Gun Trafficking, Gun Violence, Drugs & the Wild West
The weapon of choice for Mexican drug cartels courtesy of US gun dealers and gun shows
The Washington Post has an excellent article today on the flow of weapons to Mexico and how the government’s attempts to restrict that flow have collided with the gun culture of the wild, wild west. The result according to the article is a cycle of over 100,000 smuggled arms and thousands upon thousands of deaths.
According to the article, “Mexican and U.S. officials estimate that more than 100,000 firearms are smuggled south in a year, and 90 percent of those seized from narcotics traffickers and submitted to the United States for tracing have come from this country. The death toll on the border is even more stark: 10,000 in three years.”
Gun dealers and gun shows in Arizona and Texas are fueling the firepower neeeded for the drug war in Mexico that is now spilling over into the United States. The article highlighted the case of George Iknadosian, a Phoenix gun dealer stood charged with selling hundreds of AK-47 assault rifles and pistols.
Iknadosian told federal investigators he moved to Phoenix to escape the strict gun laws in California, where the sale of assault rifles is illegal. Investigators built a case that he knowingly sold more than 700 firearms, including 500 AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, to individuals he often knew were “straw buyers” for middlemen who delivered the guns to Mexico.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives “had secret recordings, confessed confederates and a list of weapons traced from Mexican shootouts to X-Caliber Guns, Iknadosian’s shop.” Moreover, “Rifles from X-Caliber were found at a gunfight that killed eight Mexican police officers, and a pistol from the store was recovered from a cartel boss. Nonetheless, Judge Robert L. Gottsfield ruled that prosecutors failed to prove under state law that ‘any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearms.’ Prosecutors, who are appealing, expressed dismay.” Who could blame them.
At a time when our agents are stretched as to the max trying to stem the tide of this gun violence fueling the drug wars and the violence that has crept into our country as a result of it, “U.S. laws will continue to reflect the sensibilities on exhibit at the Firing Pin Gun Show, where “Arming the West” was for sale in paperback. The Allerd family explained how as ‘private collectors,’ they can sell guns without filling out federal forms or running the criminal background checks required of licensed dealers.” Gun dealers and gun show participants know this is happening and participate in it by selling the criminals guns.
“No paperwork, nothing,” said Jacob Allerd. “Just an Arizona license. And proof you’re over 21.”
And neither U.S. nor Arizona law limit the number of guns one can buy, even from dealers.
“Fifteen?” Allerd said. “We can get it for you. Most people just want two or three at the most.”
“Depends on the person,” said his twin brother, Jordan, by the shotguns. “My dad’s big on trust.”
“And some people don’t care,” Jacob said. “Some people will sell you as much as you want.”
Buyers for cartels used to leave Arizona gun shows with “15 AK-47s slung over their shoulder,” said Phoenix ATF agent Thomas Mangan. That brazenness was inhibited by a flurry of arrests, Mangan said, but what gun-control advocates call “the gun show loophole” remains firmly in the matrix of laws that reflect both the libertarian traditions of the West and the anxious vigilance of firearms enthusiasts toward their Second Amendment rights.
“So you think this whole thing is just a ploy to shut the gun business down again?” asked Rick Cofone, behind the hunting counter at Sportsman’s Warehouse in north Phoenix. He looked across shelves emptied of handgun ammunition by the panicked buying that has marked firearms retailing since Obama’s election. A community alarmed by rumors that Democrats will tighten gun laws was not reassured by the recent assignment of 100 additional ATF agents to the border to hunt smugglers.
“Why is this happening now?” asked David Morse, who organized the Pinetop show. It was three years ago that a Hispanic man asked to buy 20 Kalashnikovs from Morse. And it was last year that a man who spoke English tried to purchase a Colt .38 Super for the man beside him, who spoke only Spanish. The pistol is sometimes called a “weapon of choice” for drug bosses.
“During the whole Bush administration I knew this was happening, but I didn’t hear anything about it,” Morse said. “Now, all of a sudden in the last 60 days, that’s all we hear.”
But Bill Newell, who oversees the 19 ATF agents in Phoenix, said the change is more than welcome. “For someone who’s worked the border for 20 years, it’s been a long time coming,” he said.
What a shock that Bush would simply ignore another festering problem that did not jive with his neo-con ideology and would not appease his right wingnut base. However, the reality is that “Law enforcement resources on the border are stretched thin. There are 200 ATF agents assigned to the area, which has 7,000 retailers licensed to sell firearms. The ATF’s senior official in Arizona said U.S. authorities especially need to train and vet more counterparts in Mexico to help build major investigations. Only a few hundred such contacts are trusted now.”
