US guns in Mexico

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's important to also note that an inability to trace a gun to the US does not necessarily imply that the gun definitely did not come from the US.

Bullcrap. The trace goes from the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the gun shop who looks it up in their bound book. If it came up negative on a trace, it wasn't sold in the U.S. and it came from somewhere else.

While I doubt that is the case for more than a very few, if any, of the guns recovered in Mexico, I would have thought you would have considered those scenarios.

understand your point - however, we are talking about current military-issue weapons.

Do we have that fidelity in the data? Or is another of the perceptions/assumptions? Frankly, that may actually even *lower* the percentage with US origins. What percentage are handguns or other types of guns? (Someone *should* have that data; it may not be publicly released ... & it may be contradictory. Notheless better than pejorative dismissals by any 'side.') As has been noted previously, mention of “assault rifle” gets media attention.

Quote

Additionally, when a gun shop closes, the ATF gets all the yellow forms and bound book records, if I recall correctly.

On that you might be correct. I don't have them. Also don't know if that requirement pre-dates creation of ATF or not, or what were the pre-ATF requirements.

Quote

Seeing as how I have seen serial number checks done on guns back to the range of the 1930's, I don't consider it a large possibility.

Agree it is a low possibility, because I doubt (someone may be able to prove me wrong) that the majority of the recovered guns are that old.

Nonetheless, all it takes is one example, which I’ve provided, to show that [jcd11235]’s original assertion to which you replied may be valid, i.e., it’s not ‘bullcrap.’ We agree that it may be low – how low is something with only guestimated error bars at this point perhaps in the world and most certainly in this discussion – but it is still valid.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

WELL, there you have it then. All them there guns came from the US.

That's not what he said in that post. he is dead on with his analysis of the data provided in the article. The article does make conclusions that cannot be supported by the data.

In short, the data presented cannot be used to claim that 90% of guns in Mexico come from the US, however the data can also not be used to claim that 90% of guns in Mexcio did not come from the US.

+1

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Do we have that fidelity in the data? Or is another of the perceptions/assumptions? Frankly, that may actually even *lower* the percentage with US origins.

Obviously, we don't have access to the trace info. Given the repeated usage of the term 'assault weapons' and the concurrent images in the news interviews, I am reasonably sure they are NOT talking about my brother's deer rifle.

Grenades, fully-automatic M16s and M203's aren't exactly spilling off the shelves in gunstores. The idea that these weapons are being bought in the US and brought into Mexico is, frankly, ludicrous. Class III weapons aren't sold without a huge amount of paperwork, and the ATF keeps a VERY tight supervision on Class III weapons.

Occam's razor suggests that the overwhelming majority of these weapons are NOT coming from the USA.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Occam's razor suggests that the overwhelming majority of these weapons are NOT coming from the USA.

I'm less interested in Occam's razor ... especially given that a lot of folks seem to invoke their own version of Occam's razor to push *for* increased gun control ... than in the empirical data and analysis. Faulty correlations and implied causations are rampant in gun control debates, and no 'side' is completely innocent.

What is more effective: to dismiss something as "ludicrous," or to show where the empirical evidence does not support a contention and where analysis is incorrect, misleading, inadequate, or uncertain?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[downwardspiral 0]

Sadly it looks like Obama is backing off of further gun legislation for now. This likely means, unless he has had a change of heart, he will wait until his second term. Not surprising considering this is exactly what Clinton did in the 90s.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191037/page/2

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[mnealtx 0]

I understand your point, however:

There have been no new registrations of full-auto weapons since 1986. In fact, the only people that can buy full-auto weapons manufactured since 1986 are the military and police.

In order to buy a full auto weapon, the dealer has to fill out a form 4 and note the current owner of the weapon, all the particulars of the weapon, and all the information on the buyer.

Then, the buyer gets fingerprint cards filled out, a passport photo made and gets a law enforcement official (police chief, judge, etc) to sign the form, which is given BACK to the dealer to be sent in to the ATF with a $200 transfer fee and the form 4.

At some point after that, the ATF will tranfer the ownership of the weapon and you can go pay the dealer several thousand dollars for the privelege of owning a fully-automatic weapon.

