As the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform prepares to focus Wednesday on alleged failures of the U.S. Justice Department's program to stop gun trafficking to Mexico, a new study by my organization, the Violence Policy Center (VPC)-- The Militarization of the U.S. Civilian Firearms Market -- explores the major force driving criminal cross-border gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico: the gun industry's cynical militarization of the U.S. civilian gun market.
The study finds that today militarized weapons -- semiautomatic assault rifles, 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles, and high-capacity pistols including armor-piercing handguns -- define the U.S. civilian gun market and are far and away the 'weapons of choice' of the traffickers supplying violent drug organizations in Mexico. The study also finds that the gun industry has become so dependent on militarized product lines that 11 of the top 15 gun manufacturers now market assault weapons.
In describing the industry's marketing daisy chain, the study states that "... the gun industry designs, manufactures, imports, and sells firearms in the civilian market that are to all intents and purposes the same as military arms. It then bombards its target market with the message that civilian consumers -- just like real soldiers -- can easily and legally own the firepower of militarized weapons."
Most Americans -- the majority of whom don't own guns -- would be shocked at what the gun industry has become. Forget grandpa's shotgun and dad's hunting rifle, or, for that matter, the proverbial six-shot revolver kept in the bedroom dresser drawer. Today's gun market is military-derived weapons with virtually unlimited ammunition capacity resulting in heightened lethality. The common bloodline is a military pedigree.
The study documents a deliberate gun industry design and marketing strategy, begun in the 1980s, that has resulted in the easy availability and shockingly weak regulation of guns that are:
The gun industry has created a unique American civilian firearms bazaar that arms thousands of criminals, dangerous extremists, and drug traffickers throughout the world.
It's no suprise then that a report issued this week by Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) found that according to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "in 2009 and 2010, 20,504 of the 29,284 firearms (70 percent) recovered in Mexico and submitted for tracing were United States-sourced."
To paraphrase a quote ascribed to Willie Sutton, why do traffickers come to the U.S.? Because that's where the guns are.
If Congress wants to find the real causes of the gun traffic to Mexico, it needs to look upstream to the gun industry's callous transformation of the American gun market into one more suited to warfare than sport.
Follow Josh Sugarmann on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VPCinfo
Maybe we should invade Mexico!
"The Justice Department is expected to oust the head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, according to people familiar with the matter, amid a troubled federal antitrafficking operation that has grown into the agency's biggest scandal in nearly two decades....
The shakeup shows the extent of the political damage caused by the gun-trafficking operation called Fast and Furious, which used tactics that allowed suspected smugglers to buy large numbers of firearms. "
So the head of the ATF knew about the agency allowing thousands of guns to be smuggled into Mexico. But the anti's can only disseminate, distort and avoid.
Let me explain this.
Bersa is an Argentinian firearm manufacturer. They make firearms and export them all over the world. Only the serial numbers of the firearms they directly make for the US market get reported to the BATFE (ATF). This is because Bersa has to pay taxes on any firearms they make for and export to the US. Obviously they are not going to want to pay US taxes and tariffs on firearms they sell to Guatemala, Columbia, Mexico, etc.
So, only those firearms made by Bersa which legally enter the US distribution system are in the BATFE database. This means that the BATFE cannot really trace any Bersa firearms which did not legally enter the US. The firearm serial number will not be in the BATFE database. They would have to go back to the manufacturer for any info on firearms which did not come through the US.
Therefore, saying that 70% or 90% of the firearms the BATFE were able to trace came through the US is pretty much a "duh!" statement. It is like saying 90% of the airplanes in the US are registered with the FAA.
It is no surprise that Senator Dianne "I can have a concealed carry permit because I am important, but you cannot because you are not" Feinstein would be behind such a report.
Nor is it a surprise that Senator Charles "No, really, I am not grinning from ear to ear while I shoot this Uzi -- that is a grimace" Schumer would have his name attached to it either.
Would that illustrate that the number of guns traced to the United States in total fell below 20%? How many of those guns were provided to governments south of the US border? Would that further embarrass Sugarmann's precious statistics? How many of them were part of ATF's misguided operations?
Methinks your claims are on thin ice, Mr VPC!
"semiautomatic assault rifles, 50 caliber anti-armor sniper rifles, and high-capacity pistols including armor-piercing handguns".
First of all, there is no such thing as semi-automatic assault rifle. It's a contradiction in terms. An assault rifle is, by definition, not semi-automatic. .50 caliber "anti-armor" (nobody uses them for that) rifles are so rare I've never even seen one in person. "High capacity pistols" is a meaningless term, but there's essentially no such thing as an armor-piercing handgun. So to say these things dominate the market is laughably ignorant, and betrays what we already knew: Sugarmann doesn't know anything about the gun industry.
An "assault rifle" is a select-fire, intermediate power cartridge rifle. If it isn't select-fire, it is just a "rifle". If it isn't an intermediate power cartridge (basically, less than .30 cal full powder charge), it's a battle rifle.
If it is semi-automatic, that's the opposite of "select fire".
Sugarmann wants to change the terms because "assault" sounds scary, and he wants to apply the term where it doesn't fit so he can drum up support to ban more stuff. For christ's sake, they started calling regular magazines that come with handguns "assault clips". I'm not making this up. They even made a video ad calling for a ban on "assault clips". I couldn't even make this stuff up.
