those 20 firearms, 90% (18 firearms) came from the US in total and about 75% (15 firearms) specifically from the four border states.

In fact, if one follows the link to the actual ABC story, they state "out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing were sold in the four U.S. states that border Mexico." This is significantly different than the HuffPo statement "three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S."

[Dimensio]

05:09 PM on 09/08/2010

In fact, the claim that a majority of weapons confiscated from Mexican criminal organizations are of United States origin may be technically accurate, as noted by benEzra upon a different forum.



As seen in http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/04pZcWBfun9ax/610x.jpg and in http://www.contempomag.com/seized-Mexican-weapons.jpg many recovered weapons are military grade, and include, amongst other military firearms, short-barreled M4 assault rifles.  While such firearms are not readily available to civilians in the United States, such firearms are manufactured in the United States.  Such firearms are then distributed to the Mexican military and to Mexican police forces; corrupt individuals in those organizations then distribute those United States derived firearms to criminal organizations within the country.  Subsequently, advocates of civilian disarmament utilize the true statement that firearms recovered from such criminal organizations originated in the United States to created the dishonest and misleading implication that such firearms were obtained through civilian firearm retailers in the United States as a means of advocating unreasonable restrictions upon firearm sales and ownership.
That such unreasonable measures will not to any degree reduce violent crime either in Mexico or in the United States is immaterial to such advocates, as their goal is total civilian disarmament, and not a reduction in violent crime.

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

03:59 PM on 09/08/2010

Jacob Black (3:56 PM) sez:

>Can you explain to me why an "assault weapon" is any more dangerous or likely to lead to criminal activity than a handgun, shotgun, or traditional hunting rifle?

Sure.

Because the more of them "out there" the more of them are eventually going to fall into the hands of criminal elements. Ask any policemen if they like going up against bangers equipped with automatics.

[Dimensio]

04:07 PM on 09/08/2010

Firearms that have been arbitrarily classified as "assault weapons" are not "automatics".

[enlightened45]

04:19 PM on 09/08/2010

Hey, you owe me some responses....and I am curious as to when the actuality of facing the opposition will result in the assertion that mostly the issue is to be evaded until the perpetrator acquiesces or vacates the discussion...

[Jacob Black]

04:08 PM on 09/08/2010

I'm not sure you actually understand what an "assault weapon" is. Although there are quite a few overlapping definitions in state and federal regulations, an "assault weapon" is, generally speaking, a SEMI-automatic firearm, often with a detachable magazine and/or a pistol grip, and sometimes with a flash suppressor and/or a folding stock.

Assault weapons are not automatics, which are already (properly) tightly regulated under federal law and are used in a vanishingly small number of crimes.

Now, since I've cleared that up for you, can you now explain to me why an "assault weapon" is any more dangerous or likely to lead to criminal activity than a handgun, shotgun, or traditional hunting rifle?

[Boobuzuela]

07:47 PM on 09/08/2010

I know exactly the difference between a semi-auto and an auto, as well the APPARENT goal of the NRA to say "Oh, no, these are WAAAY different" when in fact they are have most parts and functionality in common, often lacking only a single key piece for conversion.

Please do not bother to "clear up" anything else for me; I'm not stuipd and I"m not buying the NRA's talking points.

[molonlabe]

03:11 PM on 09/08/2010

"The fable of the U.S. civilian gun market being responsible for "arming" Mexico's brutal drug cartels has become so deeply entrenched, that to question it is to be labeled a "right wing gun lobby shill."

Hence, the Brady Campaign's and Violence Policy Center's claims of "95 to 100%" of Mexican "crime guns" coming from the U.S. civilian market ...

What those who toss these numbers around rarely mention, if not pressed, or under oath, is that whatever the percentage they're currently quoting, that's the percentage of guns submitted to the BATFE for tracing (and successfully traced). We've discussed the fact that Senator John Kerry (D-MA)--no friend to gun owners--admitted once that only about a quarter of the seized guns are ever submitted for BATFE tracing...

Today, let's take a look at a second part of what the NSSF is telling us.

" In recent years as many as 150,000 Mexican soldiers, 17,000 last year alone, defected to go work for the drug cartels -- bringing their American-made service-issued firearms with them. It has also been well documented that the drug cartels are illegally smuggling fully automatic firearms, grenades and other weapons into Mexico from South and Central America. Such items are not being purchased at retail firearms stores in the United States. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2526424/posts

[Jacob Black]

03:18 PM on 09/08/2010

I'm quite pro-2nd Amendment and believe that this study's numbers are fudged to support a pre-determined conclusion that will be used to justify gun control laws that don't actually do anything to address this issue, but I'm not certain your citation to Free Republic is doing your argument any favors.

[molonlabe]

03:25 PM on 09/08/2010

Those same figures are out there on other cites. FR was the only site I could find highlighting both the traceable weapons and the Mexican desertion issues in the same article.

Of course, those who are in doubt of these issues certainly have every right to question the source, and provide their own sources refuting the ones I've linked.

[enlightened45]

04:44 PM on 09/08/2010

Here, let me help you with those "hard to find" links.....and many more if you need them....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/28/AR2007102801654.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-4893905-503543.html

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/04/19/counting-mexico-s-guns.html

[Dimensio]

05:10 PM on 09/08/2010

Repetition of the same false claim from multiple sources does not alter the falsity of the claim.

[benEzra]

05:47 PM on 09/08/2010

Among other problems, your sources appear to be conflating "made in the USA" with "diverted from the U.S. civilian market."

M16's, M203 grenade launchers, grenades, and the other military-grade hardware that the cartels have been using are restricted to police/military/government and their suppliers by Federal law; you cannot buy an M16 at your local gun store, and possession of any post-1986 M16 (or a pre-1986 without a BATFE Form 4) outside of government service or the government supply chain is a 10-year Federal felony. Grenades, rocket launchers, actual AK-47's, armor-piercing 5.7x28mm ammo, etc. are likewise tightly controlled in the USA by Federal law.

I do expect that there is considerable cross-border traffic in U.S.-market *civilian* guns, but the military hardware is coming into Mexico via sales to the Mexican government or via Central American Cold-War stockpiles, because U.S. civilians can't buy that stuff at the gun store.

[Glocksf21]

03:09 PM on 09/08/2010

3 OUT OF 4 weapons that are traceble. less than half are sent in to be traced.

[molonlabe]

03:21 PM on 09/08/2010

Many report's i've seen, and actually stated by John Kerry, indicate that only about 1/4 of the recovered weapons were traced.

When you throw that in for context, sounds like we should be looking at different issues. Like the fact that over 150,000 Mexical police have defected to the Cartel side because of promises, and realities, of higher pay.

[Jacob Black]

02:24 PM on 09/08/2010

The U.S. and Mexico should both work to prevent gun smuggling and punish those engaged in it.

However, the study "shows that three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico and submitted for tracing were sold in the four U.S. states that border Mexico." That means that some unknown (at least uncited in the article) number of guns were not submitted for tracing, and the 3/4 figure is imprecise at best, and possibly misleading.

[Will Scott]

02:28 PM on 09/09/2010

In order to do that, both Governments would actually have to make an effort to control the borders. They should also make the laws against straw buying much more stiff and require mandatory time.

[MISTERUNCONVENTIONAL]

01:04 PM on 09/08/2010

America has a SURPLUS of handgun violence.

Why shouldn't we export it to Mexico in exchange for what they have a surplus of, which is methamphetamine, cocaine, and heroin? Clearly we have the demand for these products!

[kaveman3]

12:19 AM on 09/09/2010

Again you show the inability to distinguish between objects and behaviors.

Common mistake.