Therefore, the argument that the drug cartels are buying up M16s and M203s from gunstores in the USA and taking them back across the border to Mexico, instead of stealing them from the Mexican military or buying them from other drug countries, *IS* ludicrous.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[TomAiello 26]

Without looking at the statistics, think about this:

You are an expert at moving contraband around, especially from South and Central America into Mexico (and from there into the United States).

You have substantial transport infrastructure (planes, boats, cars, etc) with built in smuggling compartments.

The cost of a fully automatic M-16 in the USA is around $20,000.

Buying machine guns in the USA takes loads of time (several months for the ATF to turn the paperwork around).

Buying machine guns in the USA requires that you notify the ATF of your purchase, and gives them the legal right to demand inspection of the weapon (which means you either have to produce it or have your straw man purchaser get arrested).

The cost of a fully automatic M-16 in Central America is around $2,000.

There are no associated paperwork, registration or inspection hassles with the purchases in Central America.

The cost of a fully automatic assault rifle in Central Asia or Africa is even lower--maybe $500 for an AK-47.

There are no registration, paperwork or inspection hassles in Central Asia.



Now ask yourself--where are you going to buy your weapons?

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It's important to also note that an inability to trace a gun to the US does not necessarily imply that the gun definitely did not come from the US.

You make a good point.

However, there's something missing from your point, and all the discussion that followed from it, which no one else has yet mentioned. All of the discussion is about "guns coming from the U.S."

What exactly does that mean? That phrase is intended to imply that the U.S. must be doing something wrong, in order for their guns to end up in the hands of drug pushers. Right? Well, that's exactly the implication that they want you to draw.

But, in fact, all that means is that they are guns manufactured by U.S. companies. And that's it. It doesn't mean that anyone in the U.S. did anything illegal to smuggle those guns into Mexico. It simply means that they were made in the USA.

For example. Arms manufacturers get contracts from the Mexican government to supply their military and police with firearms. These arms export contracts are reviewed and approved by the U.S. government. The contract is fulfilled and delivery is made. But then corrupt Mexicans enter the picture, steal some of the firearms, and sell them to the drug lords.

See page 124 of the below document, for Dept. of State approved defense equipment sent to Mexico:
http://justf.org/files/primarydocs/655_2007.pdf

And then when those arms are recovered in police raids, the gun-o-phobes holler about "U.S. guns fueling Mexican drug violence."

Yep, that's the propaganda.

But here's the truth that everyone seems to be missing. While some of those guns do indeed come from the US, no one is making any claims that they were acquired due to illegal sales by manufacturers or gun stores. Their hands are clean.

So claiming that Mexican drug guns come from the US doesn't mean anything, unless you can show that someone in the U.S. is breaking the law to supply those guns. When that happens, prosecute.

But, we shouldn't shut down US manufacturers or gun stores who sell their guns legally, just because someone else further down the line in the chain of ownership eventually sells the guns to a drug pusher.

So the call for more gun restrictions in the US, as a means of solving Mexican drug violence, is hollow. It's just another propaganda ruse by the gun-o-phobes to try and frighten the public into accepting more 2nd Amendment restrictions.

The problem with Mexican drug violence is caused by Mexicans. Not by lawful U.S. gun manufacturers, not by lawful gun stores, nor by lawful citizens. And none of those entities should have to give up anything because of corrupt, violent Mexicans.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

But here's the truth that everyone seems to be missing. While some of those guns do indeed come from the US, no one is making any claims that they were acquired due to illegal sales by manufacturers or gun stores. Their hands are clean.

So claiming that Mexican drug guns come from the US doesn't mean anything, unless you can show that someone in the U.S. is breaking the law to supply those guns. When that happens, prosecute.

And here's your news story of the day illustrating this:

Case Against Gun-Store Owner Dismissed

An Arizona court on Wednesday dismissed the case against a gun-store owner accused of looking the other way while front men purchased weapons to deliver to Mexico's drug cartels.

The trial, which began earlier this month, had been heralded as an example of U.S. authorities working to stanch the flow of weapons to Mexico, where a recent war among drug gangs is believed to have killed more than 6,000 people.

The case was dismissed against George Iknadosian, arrested on charges of knowingly selling guns to traffickers smuggling arms into Mexico.

At the heart of the case was the X-Caliber gun store, where prosecutors alleged more than 700 high-powered rifles were sold to purchasers whom the owner, 47-year-old George Iknadosian, should have known were acting as so-called straw buyers for Mexican customers...