150 pages that include many statements like this:
"Rep Cummings: Special Agent Dodson, again, I'm trying to understand this. If you're following a suspected straw purchase and you start at the gun store and you follow it to a house, why wouldn't you keep following that -- that gun?
DODSON: Sir, that -- that's the one question that I can't answer for you is the why. It made no sense to us either. It's what we were ordered to do. And every time we questioned that order, you know, there was punitive action against those of us that did so."
But remember, all of this testimony, emails and evidence of abuse by the gov't resulting in increased crime and deaths is less important to the gun control advocates than pushing for more laws and restrictions. None of which would have prevented a single gun from being 'walked'.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/06/gun-walker-hearings-facts-vs.html
AK-47: Developed around the end of WWII, roughly 65 years old. Fires a cartridge design a couple years older (68 years) and which is vastly less powerful than modern deer hunting cartridges.
AR-15: Roughly 53 years old and based on designs a couple years older. Fires one of the smallest caliber and one of the least powerful centerfire rifle cartridges in existance.
.50 (BMG) caliber "sniper" rifles: Roughly 30 years old and firing a cartridge 93 years old! Developed by civilians for civilians and only fully accepted by the US military in the last 10 years.
70% of the firearms successfully traced. This works out to about 20% of the firearms recovered.
ECS
Many firearms are never submitted for tracing. This can be due to the Mexican's knowning that the firearms did not come from the US, such as firearms with Mexican military or Mexican police markings, or full-auto firearms.
Of the firearms submitted for tracing, many cannot be traced, either due to obliterated serial numbers or simply because the firearms never passed through the US. The BATFE has limited ability to trace firearms which have not legally passed through the US. For example, a firearm made in Brazil and sent directly to Mexico or via a country like Costa Rica will not be able to be traced by the BATFE.
Of the firearms sucessfully traced about 70-90% can be traced to the US. Given that the BATFE has limited ability to trace firearms which have not come through the US, this result is hardly surprising.
It is basically the same issue as with the previous claim of 90%. Let's say the Mexicans recover 100 firearms. They submit 50% for tracing (50 firearms). Of those firearms, 40% can be traced (20 firearms). Of those traced, 90% came thru the US (18 firearms). Gun controllers and politicians were running around claiming 90% of the firearms siezed came from the US where in reality we could only say for certain that 18% came through the US.
This rifle was developed for civilians. It was later adopted by the military. In fact it took nearly 8 years after its commercial introduction before the US military began buying them and even then they only bought a few. It took 20 years from the commercial introduction of the rifle until the US military gave it full release and gave it a military designation.
Largely another myth. The much touted FM FiveseveN pistol really performs no better against armor than a .357 or many 9 mms. Further, the purported AP ammo for this firearm is not commercially available in the US.
I carry a .357 Magnum revolver that is several orders of magnitude more effective than the Fiveseven.
BTW, I haven't seen a "bad guy" with an FN FiveseveN.
From 18USC44:
"§ 921 Definitions.
"(a) As used in this chapter—
" . . .
"(17)
"(A) The term "ammunition" means ammunition or cartridge cases, primers, bullets, or propellant powder designed for use in any firearm.
"(B) The term "armor piercing ammunition" means—
" (i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
" (ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.
.
"§ 922 Unlawful acts.
"(a) It shall be unlawful—
. . .
"(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--
"(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political sudivision of a State"
(the definition of armor piercing
You mention the actual federal legal definition of AP. It isin regards to handgun ammo andis based on bullet construction.
There isthe military definition, which is performance based, such as being able to defeat 9.5 mm of annealed steel plate at 100 meters. However, the military definition varies based on caliber and chambering and there isno military AP rated handgun ammo.
This puts the military and federal definitions at odds with eachother, as what is rated as AP by one will notbe considered AP by the other.
Then there isthe popular mythperception involving body armor. To John Q. Public, any bullet whichwill defeat body armor is AP. What they donot know isthat body armor comes in 6 different ratings and what may be stopped by one might notbe stopped by another and that onlythe highest two levels are rated in any way against rifles and shotgun slugs -- most police donot wear those levels ona daily basis.
Therefore, depending on what level of body armor you are talking about, most cartridges inthe world could be considered "AP" even though they donot meet either ofthe previous definitions.
Itis this latter area which gun controllers tend to exploit when making their emotional pleas for support.
There is no such thing as a semi-auto assault rifle. Doesn't matter how many times Josh claims otherwise.
Remember Josh's own words: "Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. 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. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons."
IOW he will knowingly feed you a line of falsities if he thinks he can hook you into supporting his cause.
The plain fact is that the politicization of the gun control issue is a trainwreck for all involved - shooters have their time wasted with idiocy like microstamping (anyone got a metal file ?), voters have their time wasted by politicians pandering for votes by legislating the idiocy into code, and the public has its time and blood wasted because objective discussion of the actual public safety issues never happens. Small wonder, since the gun control crowd has such heavy representation from knownothing busybodies whose goal is social engineering and making all that scary stuff about force go away.
Humans and society will never be perfected, because statistically genetics ensures that there will always be individuals ready to act aberrantly, and violently. We thus have a choice whether to hand the right to use sanctioned deadly force entirely to the state, on which we must then rely entirely for protection, or rather invert the relationship and remember that the power of the state comes from us, and while it is a valuable tool to maintain a civil society, we the people are the first line in the defence of that condition.