US guns in Mexico

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

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.

That all depends on the problem perceived. The problem in my mind when I read the article is the Obama Administration is lying. Especially when AG Holder cites this 90% myth when discussing a second AWB.

So Yes this is a gun thread.
However, I am impressed by by their change in stance, although very skeptical. The problem is not the firearms or the drugs. It's the criminals. Mexican or otherwise.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

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?

For many of the same reasons most people buy most things from middlemen. Accessibility, ability to purchase desired quantity (as opposed to having to place an order for at least x items), not having a point of contact with the (hypothetical) Russian dealer, etc.

Heck, the Russian dealer himself would be a middleman if he didn't manufacture the guns.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

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.

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any explanation of what, precisely,the phrase "come from the United States" actually means.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you leave us with the implication that the US IS doing something bad.

How so? Such an implication was not intended, w/r/t this topic.

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

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

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.

You could well be correct. In their zeal to demonize American gun owners, it could also mean non-American guns which passed through the U.S. That wouldn't surprise me a bit either.

And as jcd11235 says, thats just more reason that the phrase "come from the United States" means absolutely nothing.

Yet the phrase is carefully designed to make people believe that Americans are doing something wrong that is hurting Mexico, and therefore we should willingly give up some of our gun rights, in the hope that it will somehow stop corrupt, violent, drug-pushers in Mexico.

People who believe that corrupt violent men can be deterred by passing laws, are not the people I want in charge of my freedom.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any explanation of what, precisely,the phrase "come from the United States" actually means.

Hardly surprising. Just as no one knows precisely what "assault rifle" means, though we know that inserting "high powered" in front of it is usually a lie.

[1969912 0]

FWIW:

A friend just got back from a ~3 month trip in Baja. He was doing construction work while camping out on the beaches. He said that there were Mexican military checkpoints about every 100 miles for the sole purpose of searching vehicles for guns. He said he was NEVER searched while traveling South, but was nearly always searched while traveling North. Also, there was no search crossing the border from the US into Mexico.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

That all depends on the problem perceived. The problem in my mind when I read the article is the Obama Administration is lying. Especially when AG Holder cites this 90% myth when discussing a second AWB.

So Yes this is a gun thread.
However, I am impressed by by their change in stance, although very skeptical. The problem is not the firearms or the drugs. It's the criminals. Mexican or otherwise.

So following through on my own advocacy, where does the “90%” figure seem to originate … and this is what the FoxNews video credits as well.

On 7 February 2008, William Hoover, Assistant Director for Field Operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) testified before the United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affaires Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. From the provided transcript:

“In analyzing the data collected through ATF’s investigative and regulatory operations that have been focused on the abatement of illegal firearms trafficking to Mexico, there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States.”

There’s where the 90% appears to originate. Now I don’t think he’s lying. He might be functioning under bad data perhaps and a poorly written remarks/testimony statement.

Mr. Hoover also asserted:

“Intelligence gathered by ATF and other domestic Federal law enforcement entities strongly suggests that the DTOs [drug trafficking organizations] have tasked their money laundering, distribution and transportation apparatuses, all of which reach across the border into the United States, to acquire firearms for illegal transfer back to Mexico for use in facilitating narco-trafficking and other criminal activities. These DTOs are comprised of loosely affiliated individuals and/or groups used to facilitate all aspects of the illicit drug and gun trade between Mexico and the U.S. We know that these same groups are employed by DTOs to transport narcotics and firearms and to launder narcotics-related proceeds, are highly functional in every major city – on both sides of the border – where the DTOs conduct drug trafficking operations. The major challenge for both U.S. and Mexican law enforcement is to identify, disrupt and to ultimately dismantle these DTO infrastructures as a means to decrease the demand for U.S. sourced firearms.

“The increased incidence of firearms trafficking to Mexico (from the U.S.) is influenced by numerous factors, including:

The strict prohibition and regulation of firearms in Mexico; coupled with the increased enforcement efforts by the Mexican government and the increased demand for firearms by the DTOs;

A readily accessible source of firearms and ammunition originating in mostly the secondary market such as gun shows, flea markets and private sales;

Illegal ‘straw purchases’ of firearms from FFLs who are often unwitting participants in these schemes."

Mr. Hoover does continue on,

“An in-depth, comprehensive analysis of firearms trace data over the past three years shows that Texas, Arizona and California are the three most prolific source states, respectively, for firearms illegally trafficked to Mexico. In FY 2007 alone, approximately 1,112 guns which originated in Texas, Arizona and California were submitted for tracing from Mexico. For all other U.S. States in FY 2007, approximately 435 guns were submitted for tracing from Mexico. It should be noted, however, that although the greatest proportion of firearms trafficked to Mexico are originating out of the U.S. States along the Southwest border (namely Texas, Arizona and California), ATF trace data has established that cartels are also acquiring firearms from other States as far east as Florida and as far north and west as Washington State.”