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123750753535390327.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Just because some of his guns ended up in the wrong hands, does not mean that he did anything wrong. All charges in this case were dismissed because he made his sales in full compliance with all laws. He did the background checks, and the buyers came back clean. He can't read their minds or look into a crystal ball and divine what their future intentions are.

If they want to pursue bad guys, go after those front men who then subsequently knowingly re-sell their guns to drug pushers.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

It's important to also note that an inability to trace a gun to the US does not necessarily imply that the gun definitely did not come from the US.

WELL, there you have it then. All them there guns came from the US.



You claim crap and then you print crap. Talk about a stretch.



You say someone cant prove there point and then turn around and say YOU dont need to

Got me goin this AM

What are you talking about? I explained the invalid assumptions required for both claims.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

It's important to also note that an inability to trace a gun to the US does not necessarily imply that the gun definitely did not come from the US.

Bullcrap. The trace goes from the manufacturer, to the distributor, to the gun shop who looks it up in their bound book. If it came up negative on a trace, it wasn't sold in the U.S. and it came from somewhere else.

Nothing in my post disagrees with that.

To put it another way, if pollsters used the logic of the article, then after polling 1000 people, if 750 supported candidate A, then that would indicate that, out of the entire population, only 750 people support candidate A.

They incorrectly assume that every single gun that came from the US was traced back to the US. The data do not support that assumption.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Sadly it looks like Obama is backing off of further gun legislation for now. This likely means, unless he has had a change of heart, he will wait until his second term. Not surprising considering this is exactly what Clinton did in the 90s.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191037/page/2

I'm crying no tears, both as someone that doesn't want any federal legislation on the subject and who wants Obama to have a chance to succeed.

You didn't read your own article, that repeated the truth of the Clinton Administration. In 1994 he pushed through the unsuccessful AWB, it contributed to the loss of Congress that November, and he didn't do anything until 1999 after Columbine gave some political capital, coupled with his overall popularity. And even then it was merely a deal with English owned S&W.

Obama has much bigger fish to fry right now. And no spare capital to waste taking away people's rights.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Occam's razor suggests that the overwhelming majority of these weapons are NOT coming from the USA.

Well, it's still not very clear. All we conclusively know it's between 15 and 85%. That's a big difference politically. If more than 50% are coming, it's a very different scenario than if less than 50% are.

Weapons with the serials filed off would seem to be the biggest component of untraceable weapons that could have originated from US straw buyers. Whereas automatic weapons and ones no longer saleable in the US would clearly seem to be untraceables that aren't from the US. But without knowing the number of each of these two categories, we're just pissing in the wind.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

and he didn't do anything until 1999 after Columbine gave some political capital, coupled with his overall popularity. And even then it was merely a deal with English owned S&W.

can you elaborate ont that?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If I'm understanding correctly what you posted, the value is somewhere between 18% & 85% of guns recovered from Mexico (therefore does not include non-recovered guns ... might be higher, might be lower, might be the similar) were transitted (?) or purchased (?) in the US. That is what can be said with confidence based on the report, yes?

Yes, that is a correct interpretation of what I wrote.

Quote

From the Fox New article:

Quote

In a remarkable claim, Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S., said Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States -- 730,000 a year. That's a far cry from the official statistic from the Mexican attorney general's office, which says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.

That's an order of magnitude discrepancy.

Not necessarily. The two numbers may not be related. From previously in the article, "But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes."

I read that as the 29,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes (over two years), while the 730,000 annual figure comes from failed smuggling attempts and/or legitimate imports that did not have proper documentation (or were rejected for other reasons), and may not be considered to be "recovered from crime scenes" by the Mexican government. I don't think the two numbers are directly comparable with only the information in the article.

We don't know from the article what proportion of guns used during the commission of crime are ultimately recovered by the police/government. We also need to be careful so that we don't assume that all guns in Mexico that are imported from the US are going to be used to commit other crimes.

Quote

Acknowledging that legally acquired small arms make it into illegal activities does not necessarily imply one is anti-gun. Just like acknowledging one might die skydiving does not make one anti-skydiving.

Good point, and well said.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Do we have that fidelity in the data? Or is another of the perceptions/assumptions? Frankly, that may actually even *lower* the percentage with US origins.

