From the Wall Street Journal: “The U.S. was the source of at least 70% of 29,284 firearms recovered by authorities in Mexico in 2009 and 2010, according to new U.S. government figures.” But analysis of the data reveals another picture.
Of all guns recovered, Mexico chose certain guns for ATF tracing. Statisticians call this sampling bias. Why send ATF a gun with illegible or missing serial numbers? The U.S. Government Accountability Office reported this.
The only fact in the ATF report: Of all guns specially selected by Mexico for tracing, 70% originated in the U.S.
Next, “originated in U.S.” is meaningless: Were they true (fully automatic) military weapons unavailable to civilians? Cartels obtain these through Mexican military, or Central American countries supplied by our government during previous civil wars. (here and here).
Next, 2,500 firearms “walked” across the border courtesy of the ATF, author of this “70%” report. How many of those recovered were supplied via the ATF?
Anti-rights leaders quickly created a crisis to use to their advantage.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), who originally requested this information: “Releasing data on firearms recovered in Mexico that originate in the United States will ensure that the American public and policymakers are aware of the severity of this problem.”
Dennis Henigan, vice president of Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said: “The traffickers are following the path of least resistance. They’re going to American gun shops, exploiting the permissive U.S. gun laws. It’s beyond time for the United States to strengthen its gun laws and shut down the trafficking.”
Dennis, your “path of least resistance” theory is true: Cartels arm themselves from Central American military weapons caches and the international black market.
Also, Dennis, isn’t the ATF supposed to enforce federal law and “shut down the trafficking” instead of breaking the law and aiding trafficking? As a lawyer, you should be cognizant of DeShaney v. Winnebago, where the Supreme Court ruled that government agencies have no obligation to perform the functions our tax dollars pay for.
Or are you hiding the truth to better promote your dangerous agenda?
Another amazing populist topic of the day for some.
With few exceptions, most of the worlds arms “orignate” from either Russia, China or the USA and can be sourced from any number of means…legally and illegally.
Howard, I’m really at a loss what the motives of those perpetuating this story line really are. Have you any idea? Do they want the government to quit selling arms to the Mexican government? Do they want the government to butt out of the arms sales business in general? Either way, it would not stop any flow of arms fromn some source(s) to the bad guys…thats the reality, is it not?
In my opinion, the real story should continue to be, whose got them and what they’re doing with them.
Their motives are to ultimately and completely disarm the American public. Nothing less.
Howard, I’m really at a loss what the motives of those perpetuating this story line really are.
Gun control. They are just continuing to push that agenda, plain and simple.
In my opinion, the real story should continue to be, whose got them and what they’re doing with them.
I think the real story is why the Mexican drug gangs are so powerful. Illegal gangs don’t spring up to serve legal markets. These are a creation of the black market in drugs, a creation of drug prohibition, just as much as Al Capone was a creation of alcohol prohibition.
I agree that gun control – gun confiscation ultimately – is definitely in the picture but I suggest that this all began with the ATF’s primary motivation of empire-building. First, they deliberately arrange for identifiable guns walk into Mexico. Those guns show up in crimes and are traced back to the US. The number of guns is used to demonstrate a need for more ATF resources. More money flows to the ATF and bureaucrats’ head counts inflate, as do their salaries, egos, and power.
But there’s more to this than the ATF. We also have to look at the certainty that DOJ (certainly Breuer and likely Holder) not only knew but approved this mess. It involved a foreign country, which raises the question of how high up in the State Dept. was this discussed and approved. Finally, with the organizations of two senior Cabinet secretaries (Holder, Clinton) involved, is it unreasonable to think that the White House also knew and approved?
It is my opinion that the genesis was ATF’s desire for higher status and more money, but that gun control/confiscation was the motivator at higher levels.
Thanks, RC, for answering TT’s questions. Gun control in this case is the ATF creating the problem, then blaming law-abiding gun owners.
Long story: ATF operated Fast & Furious under Holder’s DOJ, and Holder came out within 2 months of Obama’s installation to tell us he wanted to “make a few changes” to federal gun laws. One of those changes was to reinstitute the Clinton gun ban, because he believed it would help Mexico.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4831751-503544.html
Why can’t Mexico help themselves? Again, what better way to abdicate responsibility than to blame American gun owners, which Calderon did.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/23/mexico-attacks-us-gun-makers-to-avoid-looking-at-their-own-culpability-in-drug-war/
I actually expected folks to get past the ‘gun control’ rhetoric. Thats nothing more than good knitting club debate. It would take some event much larger than this or any gun control activists debates to find this countrys people armless by any laws. The government has long backdoor channeled arms to ‘entities’ around the world so, nothing new about the ATF, presuming the facts are precisely whats proclaimed. The relevent facts are that guns of U.S. origine are going to make their way to whomever wants them and has the money or capacity to steal them.
So, in the face of reality, whats the issue?
I get concerned when people start sounding like they’re looking for the fantastic conspiracy beneath the surface. This has the result of not addressing what’s in front of us. Sometimes, that’s good to find the source cause. Sometimes, it gets people stuck in doing nothing until they find what they expect. Wanting to use government resources to make a case for more gun control would be logical, considering Obama and Holder histories in this area.
When I hear of a bill going to committee to amend the constitution to supress gun ownership beyond what it is today, I’ll certainly get onboard with you. This is one issue in which there are far to many millions of folks who are not about to give up their constitutional right to bear arms and any serious attempt to do so would have grave consequences fall upon the government.
Thunder from the special interest nuts on this issue does not mean the sky is falling now or ever. Presidents and their cabinets come and go ever four or eights years, implementing all sorts of nonsense and nothing they do independently in office is binding upon the constitution and can be reversed by the next President and his cabinet.
Gun running in Mexico is a non story in regards to domestic gun sales and ownership.
Uh, dude! Didn’t you read the post? It was Feinstein, author of the Clinton gun ban, who wants this “information” presented to policy makers. Why don’t you ask her to “get past the gun control rhetoric”? If that works, the rest of us will get on board with your dreams and wishes.
The ATF has violated the laws they exist to enforce. Maybe since they are the “government” they consider themselves above the law. Until some or the management(if you consider their bad judgement management) are arrested, convicted and sentenced for weapons smuggling and murder they should not be funded by Congress. This will fade away as have their past indiscretions and crimes.
This is an article that I wrote for The Firing Line in 1999. It ads perspective to the current cartel guns issue:
DO GOVERNMENTS CULTIVATING MASSACRES?
What did the massacres at Dunblane (Scotland), Port Arthur
(Tasmania) and Littleton (Colorado) have in common? In all
three cases:
(1) The government did not even attempt to enforce existing
laws that should have prevented the killings.
(2) The government used the backlash to advance draconian
new gun controls.
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton entered the gymnasium
at Dunblane Primary School in Scotland. Armed with four
lawfully acquired handguns, Hamilton shot 16 children and
their teacher to death, before killing himself.
From The Hon Lord Cullen’s “Public Enquiry into the
shootings at Dunblane Primary Sch 13/3/96″:
The (British) 1968 Act contains a proviso that a firearm
certificate may be denied or revoked if the chief officer
has reason to believe the person to be “for any reason
unfitted to be entrusted with a firearm.”
The DS Hughes memo of 11/11/91 advised that “… Mr
Hamilton will be a risk to children whenever he has access to
them and that he appears to me to be an unsuitable person to
possess a firearm certificate in view of the number of
occasions he has come to the adverse attention of the police
and his apparent instability.
The Deputy Chief Constable responsible for the issuing of
firearm certificates, after considering the DS Hughes memo
marked it “no action” on 11 November 1991.
In April 1996 Martin Bryant shot 35 people at the peaceful
Port Arthur tourist site on the island state of Tasmania.
(Pp 6, The West Australian, 1 May 1996) Tasmania required
a (photo) license to own any gun or air gun. [Despatch
Magazine] Bryant was also well known to the police, despite
post-Port Arthur protestations to the contrary.
1. He had repeatedly threatened to kill some of his
neighbors in Tasmania. At least, several incidents had been
reported to the police.
2. On one of his frequent international flights, he had
been arrested at Melbourne Airport on suspicion of being a
drug courier. According to one police source, Bryant’s police
records indicated a profile of a “psychotic multiple killer”.
3. The profile accorded well with what his neighbors
thought of him. Not merely because of his frequent threats
against them. There was intense suspicion among them that
Bryant had killed, first his spinster friend and protector,
and then, ten months later, his father.
The police took no action against Bryant’s firearms
license.
On 20 April 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold fatally
shot 12 fellow students, a teacher, and then themselves, at
Columbine high School in Littleton, CO. Harris had turned 18
on April 9, Klebold would not be 18 until September 9. Both
were under 18 years old when they bought the 9mm TEC DC-9 from
22-year-old Mark Manes after a gun show in February. Both
Harris and Klebold were known to the police for various petty
crimes and suspicious behavior.
. . . of the 6,000 students caught at school with guns in
the past two years, the Clinton Administration federally
prosecuted only 13 in the entire country.