He is acknowledging the tracing point and the non-US origin. If all one reads (or all that gets reported) is the first part, one might say he’s lying, eh?



Move forward over 13 months (24 March 2009), Mr. William Newell, Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Field Division, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives testifies to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. In his prepared testimony, he states:

“Because firearms are not readily available in Mexico, drug traffickers have aggressively turned to the U.S. as their primary source. Firearms are now routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of both U.S. and Mexican law. In fact, 90% of the firearms recovered in Mexico, and which are then successfully traced, were determined to have originated from various sources within the continental U.S.”

He’s added the tracing caveat. And this is 9 days before FoxNew’s “Exclusive Investigation.” While I recognize I may be a minority of those who read Congressional Testimony, they’re not “exclusive.” (Unless I’m really special … hmmm, I do get HASC and HCFR hearing schedules delivered to my inbox … maybe I’m just more of a policy-nerd. -[at myself]) Is FoxNews lying in the video and online story because it’s not exclusive?

Mr. Newell continues, very similarly, to what Mr. Hoover testified in February 2008:

“The rising incidences of trafficking U.S.-sourced firearms into Mexico is influenced by a number of factors, including increased demand for firearms by drug trafficking organizations, and the strictly regulated and generally prohibited possession and manufacturing of firearms in Mexico. Drug traffickers are able to obtain firearms and ammunition more easily in the U.S., including sources in the secondary market such as gun shows and flea markets. Depending on State law, the private sale of firearms at those venues often does not require record keeping or background checks prior to the sale.

“In addition, drug traffickers frequently resort to using ‘straw purchasers’ to obtain firearms from federally licensed gun dealers in the U.S.; these dealers are often unwitting participants in these schemes. Straw purchases refer to instances wherein an individual purchases a firearm for someone who is either prohibited by law from possessing one, such as a convicted felon, or who does not want his or her name associated with the transaction. In other words, a straw purchase takes place when a ‘straw’ falsely poses as the buyer of a firearm to help the true purchaser circumvent the law and create an inaccurate paper trail. These illegal purchases, a key source and supply of firearms for drug traffickers and criminals in the U.S., corrupt the ATF firearms tracing process by creating false leads for agents trying to determine the actual purchaser of firearms recovered at crime scenes. In addition, straw purchasers may be difficult to identify because they may make numerous purchases of one to two firearms that are separated by place and time. As an example, a single ATF investigation of straw purchases of firearms shipped to Mexico involved a network of twenty-two individuals who trafficked at least 328 firearms valued at over $350,000. These firearms were sold to the Gulf Cartel in Mexico and were traced by ATF following their use in assassinations of Mexican police officials, citizens, and others. This type of case shows the sophistication of the firearms trafficking networks, using the same methods to traffic firearms south that they use to traffic narcotics north.”

Two points (at least) to highlight there: trafficking networks are complicated and apparent simplicity is not frequently as reason to not use a convoluted means when trafficking anything. The same guy who the FoxNews story cites is talking about “straw purchases” as a problem.


Earlier in March of this year, Mr. Hoover testified to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs.

He repeats almost verbatim, portions of his earlier statement (p. 9):

“Because firearms are not readily available in Mexico, drug traffickers have aggressively turned to the U.S. as their primary source. Firearms are routinely being transported from the U.S. into Mexico in violation of both U.S. and Mexican law. In fact, according to ATF’s National Tracing Center, 90 percent of the weapons that could be traced were determined to have originated from various sources within the U.S.”

The "traced" component is now being much prominently featured. He's speaking about the same data and analysis as he did in February 2008 when the "traced" component was not emphasized. Is that lying?

On the bottom of page 10, he comments:

“It should be noted, though, that while the greatest proportion of firearms trafficked to Mexico originate out of the U.S. along the southwest border, based on successful traces, ATF trace data has established that drug traffickers are also acquiring firearms from other States as far east as Florida and as far north and west as Washington State.”

What kind of weapons are being traced back to the US?: “Until recently drug traffickers’ “weapon of choice” had been .38 caliber handguns. However, they now have developed a preference for higher quality, more powerful weapons, such as .223 and 7.62x39mm caliber rifles, 5.7x28 caliber rifles and pistols, and .50 caliber rifles; each of these types of weapons has been seized by ATF in route to Mexico.”