Obviously, we don't have access to the trace info. Given the repeated usage of the term 'assault weapons' and the concurrent images in the news interviews, I am reasonably sure they are NOT talking about my brother's deer rifle.

Grenades, fully-automatic M16s and M203's aren't exactly spilling off the shelves in gunstores. The idea that these weapons are being bought in the US and brought into Mexico is, frankly, ludicrous. Class III weapons aren't sold without a huge amount of paperwork, and the ATF keeps a VERY tight supervision on Class III weapons.

Hypothetical situation:

An illegal Russian arms dealer sells 1000 Soviet era AK-47 automatic rifles to an illegal arms dealer in San Diego, California. That arms dealer, in turn, sells 200 of those rifles to a member of a Mexican drug cartel, who subsequently smuggles (successfully) the rifles into Mexico.

Did those 200 rifles in Mexico come from the US? Could the ATF trace them to the US, given the opportunity?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Therefore, the argument that the drug cartels are buying up M16s and M203s from gunstores in the USA and taking them back across the border to Mexico …

Do you have any examples of articles in which such an argument is presented by a Mexican or American official?

"Coming from the USA" does not imply that the guns are being purchased legally from gun stores in the USA.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I understand your point, however:

There have been no new registrations of full-auto weapons since 1986. In fact, the only people that can buy full-auto weapons manufactured since 1986 are the military and police.

In order to buy a full auto weapon, the dealer has to fill out a form 4 and note the current owner of the weapon, all the particulars of the weapon, and all the information on the buyer.

Then, the buyer gets fingerprint cards filled out, a passport photo made and gets a law enforcement official (police chief, judge, etc) to sign the form, which is given BACK to the dealer to be sent in to the ATF with a $200 transfer fee and the form 4.

At some point after that, the ATF will tranfer the ownership of the weapon and you can go pay the dealer several thousand dollars for the privelege of owning a fully-automatic weapon.

You’ve outlined – quite powerfully – an argument suggesting how effectively extreme restrictions/gun control can prevent the limit or perhaps even prevent the use of certain small arms for illegal activities. I doubt that’s what you intended, but imagine if [kallend], et al wrote that, eh?

Quote

… the argument that the drug cartels are buying up M16s and M203s from gunstores in the USA and taking them back across the border to Mexico, instead of stealing them from the Mexican military or buying them from other drug countries, *IS* ludicrous.

Agree. But that’s a straw man argument. They’re not buying/trafficking lightning guns from the US either.

It's not unlike the criticism of the 90% figure, i.e., in order to get to 90%, one has to eliminate a lot of other components of overall # of guns (per the Fox News account, which I am functioning under an assumption is valid). In building an argument focusing on two specific weapons, one eliminates a lot of others. You’re trying to build a case on arguing fully-automatic M16s and M203s; those are a small subset of “assault rifles” (whatever one is defining those to be) and an even smaller subset of small arms. And, as we know, “assault rifle” means so many different things to different people.

The Fox News article quotes “90% of weapons” and “90% of guns” as the straw man argument it is debunking, not even “assault rifles” much less two specifc ones. E.g., here’s a report focusing on .50-caliber rifles, quoting:

“ATF special agent Tom Mangan says the .50-caliber rifle, like the one believed to have been used to kill [Juarez police deputy commander Francisco]Salazar, has become one of the ‘guns of choice’ for the drug cartels.”

To be explicit again, acknowledging that legally acquired small arms make it into illegal activities does not necessarily imply one is anti-gun. Just like acknowledging one might die skydiving does not make one anti-skydiving.

How about proposing – intentionally flippantly – perhaps Mexico should propose building a wall along their side of the border, if their concern regarding alleged influx of guns is so great?

There are multiple policy options that are being discussed and being implemented, including ones that have not, afaik, been mentioned here, such as increasing inspections on leaving the US/entering Mexico, including rail (DHS/ICE), deploying additional National Guard to border areas (DHS/Texas State Government), and targeting cartels as organized crime (DOJ). Not new laws. Enforce laws currently enacted. One might wonder why we haven’t heard more about those actual polices and proposals?
/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

However, there's something missing from your point, and all the discussion that followed from it, which no one else has yet mentioned. All of the discussion is about "guns coming from the U.S."