Make no mistake that this is a business for these retailers and that a huge part of the alleged second amendment debate is the profit that the dealers make from these criminals. Money and greed. And the gun dealers and gun show participants are use fear mongering about President Obama’s gun policies to line their pockets and to raise the price of guns. they are the number one benefactors of the huge gun and ammo sales since President Obama’s election.
If people want to make our borders more secure and assist our ATF officers who are trying to do that on a very uneven playing field, close the gun show loophole and start thinking in terms of the President does not want to eliminate all guns, but he would like to make it more difficult for criminals like the Mexican drug lords to get their hands on guns in the US.
As someone with a friend at the ATF who I would like to see stay safe, that’s a laudable goal as far as I am concerned.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
[...] the rest here: Gun Trafficking, Gun Violence, Drugs & the Wild West Philippe Sands: Nightmares made law – how the Bush administration …POLITICAL HOT TOPICS: [...]
Gun Trafficking, Gun Violence, Drugs & the Wild West | Articles Of Law
April 19, 2009 at 9:01 am
[...] AirSoft AK-47s, apparently. Oh, and they come from US gun shows, natch. [...]
SayUncle » Mexican drug gangs and their weapon of choice
April 19, 2009 at 11:04 am
Uh….you do realize that your picture is of a toy gun right?
Reply: No I didn’t. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though. I’ve never used one.
JR
April 19, 2009 at 11:46 am
I really doubt the Mexican drug cartel uses a lot of airsoft guns.
Besides, the REAL guns they use are usually illegal in the US, anyway. Go figure, the criminals don’t care what the law is.
(That’s what makes them criminals)
Reply: Based on the article, either does the gun dealer interviewed.
Adam
April 19, 2009 at 11:53 am
[...] Bucking The Real Estate Trend put an intriguing blog post on Gun Trafficking, Gun Violence, Drugs & the Wild WestHere’s a quick excerptAnd neither U.S. nor Arizona law limit the number of guns one can buy, even from dealers. “Fifteen?” Allerd said. “We can get it for you. [...]
Topics about Last-words | Gun Trafficking, Gun Violence, Drugs & the Wild West
April 19, 2009 at 12:55 pm
The “gun show loophole” is not real, it’s just a canard foisted on the ignorant to justify legislation that would prohibit private transfers – that is, the sale, gift or inheritance of guns between private individuals.
It is now becoming well known that only something like 17% of the guns seized in Mexico come from the US, and most are true sporting weapons, mostly (but not all) stolen. The vast majority of the military-grade weaponry turning up in the Mexican “drug wars” is NOT coming from the U.S. – gun shows or otherwise.
Incidentally, your report involving Mr. Iknadosian appears to omit the fact that the prosecution’s case evaporated when they could not show one single weapon that was illegally purchased through him. I suggest you read the Judge’s verdict a bit more closely.
Your reply to Adam (11:53) suggests that a gun dealer interviewed was ignorant of the law. Can you identify what they said that was contrary to the law?
Reply: As for the gun show loophole not being “real,” my friend and ATF agent thinks it is a big problem. It seems like the article supports that as well.
“If you get the money, we’ll sell it to you,” said Jacob Allerd, 19, behind a table laden with assault rifles at a gun show in Pinetop, Ariz., two weeks later. “It’s not hard to find assault rifles, they’re just expensive. The cartels are offering a pretty penny. Or drugs.”
FYI, I did do a search for the order since it appears that there was no verdict, but there was not enough information in the article for me to get a copy. care to give me a cite on the web? I’ll be happy to review it.
Where is your support for your statements Hartley?
This is an article from the Christian Science Monitor saying that “The US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) says that, of the weapons seized and traced at scenes of drug violence, over 90 percent can be traced to the US.” http://features.csmonitor.com/globalnews/2009/04/02/top-us-mexican-officials-meet-on-guns-smuggling/
FactCheck.org debunked that and the 17% that you are quoting from FOX NEWS. From FactCheck.org:
“http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html”
“Given the lack of hard data from Mexico we can’t calculate a precise figure for what portion of crime guns have been traced to the U.S. Based on the best evidence we can find so far, we conclude that the true percentage is probably less than half of the 90 percent claimed by the president and others in his administration, who base their claim on a badly biased sample of all guns seized in Mexico. But we also conclude that the number is probably at least double what Fox News has reported, based on their mistaken interpretation of ATF testimony.
Whether the number is 90 percent , or 36 percent, or something else, there’s no dispute that thousands of guns are being illegalIy transported into Mexico by way of the United States each year.”
Hartley
April 19, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Yes, “thousands Of guns” are smuggled into Mexico every year. And MILLIONS of guns are made in the U.S. every year. And 100-200 MILLION U.S. citizens own guns. And you want to do what? Register them? License them? What? And then what? Are you going to search everyplace in the U.S. big enough to hide a paperback book? That is the size of some pistols you know.
How about we CLOSE THE BORDER and the U.S. watches out for illegal aliens and drugs coming FROM the south and Mexico watches for guns and money coming TO their country.
Fiftycal
April 19, 2009 at 2:09 pm
And we should close a border approximately 1,969 miles how and with what money?
Reply: Precisely. That is why I didn’t reply. The comment is what it is. How do you respond to a comment like “that is Mexico’s problem.” It is just so patently absurd, why bother.
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Snort – so if you and the ATF say there’s a “gun show loophole”, then there must be one, even if everyone else says it’s complete bunk, and you cannot cite a single law to support that. I’m sorry, but the ATF’s attitude about the laws is well known (and NOT respected, I’m sad to say) – and you appear to be grossly misinformed.
OK, Factcheck says it’s 34%, and Fox (and several other people, all of whom are doing some serious SWAG to get thru the smoke of Mexican press releases)says 17% – that’s a looong way from “90%”.
The Court doc on the case you cited is here: http://www.courtminutes.maricopa.gov/docs/Criminal/032009/m3628712.pdf Note that this isn’t a verdict – the case was dismissed, which means (according to a lawyer, which I’m not) it can’t be “appealed”.
Actually, I think there is a LOT of dispute that any significant amount of guns are being illegally purchased in the US and imported into Mexico – NONE of the military-grade hardware you see in all those photos (machine guns, full-auto AK-47s, grenade launchers, etc.) came from a US gun show or shop. Why? because they would be worth 20 times as much here (presuming they’re legally owned, and could therefore be legally sold) as they are in Mexico, which is being flooded with military hardware from Central and South America, in addition to the military/police arms being stolen from teh Mexican Army and police forces (and legally imported into Mexico!). What’s coming in from the US (and most of it came in long ago) is mostly older sporting guns like shotguns and 22 rifles, which the Mexican Police are seizing to make themselves look good. New stuff is mostly “bling” – fancy handguns to make drug lords happy and some probably some small amount of semi-auto rifles, etc. If you want the stop the serious hardware getting into Mexico, the US border is NOT the one that matters.
Reply: I don’t know who the “everyone” is who says the gun show loophole is a “bunk.” Cite a law to support what?
Ok, I am grossly uninformed, but you can recite to unsupported opinion and inaccurate information such as dismissals can’t be appealed. I am a lawyer and they can be appealed once the case is over.
I never said that everything came from gun shows, but there is a lot and getting back to the point if we could please, there are some serious problems which no one ever responds to.
Hartley
April 19, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Of course, you will get a flood of comments about the “gun” and not the issues: drug trafficking, questionable sales of firearms, the gun show loopholes, border issues.
Nope: it will all be focused on the “stupid” gunnies and how “we” (“them” “the other”) want to disarm Americans (which is so totally not the point). I wish more of those inhabiting the “inflexible” position on this issue could help construct a productive dialogue without reverting to their typical insults. In light of the social issues made more severe by guns, I wish I could get more of an argument beyond perpetual quoting of the 2nd Amendment.
It’s either that or “you’re [insert childish insult here].”
What about solutions or advocacy originating in their own national groups to help with these problems? However, that would require an admission that there is a problem… which is unlikely.
Reply: I expect that. The gun was an illustration. The real point will be lost. I don’t expect anything else and I did not write this for them. Your points were excellent and well taken. Too bad they will be lost on those who should pay attention.
You may want to see this: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:389090
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Interesting. The 19-year-old gun dealer and his 14-year-old sister are sitting behind a “table full of assault rifles” (i.e. fully automatic or select fire rifles, according to the definition), at a gun show. And all they want to see if proof of age (which they themselves don’t meet) and money. Here are my hypotheses:
- The kid’s shooting his mouth off
- Sitting at a table at a gun show with an substantial amount of guns means he’s in the “business of selling guns”… which means he has an FFL or he’s going to be going to jail soon.
- The statements “”If you get the money, we’ll sell it to you” and “It’s not hard to find assault rifles, they’re just expensive. The cartels are offering a pretty penny. Or drugs” come from two entirely different contexts, and should not be taken together.
- In fact, “If you get the money, we’ll sell it to you,” was probably in response to “Can I buy this gun”, followed by the unspoken but generally understood requirement that a NICS check was going to be performed.
Reply: Isn’t it equally possible that he was telling the truth? You are right though, these are your guesses without facts and without knowing anything about it unlike the reporter who was actually there.
gmcraff
April 19, 2009 at 1:18 pm
The “truth” is, a 19-year old CAN’T be a licensed gun dealer. I have heard that some 19-year olds DO tell whoppers from time to time, however.
Reply: If you read the article, which clearly you did not, you would have seen the following:
“”No paperwork, nothing,” said Jacob Allerd. “Just an Arizona license. And proof you’re over 21.”
And neither U.S. nor Arizona law limit the number of guns one can buy, even from dealers.
“Fifteen?” Allerd said. “We can get it for you. Most people just want two or three at the most.”
“Depends on the person,” said his twin brother, Jordan, by the shotguns. “My dad’s big on trust.”
“And some people don’t care,” Jacob said. “Some people will sell you as much as you want.”
The reference to his father means that it would be a family business and since he is 19 i assume his father might be a little bit older.
Hartley
April 19, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Sorry to burst your bubble, but there are very few AK 47′s available in the US. Fully automatic weapons are highly regulated and extremely expensive. An AK 47 would bring in excess of $10,000 to anyone who passed the background check and then paid a $200 tax to the ATF. You maybe talking about semi auto copies of them , but that is an entirely different firearm , which is no different than any hunting rifle.No person but the military or law enforcement may own a full auto made after 1986. Any made before then are priced in the thousands of dollars and registered through taxes and full back ground checks.To even own a rifle or shotgun with a barrel shorter than 16 or 18 inches cost a $200 tax and a background check.
Reply: Assuming that all of that is true, unless you find a way around it. A quick Google search showed me that they are available and have even been sold out. Wheter they are copies or not,i don’t know. That is not the key issue though, it is the huge amount of guns flowing to Mexico that is the real issue.
What is your solution to the problem?
stevie reno
April 19, 2009 at 1:37 pm
What is the “problem”? Guns being smuggled into Mexico? That sounds like Mexico’s problem. How about Mexico starts guarding against THEIR citizens illegally entering the U.S. and drugs being smuggled INTO the U.S. and then we’ll do more to do Mexico’s job of guarding it’s border.
Reply: FiftyCal, you are doing multiple postings here. You have said your piece and made your point, be that as it may, now please move on.
Fiftycal
April 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Wow, Catherine.
Thanks for the link to that article! It was spot on.
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Unlike the reporter that was actually there, I can tell you that the answer to the question “Can I buy this here assault rifle?” is NEVER “Yes” unless the question was prefaced with “I have $16,000 and a Class III license.” Unless it was not an assault rifle at all, but a semi-automatic look-alike, in which case they don’t need proof that you’re 21, because you can own a long gun at 18.
Also, a 19-year-old cannot be the holder of an FFL. If you go to the gun show with one to two guns to sell, walking around with it over your shoulder with a “for sale” sign sticking out of the barrel, you could reasonably be considered “not in the business of selling guns”, and not need an FFL. If you have a table “laden” with guns, no way.
Furthermore, having done slightly more research that this “reporter” seems to have done, I found online the table sign-up sheet for the organizer of the gun show referenced in the article. In bold letters, “All local, state and Federal laws and regulation strictly observed. Reservations subject to FPE (Firing Pin Enterprises) rules and policies.” The sign up sheet requires that the applicant list the goods they will be selling, and their Arizona Resale Number (state sales tax ID number).
I couldn’t find a copy of the rules and policies, but I know of no gun show promoter that wants to stay in business for long who would see “firearms” on the “items to be sold” line and not verify that the seller had an FFL… which those two kids could not hold.
The logical inference is that the adult supervision was away from the table at the time that the reporter came to ask questions.
So, no, it is not equally possible that the reporter was telling the truth. Further, it is entirely more likely that the reporter who was actually there had neither the knowledge nor the inclination to know truthfully what he was actually looking at, which does make it rather difficult to write a factual news report.
Reply: –> “Iknadosian told federal investigators he moved to Phoenix to escape the strict gun laws in California, where the sale of assault rifles is illegal. Investigators built a case that he knowingly sold more than 700 firearms, including 500 AK-47 semiautomatic rifles, to individuals he often knew were “straw buyers” for middlemen who delivered the guns to Mexico.” That is the point.
gmcraff
April 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm
In terms of the gun show issue, this might poke a hole or two into your claims, gmcraff:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=7297745&page=1
Hidden cameras (unlike the 60 Minutes piece the following evening where, under surveillance, the sellers were on the up-and-up).
Reply: That was excellent Skye. Same thing my friend from the ATF said.
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 2:31 pm
People are actually able to buy and sell private property? The horror.
Seriously though.. If you close the “gun show loophole”, then what? People will just buy and sell their guns everywhere else but a gun show.
Closing the “gun show loophole” is just another one of those useless feel good laws.
hisxlnc
April 19, 2009 at 3:14 pm
There’s a very easy way to solve the majority of the gunrunning problem. Build a [language edited by moderator] wall and make sure no one crosses except at the well-monitored checkpoints. Problem solved. And hell, it’ll even drive the price up of most major narcotics. Of course, 87% of illegal mexican guns will still be there, thus not actually solving any of the problem, but at least then you won’t have an excuse to bitch about the issue.
Reply: Watch your language Ravenshrike. You have violated my Comment Policy.
A wall. How high? We build it 30 feet high and they use ladders and other items to get over it. Absurd really.
ravenshrike
April 19, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Here’s an interesting report supported by court documents:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/indicted.pdf
It’s kind of interesting also that some of the talking points being written here seem to have originated directly from NRA mouthpieces and not law enforcement sources, you know, those who are dealing first-hand with criminal activity.
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 2:44 pm
The very fact that Iknodasian was acquitted showed that he was in compliance with the law — selling guns to people over 18, performing NICS background checks where required, and so on.
The people who actually BROKE the law were the people who sold the guns to other people in Mexico, or who smuggled the guns into Mexico — and as the ATF failed to show any culpability, Iknadosian was RIGHTFULLY released.
Oh, and the ATF agent said that Iknadosian “knew” that he was selling to straw purchasers? How, pray tell, did the agent deduce that?
I’ll tell you how: he was hungry for an arrest, and he used any old excuse to try to get one.
Using your logic, a car should be prosecuted when they sell a car “knowing” that the buyer was going to use it as a getaway car in a robbery. What nonsense.
Finally: your original mistake in showing a toy gun (instead of a real one) simply underlines the fact that people who know NOTHING about a topic should keep their mouths shut, instead of trying to influence public policy with alarmist (and, in the above case, mostly incorrect) information.
That, by the way, goes for about 95% of journalists and almost everyone else involved in supporting gun control. I give you an example of the stupid Congresswoman who was pressing for the banning of “flash hiders” on semi-automatic rifles…but who was not aware that a flash hider doesn’t, and isn’t intended to hide the muzzle flash per se, only to prevent the shooter from being blinded thereby.
De inscientia, timor.
Reply: Kim, as for your comment “people who know NOTHING about a topic should keep their mouths shut.,” shows the intolerance of gun bloggers like you. I have every right to comment on an article that i thought was interesting and that raised some excellent points.
You have the right to your opinion, that doesn’t mean that I am wrong or that everyone else is an idiot. You do your cause more harm than I could by your attitude.
But, hey, apparently everyone is stupid except you and the other gun bloggers right? That’s rhetorical by the way.
Kim du Toit
April 19, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Number one, use of the term “assault rifle” when not referring fully automatic or select fire firearm is an instant indication that the reporter or legislator does not know anything about firearms or firearm law. Sale of those weapons was restricted to the point of collector-to-collector only in 1934. Just transferring one legally requires $200, extensive paperwork and the approval of the local police chief, and the ATF can ask to inspect your collection at ANY time. Califonria has not make “assault rifles” illegal, but they have made ordinary rifles that vaguely look like assault rifles illegal.
Number two, you referred to Iknadosian in your reply, but the article not not indicate that Jacob Allerd, 19, or his sister Garet, 14, are affiliated with that person or to his gun store. It is clear that the author would like you to think so, but he has very carefully refrained for saying so, because, in all likelyhood, it is not true.
Number three, the ATF can decide that you’re “in the business” of selling guns pretty much as their whim, since the term is not well defined in law. Selling a gun while “in the business” and not folloiwing the complete FFL requirements for selling firearms is a felony. Either the report has it wrong or Allerd, his sister and everyone else associated is going to get a long, involved relationship with the ATF.
Knowingly selling a gun to someone who will not be the actual receiver of the weapon is a felony.
Selling a gun to someone who is not a US citizen or permanent resident (depending on state law) is a sale to prohibited person, a felony.
Exporting a weapon without extensive regulatory compliance is all sorts of illegal.
So, all these things are already illegal to the n-th degree. Anyone involved in the sale of guns that likes to stay out of a jail cell knows this stuff, and they will typically adhere to first rule of Fight Club.
The more we pull on this string, the more this sweater unravels.
Reply: At least in your own mind. Skye is right, do you have a solution?
gmcraff
April 19, 2009 at 3:39 pm
“What about solutions or advocacy originating in their own national groups to help with these problems? However, that would require an admission that there is a problem… which is unlikely.”
I asked this at 1:14 this afternoon in the comments.
My prediction: “you will get a flood of comments about the ‘gun’ and not the issues” has seemed to come to fruition.
Deconstruction, destruction, and tearing down but absolutely *not a single* suggestion about how to fix the problem.
Just more of the same: “people who know NOTHING about a topic should keep their mouths shut” (Kim du Toit; 3:35PM)). Alarmist? Check yourself, Kim. No one is trying to take away your guns. Worried about that, huh? You’re listening to alarmists who want to keep you riled and afraid.
Yep, Catherine. As Americans we are not allowed to have an opinion about guns because we don’t own them.
By that logic, no one should be able to have an opinion about nuclear weapons: some people don’t own those.
“Knowingly selling a gun to someone who will not be the actual receiver of the weapon is a felony.
Selling a gun to someone who is not a US citizen or permanent resident (depending on state law) is a sale to prohibited person, a felony.
Exporting a weapon without extensive regulatory compliance is all sorts of illegal” (gmcraff 3:39PM).
Catherine is not arguing that these things are legal.
The point is: HOW DO WE FIX THIS PROBLEM?
My wish: people remove the ‘gun’ and its specs from this argument and try to focus comments on the problems–not what you perceive to be a threat against your rights to own them: so. not. the. point.
Reply: Thanks Skye.Trying to keep with this and working, but you said it all. It always turns into such a negative and doesn’t really have to. Solutions are not in the NRA talking points and on Fox News.
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 4:51 pm
““What about solutions or advocacy originating in their own national groups to help with these problems? However, that would require an admission that there is a problem… which is unlikely.”
I asked this at 1:14 this afternoon in the comments.”
If Cathy actually allowed comments to go through rather than killing them off in moderation limbo, you’d probably get answers.
“National groups” don’t need to help do anything until the government first does it’s job and secures the border.
Reply: Well, Barack’s lies, or whoever you are, you have left more comments than any other person and I don’t allow mobbing. Even now you have nothing new or constructive to offer so go back to Barack’s Lies now and have fun. Nice knowing you.
hisxlnc
April 19, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Everyone’s focusing on the tools of the trade, rather than the trade itself. The “War on Drugs” makes an otherwise mildly profitable agricultural product insanely lucrative, and worth killing over, which is the reason this is an issue to begin with. If government stopped trying to regulate what substances grown adults could ingest, seems like a lot of the problem would go away.
And because of that fact alone, people talking about gun control aren’t to be taken seriously. It’s not (just) the lack of understanding about guns and gun laws, it’s the lack of basic comprehension of human nature. Even assuming the a large portion of the guns in Mexico are from the US, and assuming that that’s the US’s problem, and assuming that the best use of or energies in the voilence, rather than the root cause of the violence (an awful lot of assumptions), the further assumption is being made that if you wave you magic wand and stop the flow of guns south, that a significant number of the cartels would suddenly interpet that the minor inconvenience of having one of their sources of weapons cuts off as a sign, quit the drug business, and open flower shops and bed a breakfast’s up and down the Baja coast. That seems (to me at least) highly unlikely. It seems more likely that what would be accomplished is a price increase in the Central and South American arms markets, perhaps more weapons smuggled in from China,and probably a nascent domestic weapon manufacture cottage industry.* On balance the biggest thing actually done would be the American citizens deprived of their rights (which a lot of gunowner suspect is the ultimate goal anyway) in a fruitless effort to make the lives of foreign law enforcement easier. It doesn’t seem like an equitable trade.
*On a sidebar, one of the reasons for gun owners pessimism is because of an understanding of just how difficult this task is. If you managed to kill off the American gun industry tomorrow you’d have new guns on the street within a week. That’s not hyperbole. People have made zipguns forever, but you have to understand that a lot of these devices were designed (by governments) for cheapness and speed of manufacture. In the US, the “firearm” isn’t the entire device, it’s a handful of core components that are regulated; the rest of the weapon are for the most part are just considered generic mechanical bits until you assemble the device. On an AK clone, the controlled piece is the receiver, which literally is a stamped and folded piece of sheetmetal. Flat, it’s just another piece of sheetmetal, and completely uncontrolled. With halfway decent machine shop tools (I’m talking Chinese POS Harbor Freight milling machines) it’s not that hard to manufacture the controlled parts yourself. Yeaah, it would be difficult to make precision hunting rifles in a warehouse in Juarez, but cheap subcaliber street sweepers and carbines, not a problem. So if every legitimate manufacturer in the world stopped making guns and every dealer stopped selling them, what would stop a ridiculously wealthy criminal organization whose power is built of violence from just making their own?
Reply: You said: “because of that fact alone, people talking about gun control aren’t to be taken seriously. It’s not (just) the lack of understanding about guns and gun laws, it’s the lack of basic comprehension of human nature.”
That may be the most supremely arrogant statement that I have seen in the blogosphere. I’ll not comment on the rest because of that.
junyo
April 19, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“…assuming that the best use of or energies in the voilence”
should have been “…assuming that the best use of our energies is in addressing the violence…”
junyo
April 19, 2009 at 5:19 pm
I don’t read in the original post, junyo, where Catherine is advocating shutting down gun manufacturers or every gun shop, either.
I appreciate your comment about gun owner’s pessimism and your overall tone.
But can you see then why folks might view that pessimism as paranoia?
Again, *no one* here is advocating stopping the manufacture of guns, nor removing ownership rights.
The point is: there’s a problem on our border involving drugs and the weapons used to traffic them (both). We cannot build a wall as Fiftycal suggests. And I am willing to give Fiftycal the benefit of the doubt and think this comment was sarcastic.
Catherine (and myself) are trying to have a grown-up discussion about how to solve the issues put forth by her post. We’re trying to see what solutions people might offer.
Commenters aren’t letting that happen tho’.
For example: should we just legalize drugs in the US then?
Or should greater resources be diverted to border patrol, control and safety and *why* and *how*?
I’ve read on other websites that people are advocating setting up automatic weapons with motion sensors in the gaps in the wall.
Some have suggested limiting semi-automatic guns (again, I understand there is a debate about semantics involved) to shooting ranges.
Anyone out there with any ideas other than: “Stop trying to take away my guns because you are stupid.”
skyewriter
April 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Junyo is right Catherine, his arrogance aside. He makes a solid point and you not addressing his legitimate argument because you feel he is rude is making it appear as if you can’t counter the statement.
As for the issues with guns and violence, legalize drugs, make them as easy to get as alcohol, and the problem will evaporate quickly. We had this problem before with prohibition. Tax the hell out of them for money to setup recovery programs.
As for closing a “Gun Show Loophole”, everyone above is right, it will be a feel good law with zero efficacy. We have far too many such feel good laws that are not enforced, either because they are unenforcable on their face, or because there just isn’t enough resources to enforce such laws. There are over 20000 state & federal firearms laws & regulations. The ATF can easily employ those laws to go after any gun dealer they feel like, and they have done so numerous times (look up Red’s Trading Post in Idaho, or David Olofson in Milwaukee, WI).
Keep in mind that the ATF is not a law enforcement agency with a stellar record, they have a long list of accusations of bullying and abuse of power (http://www.atfabuse.com/ – not the most unbiased site, but a good place to get info on events that you can further research), so understand when people hear public or private statements from the ATF, they tend to be highly skeptical of them.
Reply: Well MRS, I have a policy of not responding to rude people so I don’t really care what it looks like. I wouldn’t do it if you or Junyo were standing here, I won’t do it on my blog.
What solid point do you think Junyo made? If it is the below:
” Even assuming the a large portion of the guns in Mexico are from the US, and assuming that that’s the US’s problem, and assuming that the best use of or energies in the voilence, rather than the root cause of the violence (an awful lot of assumptions), the further assumption is being made that if you wave you magic wand and stop the flow of guns south, that a significant number of the cartels would suddenly interpet that the minor inconvenience of having one of their sources of weapons cuts off as a sign, quit the drug business, and open flower shops and bed a breakfast’s up and down the Baja coast. That seems (to me at least) highly unlikely. It seems more likely that what would be accomplished is a price increase in the Central and South American arms markets, perhaps more weapons smuggled in from China,and probably a nascent domestic weapon manufacture cottage industry.* On balance the biggest thing actually done would be the American citizens deprived of their rights (which a lot of gunowner suspect is the ultimate goal anyway) in a fruitless effort to make the lives of foreign law enforcement easier. It doesn’t seem like an equitable trade.”
Even if Junyo had not been rude, how do you respond to that? I am not advocating that guns be taken away and never have. that is absurd.
Junyo advocates that the sale of guns to Central and South American arms markets be increased. How would that be accomplished? What basis exists to show that is how they are being obtained? Seems like a lot of conjecture to me rather than what we, as a nation, can do.
It is a truism that people with money can obtain guns. It is also a fact that they are getting a lot of them from the US and Junyo completely ignores that and launches into a rant that had nothing to do with my post along with sheer conjecture and opinion about arms markets.
So like I said, what was the good point? As for lack of enforcement, based on my conversations with law enforcement, they are being enforced. That is NRA talking points again and I always hear that without any information to back that up. What gun laws are not being enforced? Skye posted a link which no one has bothered to read from what i can tell showing that a man purchased guns at a gun show without complying with the law. I disagree with you completely on this.
MadRocketScientist
April 19, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Lady, some who have commented here believe you to be ignorant, stupid or both. I do not. Really, I do not believe either of those mischaracterizations. I think you are just plain old every day dishonest.
Almost everything you have posted in support of your hypothesis has been debunked well and often and widely known. Yet, you state you will choose what you believe.
Choosing what one believes is an admission of dishonesty. An honest person can’t choose a belief, an honest person believes the facts of a thing. You have been made privy to facts and their provenance and ignore them.
So no, I don’t think you are ignorant or stupid, just dishonest.
Reply: I don’t really care what you think.
People like you who make statements like these undermine your cause. I have thoughts and opinions on many of the people who have posted here today, but I don’t think it is productive to get into that.
You “Straightarrow” for example have added nothing to the conversation at all and have not supported a single thing you said, and I am dishonest and I do not rely on facts?
straightarrow
April 19, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Ah, the ‘ol “gun show loophole” gambit. Let’s try to at least honestly address the real issue.
What the gun-control crowd is really advocating is a total prohibition of firearm sales by private owners. That is, requiring by law that all sales of firearms must be transacted by a Federally licensed firearms dealer, with violation of the law a felony crime.
Reply: If you are referring to me or my post, I do not know what you are talking about.
But for almost twenty years the state of California has had such a law in force. A licensed dealer must take possession of the firearm from the seller, the buyer must fill out all the state and federal paperwork required, pass the background check, pay all the state fees and then the buyer still has to wait ten days before taking possession of the firearm because of the state ‘waiting period’ law. And despite all of this bureaucratic B.S., this process has made no difference what so ever in the crime rate of California.
Recall that the Oakland cop-killer lived in California and presumably acquired his firearms in California, so the state law made no difference. Recall that the news reports about weapon smuggling to Mexican drug-gangs mentions California as a source of those weapons, so the state law makes no difference. The fact is that outlawing private sales only inhibits ordinary people and has no practical benefit reducing crime.
So what change might make a difference with the violence in Mexico?
Right now both Mexico and America bans drugs but only Mexico bans guns. So the solution proposed by anti-gunners is that America ban guns too. This is silly as the Mexican drug-smugglers have a whole world to buy illegal weapons from.
The real solution is to cut down the money the drug-smugglers thrive on. Therefore the solution is drugs in America should be decriminalized. It’s time to end the failed experiment of drug prohibition in America.
The war-on-drugs is just as much a failure and destructive of social order as was alcohol prohibition in the 1920′s. But as long as big time war-on-drugs advocates as V.P. Biden and A.G. Holder maintain leadership roles in the Democratic Party, don’t expect relief from that quarter. Instead expect them to try to expand the failed war-on-drugs into a war-on-guns.
Reply: I am not going to address the balance of what you said. The “presumably” and the rest of it is too far afield for this post and not on topic.
What drugs would you legalize? Heroin? That is rhetorical by the way.
Brad
April 19, 2009 at 7:45 pm