His recommendations on 17 March 2009 (page 13-16), before the FoxNews story appeared, are to focus on organized crime, on illicit drug cultivation, manufacturing, and trade; to collaborate more with Mexican LEO, and to share more intelligence. Nothing about new laws or AWB.

My speculation is that sometime between when Mr. Hoover testified last February and this March, someone in his office recognized that his 90% statement was being short-handed. One can observe how the “traced” comment becomes more prominently emphasized from Feb 2008 to March 2009. That’s cutting across administrations.

Here’s my frustration (for the next 20 minutes) - other than you and a few others, how many folks do you think read this far? If one actually goes into the data and context, it’s pejoratively dismissed as elitism, i.e., when President Obama starts sounding "professorial," and whatever; if one reduces to the lowest common variable of a sound bite, we get “90% of guns.” There are places for concision, e.g., if one has to write talking points in a 13pt font, 1-page memo. That doesn't mean one's "lying" to one's boss.

I do understand that there is a legitimate concern that the ‘90%’ figure may be/will be used to advocate for the reinstatement of the AWB. And *exactly* because it is a gun thread: if we want to argue that violence is not a direct correlate/causality of guns, one must address the wider correlates and underlying causes of the increase in violence in Mexico. Offer alternative explanations. Otherwise you’ve got a correlation (*not causality*) between increased guns (regardless of origin or where they commute) and violence in Mexico. (Remember that other false causality of guns and crime in Switzerland). It’s strategic.

/Marg

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

[LongWayToFall 0]

Sweet read. Lots of insight, thanks!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

People who believe that corrupt violent men can be deterred by passing laws, are not the people I want in charge of my freedom.

I'm totally writing that down in my collection.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[jerryzflies 0]

Quote

Quote

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.

That all depends on the problem perceived. The problem in my mind when I read the article is the Obama Administration is lying. Especially when AG Holder cites this 90% myth when discussing a second AWB.

.

I hope you read Nerdgirl's post. Seems that the Bush administration "lied" too.

Then again, it could be misrepresentation by your side.

If you can't fix it with a hammer, the problem's electrical.

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

I hope you read Nerdgirl's post. Seems that the Bush administration "lied" too.

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to hear it from the last guys, about the guys before them, either.

When you become President of the United States, it's well and truly time to stop pointing fingers at other people.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[carmenc 0]

Quote

Quote

I hope you read Nerdgirl's post. Seems that the Bush administration "lied" too.

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here.

That was not a justification, it was pointing out the absurdity/hypocrisy of downwardspiral's comment.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I didn't want to hear it from the last guys, about the guys before them, either.

When you become President of the United States, it's well and truly time to stop pointing fingers at other people.

I haven't heard any such thing from the Obama administration on this issue.

[downwardspiral 0]

wouldn't I have to be a Republican/Conservative for his point to make sense? Furthermore the Bush Administration wasn't interested on removing more of our gun rights while trying to justify it with a lie. So yes...Tom is right.

But I do appreciate the level you decided to take this to

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

However, I am impressed by by their change in stance, although very skeptical. The problem is not the firearms or the drugs. It's the criminals. Mexican or otherwise.

And the opportunities for crime created by the governments.

With legal drugs there wouldn't be any financial motivation to engage in violent turf wars over a black market.

WIth legal guns in Mexico there wouldn't be any need to smuggle them in.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

I hope you read Nerdgirl's post. Seems that the Bush administration "lied" too.

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here.

[jerryzflies] and [carmenc] do have notional points w/r/t integrity and consistency – if one criticizes the removal of rights under one administration but rationalizes/excuses/ignores that behavior under another than it is inconsistent and speaks to an integrity issue, i.e., situational ethics.

At the same time that’s not been the discussion here … and [downwardspiral] and I share largely similar views w/r/t guns rights legislation (“ends”). Altho’ he and I may arrive at similar ends through different ideological/philosophical/experiential perspectives, different mechanisms, and through different strategic approaches (“ways” and “means”), it’s not the same type of discussion as described in the first paragraph. In looking back through the thread, I’d suggest that he’s taking an anthropologist perspective (examine single case and individual actors), whether he knows it or not. Whereas, I take a political science/strategic studies approach. It's also been edifying for me w/r/t how statements in Congressional testimonies can be used/misused/interpreted/mis-interpreted and perpetuated outside of context.

If [downwardspiral] sees intentional deception (“lie”) in the use of the “90%” figure, I may disagree with him, but I don’t see that as hypocritical. And I would hope, he wouldn’t see the same in me … but he might … c’est la vie virtuelle, eh?

Some folks may decide that the Fox News story is enough for them, some want more … and some folks may have already have made up their minds regardless of facts and empirical evidence to the contrary, and their bias will trump all else. In some cases the line between a bias and a reasoned cynic can be slim. One person’s rational skeptic is another’s fool.

As [jcd11235] showed, the Fox News story isn’t entirely accurate or precise. Is it vague reporting or an intentional lie? I would argue more of the former than the latter.

I’m willing to bet that there’s some GS-12 fed or contractor in ATF has been >> every time the “90%” figure has been used imprecisely/inaccurately over the last 13 months (or more) and that sometime in the last 3 months, he or she met with the boss. We are now were observing the increased precision in discussion of the data. A few years ago, I had a brief (read: PowerPoint & script) put together for me in which “PI” had been written as “Private Investigator” in the script/notes when it meant “Principal Investigator” for the intended usage. Public affairs didn’t catch the error. I would have sounded like an idiot to the audience I was speaking (bunch of technical folks) if I would have said “Private Investigator.” Would that have been lying?

As I showed in post #58 – yes, it is long – inclusion of the acknowledgement of tracing started *before* the Fox News story and it moved to a more prominent placement in testimony in March 2009. That’s a fact that Fox News doesn’t acknowledge; where does that fall along the vagueness to intentional deception spectrum?

And where along the vagueness to intentional obfuscation spectrum does the fact that the policies that are being both implemented and being proposed by the current administration – none of which is reinstatement the AWB – to address the issue of violence perpetrated using small arms & other weapons are not being discussed fall? (See post #43 for the DHS Secretary, DepSecState, and DepAG joint statement on U.S.-Mexico Border Security Policy.)

“St Noam” Chomsky has a term – that I am brain-farting on at the moment – used to describe partisan, highly contested ‘hot-button’ topics that dominate the popular debate, while the underlying issues are ignored/disregarded. Imo, this is a good candidate for such.

I’m skeptical that an argument, however faulty, that a re-instated AWB would prevent violence in Mexico would gain political traction in the US. Until US national strategic interests are threatened, it’s Mexico’s problem.

VR/Marg

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

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I hope you read Nerdgirl's post. Seems that the Bush administration "lied" too.

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here.

[jerryzflies] and [carmenc] do have notional points w/r/t integrity and consistency – if one criticizes the removal of rights under one administration but rationalizes/excuses/ignores that behavior under another than it is inconsistent and speaks to an integrity issue, i.e., situational ethics.

That's only if one excuses the previous administration.

"They're guy did bad things, so it's ok for my guy to do them too!" sounds positively insane when viewed from the perspective of an observer who claims neither "guy."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I hope you read Nerdgirl's post. Seems that the Bush administration "lied" too.

"That other guy did it too!" is a ridiculous justification. I'm pretty tired of hearing it from the Obama administration, and from lots of people here.

[jerryzflies] and [carmenc] do have notional points w/r/t integrity and consistency – if one criticizes the removal of rights under one administration but rationalizes/excuses/ignores that behavior under another than it is inconsistent and speaks to an integrity issue, i.e., situational ethics.

That's only if one excuses the previous administration.

"They're guy did bad things, so it's ok for my guy to do them too!" sounds positively insane when viewed from the perspective of an observer who claims neither "guy."

Agree heartily.

That's not the notional assertion, however. The assertion is that removal of rights were rationalized/excused/ignored "your guy did it" and some of those notional folks are now critical when ... uh ... "well, the other guy hasn't done it ... but I'm worried he might." E.g., reconcile with posts #2, #4, #5, #12, & #13?

/Marg

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

It's also been edifying for me w/r/t how statements in Congressional testimonies can be used/misused/interpreted/mis-interpreted and perpetuated outside of context.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

From The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution

And, of course, there's always Stephen Halbrook

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

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution

Thanks! Printed out for reading later. Lots footnotes - yeah!

/Marg

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution

Thanks! Printed out for reading later. Lots footnotes - yeah!

/Marg

You're quite welcome - note the committee members and the date.

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

[warpedskydiver 0]

Nice find, I have been scouring http://www.loc.gov/index.html

It has to be the least utilized research tool on this planet and possibly the best.

Thomas is excellent

LOC is just amazing

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

If [downwardspiral] sees intentional deception (“lie”) in the use of the “90%” figure, I may disagree with him, but I don’t see that as hypocritical. And I would hope, he wouldn’t see the same in me … but he might … c’est la vie virtuelle, eh?

It's either an intentional deception or naivete.

At this point, considering the Obama Administration and new info thanks to yourself, I'll go with naivete. Fortunately, it seems the Dems have nipped the AWB in the bud ....for now at least.

And no I don't think you're being hypocritical at all. In fact talk of hypocrisy in this thread doesn't make any sense.

www.FourWheelerHB.com