What exactly does that mean? That phrase is intended to imply that the U.S. must be doing something wrong, in order for their guns to end up in the hands of drug pushers. Right? Well, that's exactly the implication that they want you to draw.

But, in fact, all that means is that they are guns manufactured by U.S. companies. And that's it. It doesn't mean that anyone in the U.S. did anything illegal to smuggle those guns into Mexico. It simply means that they were made in the USA.

Does it even mean that much? To me, all "coming from the U.S." implies is that prior to being in Mexico, the guns were in the US. I don't assume legal ownership in the U.S., and I don't assume legal U.S. manufacture. All I get from the phrase is that the United States was a waypoint somewhere/anywhere between the guns' manufacture and the guns' recovery from a crime scene in Mexico.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I read that as the 29,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes (over two years), while the 730,000 annual figure comes from failed smuggling attempts and/or legitimate imports that did not have proper documentation (or were rejected for other reasons), and may not be considered to be "recovered from crime scenes" by the Mexican government. I don't think the two numbers are directly comparable with only the info.

Further, no where does anyone claim that the 29,000 firearms recovered from crime scenes were actually used in any crime.

Basically, the statistics are vague enough that anyone can use them to support any position they want.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Sadly it looks like Obama is backing off of further gun legislation for now. This likely means, unless he has had a change of heart, he will wait until his second term. Not surprising considering this is exactly what Clinton did in the 90s.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191037/page/2

[teasing]
Since you keep following a path in your own thread to renewal of assault weapons ban, I’m going to exercise an option to follow another path w/r/t violence in Mexico. (And not just to drug decriminalization either.)
[/teasing]


Mexican cartels are organized crime syndicates. Just about everywhere else in the world that organized crime and terrorist operations coexist, they do business with one another. The only exception I might be able to build a case is w/r/t ‘eco-terrorists.’ Anyone have any other examples?

The nexus between organized crime and terrorist group financing has been well-established, including drug trafficking, weapons trafficking (including trafficking in small arms very much *not* limited to US origins), document forgery, bribery, human trafficking, forced sexual slavery, and a whole lot of other less than legal activities. The Mexican cartels have been implicated in all of those activities sans terrorism, to some extent; evidence varies w/r/t degree of proof. Criminal syndicates and terrorist operations can and do function symbiotically and collaboratively without necessitating a formalized or large-scale alliance.

Mr. Mike Braun, who retired a couple of months ago as the Chief of Operations at the DEA (i.e., he managed all of the DEA’s domestic and global operations), speaks & writes frequently about the ‘narco-terror’ connection, citing evidence from DEA intelligence and operations:

“The DEA has conservatively linked 19 of the 43 designated foreign terrorist organizations to some aspect of the global drug trade. The principal reasons for the growing drugs & terrorism nexus are: 1) ‘state sponsorship’ for terrorism is on the decline and 2) our Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Justice and Homeland Security, as well as the CIA, have done an incredible job of identifying and cutting off the terrorist funding stream from powerful private donors.

“The United Nations (UN) estimates that the global drug trade generates about $322 billion dollars a year in revenue; no other illicit market comes close [Similarly cited in the Congressional Research Service 2007 report “Terrorist Precursor Crimes: Issues and Options for Congress,” on page 10 – nerdgirl] In fact, the UN estimates the next closest illicit global market, alien [human] trafficking, generates only about $32 billion dollars a year in proceeds, or one-tenth of the global drug trade. [i.e., address the independent variable – illicit drug trade and one will affect secondary illicit markets, like small arms – nerdgirl]

“The bottom line-more and more global terrorist organizations will naturally migrate to one or more aspects of the global drug trade. The Shining Path is further proof of this phenomenon.” [Braun references a recent Washington Post article on drug-domestic terrorism nexus in Peru, “In Peru, a Rebellion Reborn: Dreaded Shining Path Returns as a Drug-Financed Movement Seeking Popular Support.” Sendero Luminoso is re-emerging/recreating itself as an outright drug cartel - nerdgirl]

There’s been a fair bit of radical Islamist activity over the last 15 years in the further south Tri Border Area (TBA) of Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay, which is about as ungoverned as Pakistan’s western territories. Hezbollah and Amal Movement (Amal Wikipedia page) have been known to fund operations through drugs and other types of criminal activity trafficked through the TBA.