The President claims 250,000 prohibited gun buyers have
been turned away. Its a felony to falsify a federal purchase
form to try to buy a gun. The Administration has prosecuted
0 in 1996, 0 in 1997, and 0 in 1998, when they caught them in
the act. In the past 2 years, the Clinton Administration has
prosecuted only 11 people nationwide for illegally providing
handguns to juveniles, and 11 Juveniles anywhere in the
country for illegal possession of handguns. In the last 2
years, this Administration has prosecuted only 37 criminals
nationwide for providing firearms to felons.
Do governments deliberately not prevent criminal violence
in the hope that when tragedies that it could have prevented
do occur, they may be used as “Riechstag fires” to precipitate
a public backlash against the political opponents of gun
control?
They were pushing this for YEARS. The 1989 import ban was based
on “supposed” trafficking to Mexico and Northern Ireland. It was
probably the deciding factor in Clintons defeat of Bush 41.
The left didn’t learn and and passed the Brady bill. The result
was a Republican victory in Congress. The media has done a good
job of hiding this. Notice the current administration is attempt-
ing back door “regulatory” gun control but has avoided congress.
G-d help us if O gets a second term and can come out in the open!
Howard….come on! Show me any gun ban bill in your lifetime. Gun control…yes! You want certifiable nuts and criminals to legally walk into gun stores and buy guns….from any sources actually?
Maybe representing real facts would be a good thing?
You keep telling us all how old you are. Where were you during the Clinton administration? Many guns banned. Normal capacity magazines banned. And you complain I’m not representing facts?
Howard…..I’m pretty sure I was around!
See, heres the problem. The constitution in many instances granted rights in context of its time of framing. Its highly likely that they lacked the capacity to foresee how guns would evolve for much of anything outside of hunting and war…for which there was not great distinction in the weaponry. That said, there was also debate as indicated in their communication indicating to some greater rational allowing the citizens gun ownership rights. Regardless, to date, the constitutional grant of gun ownership remains.
The questions arise over what kinds of guns, as they have evolved, will be permitted under the ownership right. In my opinion that is a fair debate around the times. And heres the basis for that opinion. First, we would be a nation of few laws but for the irresponsibility of some of our citizens to conform to established societal norms. Secondly, in my opinion, the general population has no needs to be equipped with the likes or kinds of military weaponry. That said, I supose one could have debate over your point of ["Normal capacity magazines banned."] on some grounds.
For me, I’m more concerned with the constitution and States Malitia’s or national guards issues. I find the silent move to centralize their commands away from the States and under the DOD to be quite disturbing. In fact, I have always had a problem with DOD utilizing the States Guards in war outside the our sovereign boundery but for short, non unit, rotational periods for combat training experiences for selected troops and leadership.
So, in conclusion, I’m not nearly as excited over gun ownership loss as you are if irresponsibility can be maintained in check.
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”.
Its pretty clear to me Thomas, that the Founders knew what they were doing when they included the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. And that intent has been so recognized by the Supreme Court, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, means that that you and I get to; a.) own “arms” meaning a weapon, such as a firearm; b.) keep them on our person or to “bear” them. Also I am pretty sure this right will never become dated even when we have moved beyond simple projectile weapons too lases guns and lighsabers.
Further it is pretty meaningless to assert that we have the right to life, liberty, and happiness; if we don’t have the means to defend our life, secure our liberty, or defend our happiness, if we are deprived of the ability to do so, by the same government that declares such rights to be self evident. And remeber that the state has no responcibility to ensure your individual security only the security of the collective, your individual security is your responcibility.
In addition to all of that the Consitution does not give us our rights, it limits what the Federal government can do to us, that is why they are know as a negative right, the rights preceded the constitution and we were endowed with them by our creator, also meaning they are unalianable (which isn’t neccessarily true since we can lose our rights, by the choices we make).
TTT: I’m glad to know that you:
1. Don’t care much about our Bill of Rights.
2. Don’t mind supporting laws that limit other people’s Constitutional rights because they don’t matter much to you.
This means that you have proven yourself to be a big government statist.
By the way, what makes you think you have the right to own a computer and internet connection? I mean, let’s face it, they didn’t have these high capacity, electronic, public communications capabilities when they argued about the Bill or Rights, so it’s fair to have a debate about who should have that privilege now. Internet is a privilege according to your logic. Doing away with it doesn’t really infringe on your freedom of speech. You can always grab a milk crate and scream on some corner. Oh, maybe they didn’t have milk crates back then, so you’ll have to find yourself a nice tree stump or something like that.
What?s Going down i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I’ve discovered It absolutely useful and it has helped me out loads. I’m hoping to contribute & help other customers like its helped me. Great job.