What becomes more speculative is international terrorism and nexus with Mexico’s domestic organized crime cartel. One that has received specific attention is Hezbollah. It’s known that Mahmoud Youssef Kourani, the brother of Hezbollah chief of military operations in southern Lebanon and who pleaded guilty in March 2005 to conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist organization, entered the US through Mexico along a narcotics route. The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel cites an Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) background paper and CIA analytic reports claiming Salim Boughader-Mucharrafille smuggled at least 200 “Lebanese nationals sympathetic to Hamas and Hezbollah into the United States” from Mexico. Fox News story. MSNBC story.

It's more than just guns. And it's broader than President Obama or AG Holder's former, current, or future stance on renewing the AWB ... or not renewing it.

Yes, it’s easier (& shorter ) to just focus on narrow issues. And I can very much empathize with the attractive notion of tackling problems in pieces that are ‘deal-able’ in small ‘bites.’ Sometimes that's a lot less frustrating method too.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I read that as the 29,000 guns were recovered from crime scenes (over two years), while the 730,000 annual figure comes from failed smuggling attempts and/or legitimate imports that did not have proper documentation (or were rejected for other reasons), and may not be considered to be "recovered from crime scenes" by the Mexican government. I don't think the two numbers are directly comparable with only the info.

Further, no where does anyone claim that the 29,000 firearms recovered from crime scenes were actually used in any crime.

Basically, the statistics are vague enough that anyone can use them to support any position they want.

Since this is a gun thread, by default precision and discussion of precise use of terms/terminology is allowable.

That's not vagueness in the statistics. It's imprecision and vagueness in the reporting. Statistics include confidence levels.

It's also not a "statistic." It's a reported piece of data, likely rounded to the nearest 1000. Statistics are mathematically calculated (using statistical methods) values from data. One might argue that the popular concept of statistical methods is not unlike popular concepts of "assault rifles."

Also, one more illustration of why I am a primary data addict.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do we have that fidelity in the data? Or is another of the perceptions/assumptions? Frankly, that may actually even *lower* the percentage with US origins.

Obviously, we don't have access to the trace info. Given the repeated usage of the term 'assault weapons' and the concurrent images in the news interviews, I am reasonably sure they are NOT talking about my brother's deer rifle.

Grenades, fully-automatic M16s and M203's aren't exactly spilling off the shelves in gunstores. The idea that these weapons are being bought in the US and brought into Mexico is, frankly, ludicrous. Class III weapons aren't sold without a huge amount of paperwork, and the ATF keeps a VERY tight supervision on Class III weapons.

Hypothetical situation:

An illegal Russian arms dealer sells 1000 Soviet era AK-47 automatic rifles to an illegal arms dealer in San Diego, California. That arms dealer, in turn, sells 200 of those rifles to a member of a Mexican drug cartel, who subsequently smuggles (successfully) the rifles into Mexico.

Did those 200 rifles in Mexico come from the US? Could the ATF trace them to the US, given the opportunity?

Your hypothetical seems pretty unlikely. Why would they bother going through a middle man in the US when they could just deal directly with the Russian themselves and avoid having to pay the middleman and smuggling from the US?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

An illegal Russian arms dealer sells 1000 Soviet era AK-47 automatic rifles to an illegal arms dealer in San Diego, California. That arms dealer, in turn, sells 200 of those rifles to a member of a Mexican drug cartel, who subsequently smuggles (successfully) the rifles into Mexico.

Did those 200 rifles in Mexico come from the US? Could the ATF trace them to the US, given the opportunity?

no and no.

Assuming we're all being honest (which of course isn't true), the claim about 90% of guns coming from the US is really saying that our 'liberal' gun laws are responsible for all of the violence in Mexico. Therefore we need more laws.

Illegal weapons being routed thru San Diego would never be part of that discussion, though certainly it wouldn't be unlike the Brady types to include it anyway.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's important to also note that an inability to trace a gun to the US does not necessarily imply that the gun definitely did not come from the US.

WELL, there you have it then. All them there guns came from the US.



You claim crap and then you print crap. Talk about a stretch.



You say someone cant prove there point and then turn around and say YOU dont need to

Got me goin this AM

What are you talking about? I explained the invalid assumptions required for both claims.

Ya, you did. sorry, but you leave us with the implication that the US IS doing something bad.

Anyway, one more time I should have bit my lip.....

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln