The Great Debate
06:15 December 18th, 2008

American guns and the war next door

Tags: General, Tales from the Trail: 2008, , , , , ,

Bernd Debusmann - Great Debate– Bernd Debusmann is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own. –

Last year, around 2,500 Mexicans died in the twin wars drug cartels are waging against each other and against the Mexican state, using weapons smuggled in from the United States. In the first 11 months of this year, the death toll was 5,367, according to the Mexican attorney general. Next year?

There is no end in sight. At least two of the lethal ingredients in the toxic brew that fuels Mexico’s ever-widening violence are unlikely to change: lax American gun laws and a Mexican border that barely controls north-south traffic. On many of the crossing points along the 2,000-mile frontier, travelers coming in from the United States, by car or on foot, are routinely waved through without even having to show identity papers.

Weak Mexican border controls rarely feature in official or academic reports on a problem that has prompted some experts and U.S. publications to wonder whether Mexico is a “failing state”. That’s the headline over a cover story on Mexico in the latest edition of the business magazine Forbes. Mexican officials reject the label.

But privately, they concede that Mexican authorities are doing a less-than-thorough job in searching and monitoring north-south traffic. They tend to point in the other direction, to the easy availability of guns in the United States, the armory of Mexico’s criminal mafias.

According to statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), the agency charged with regulating the firearms industries, there are 9,161 licensed arms dealers in the four states bordering Mexico — California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. Buyers from licensed establishments need to go through a background check and the serial numbers of their purchases can be traced.

No background checks and no paperwork is necessary for weapons traded between private citizens on the “secondary” market — gun shows, over the Internet, through classified advertisements. Around 40 percent of all gun sales in the United States, where private citizens own at least 200 million guns, are on the informal market, estimates the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based group in favor of tougher gun controls.

How many guns are smuggled across the porous border? Nobody knows, and a frequently used figure of 2,000 every day appears to be more of an urban legend than an estimate based on evidence. It would amount to 730,000 smuggled guns a year.

Whatever the number, it is enough for the U.S. State Department, on its website, to advise citizens contemplating a visit to Mexico that “recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have taken on the characteristics of small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and, on occasion, grenades”.

AMONG WEAPONS OF CHOICE: COP KILLERS

Almost all the weapons seized inside Mexico or left at the scene of shootouts have been traced back to the United States through eTrace, an electronic system the ATF set up to trace illicit firearms. The cartel killers’ weapons of choice: AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles. Favorite pistols: Colt .38 Super, Glock 9 millimeter, and the FN 5-7, nicknamed “cop killer” because it can pierce a flak jacket at a range of 300 meters.

All these can be legally (and easily) acquired in the United States by citizens and legal residents without a criminal record, after a background check with the Federal Bureau of Investigations that often takes less than 15 minutes. The ease with which Americans can get arms flares into public controversy at regular intervals, usually after a gun owner with a grudge commits a massacre in a school or other public place.

Attempts to introduce more restrictions have failed regularly, and this year the Supreme Court ended decades of legal argument by ruling that the second amendment of the U.S. constitution, written 219 years ago, does guarantee an individual’s right “to keep and bear arms”.

Even Eduardo Medina Mora, the outspoken Mexican attorney general who makes no secret of his frustration with the flow of weapons from the north, seems resigned to the prospect that the United States will not change its gun laws to keep Mexico from sliding into deeper trouble.

“Although … it may seem absurd to us that a (U.S.) citizen can buy an AK-47, an AR-15, or a Barrett .50, it’s the law of the land,” he told the Spanish newspaper El Pais in November. The last item on his list is a sniper rifle that costs $8,650, weighs 30 pounds and can punch through an armored vehicle from a mile away.

On the U.S. side of the border, the ATF has just launched an advertising campaign in Arizona to remind citizens that buying guns on behalf of others — so called-straw purchases — carries penalties of up to 10 years in jail. Using straw buyers has been one of the cartels’ methods to evade background checks. Gun shows are another.

Just before entering Mexico, large signs at crossing points read: “Warning: Firearms and Ammunition Illegal in Mexico.” Chances that you are stopped and searched by Mexican officials are slim.

Reuters correspondent Tim Gaynor, author of a forthcoming book on the frontier (Midnight on the Line: The Secret Life of the U.S.-Mexico Border) reports: “In scores of crossings I have made to Mexico over several years, I have been stopped on just two or three occasions. Never once have I had my car searched. The odds are heavily in favor of the smugglers.”

Time for Mexico to start watching its border rather than pointing a finger at the United States?

You can contact the author at Debusmann@reuters.com. For previous columns by Bernd Debusmann, click here.

Best Comment

December 18th, 2008
1:43 pm EST
Sure. Why not? Watching borders definitely better than finger pointing. Let's assume Mexico does as adequate a job watching the border as the US would do. . . what would happen? Drug Cartels quit the business for lack of fire power? If there were no high powered sophisticated guns there would be no cartels, right? Mobsters in America during the thirties had it so rough. No glocks, AK-47s or Barrett .50s. It's a wonder the mafia survived in America. Perhaps a combination of the analyses behind *The Case for Piracy* *America's decades old failed drug war* and this column are in order. If we combined all three would we still be talking about the border?
-Posted by Aaron

205 comments so far

December 29th, 2008 3:25 pm GMT - Posted by albert

The US does have a lot more relaxed gun laws than many other countries. I would say that Mexico needs to search better at the boarder. There were several guns mentioned in this article. The author did some research on guns but failed to mention some major points about them. For instance a 50 caliber Browning will not punch through an armored car without armor piercing rounds at any reasonable distance, nor will the cop killer pistol be able to go through a flak jacket without the proper ammunition. The ammunition needed to create the destruction that is described here is not legal in the US- so black market Mexico or black market US they are being bought illegally.

December 29th, 2008 2:01 pm GMT - Posted by B.Free

Many here have made good points.
1. The US has many very good laws regarding the international sale of arms.
2. Many states have very good laws regarding the sale and carry of arms.
3. Many in this country think it would be better if guns were illegal.
4. Many in this country think it would be better if illegal drugs were legal.
5. Governments are by nature corrupt.
Just thought I would take a tip from Jimbo and number my points.

Alex, has a point. With the gun prohibitionists taking power, now would be the right time to buy guns and reloading supplies and start stockpiling ammo. I like to target shoot and burn through a few hundred rounds a week. I may have to cut back.

It is good to see so many who grasp the relationship between black markets and violence. Make sure you let your Representatives know that you are against laws that maintain black markets and funnel so much money from the US into the hands of Criminals. Let them know you want to put a stop to the unconstitutional War on Drugs. Since the US is the worlds largest consumer in these drugs, such an act would cripple organized crime world wide. This would also move other nations to stop contributing to these black markets. Then we could concentrate on real problems like slavery in the world. The amount of money wasted on trying to stop Jim Bob from smoking a joint on his back porch could be much better spent on stopping the human trade in forced labor. That is the new title for slavery. Instead we believe the fear mongers and think the world will collapse if Pot or cocaine were legal while an estimated 10,000 children in this country are forced to work up to 20 hours a day as slaves to their masters who bought them in foreign countries. Sorry, I digress.

There are people who would rather use the turf wars south of the border fueled by black market income to limit legal possession of arms in the US. There is overwhelming evidence that banning arms does not stop the violence. Look at New York or DC. Yet they continue by saying that those areas are surrounded by gun toting states. But look at the example given by Alex. It doesn’t matter. You are not going to get ride of guns no matter how strict your laws are because the criminals do not care about your laws and there will always be someone to sell an illegal gun somewhere in the world and get it to the guy with the money…the criminal! This is why the Cartels in Colombia are better armed than the Colombian government. If you do not want them to have this kind of power then take their income away. However, do not think you can solve their problem by taking away my rights. I refuse to let the sheep of this nation strip me of my rights by taking away my ability to defend myself.

Lastly, Gaskins you are correct. In fact, during the Revolutionary War the civilians had better long arms than the military. It was our Kentucky long rifles that played hell with the British Officers. Our snipers were so good the British officers took to staying way behind the lines. But, the point is that at that time the people were better equipped than the military when it came to long arms. But, to day that is a far cry for true. True your average Joe didn’t have canon but, when it came to pistols and hand guns the military had noting over him. Are we, today, any less responsible than the Americans of 1776?

The gun prohibitionists cite the acts of the insane and clashes between criminal factions driven to their insane acts by greed as reason to take away our right to protect ourselves. I think many here have seen the flaw in that logic.

December 29th, 2008 1:57 pm GMT - Posted by Bruno

Joe Gaynor: “It’s my understanding that trading long guns between private citizens does not require paperwork, but paperwork is required for hand guns.”

Your understanding is wrong. This from a report this month by Mayors Against Illegal Guns:

(1) Background Checks for All
Handgun Sales at Gun Shows:
States that do not require background checks for all
handgun sales at gun shows have an average crime
gun export rate that is about twice the rate of states
that do require such background checks.
Under federal law, both federally licensed firearms dealers
(FFLs) and unlicensed private sellers are permitted to
sell firearms at gun shows. Licensed dealers are required
to run background checks to identify prohibited purchasers
and maintain sales records for all firearm transactions,
including at gun shows.15 However, persons
who maintain that they sell guns only occasionally – private,
unlicensed sellers – are currently exempt from
these federal background check and sales record retention
requirements at all locations, including gun shows.
This so-called “gun show loophole” allows individuals
who are prohibited from possessing or purchasing
firearms, such as convicted felons and persons with
mental illness, to sidestep the background check and
obtain guns from unlicensed sellers at gun shows.
A
2000 ATF report found gun shows to be involved
with the trafficking of approximately 26,000 firearms
over a two and a half year period. This figure represents
30% of all guns identified in federal criminal trafficking
cases over that period.16

Nine states and the District of Columbia require some
form of background check for all handgun sales at gun
shows.”

There is legislation pending to close the so-called gun show loophole. It’s called the Gun Show Background Check Act 2008. Here is a link:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd  ?bill=s110-2577

December 29th, 2008 11:23 am GMT - Posted by Leo

A moron with very little understanding of what is really going on except what he reads from other’s research and of course from behind his desk. Scary to think that people like Mr.Debusmann actually get paid for this.

December 29th, 2008 11:11 am GMT - Posted by Hoss

Jimbo, you said the govt. is the people. Yes, to an extent. The laws of the land are passed by our representatives, so it’s a republic, not a democracy. Even then, we-the-people may pass laws by proxy, but the execution of those laws is ever further from our control. Look at the current bailouts that are being implemented, which were opposed by a majority of Americans across all parties, races and economic status. You cannot believe that the govt. consistently acts on behalf of the people’s interests. And taking away our right to rise up against the govt. (via gun control) if they go too far makes it a govt. which is that much more a govt. NOT of the people.

December 29th, 2008 10:59 am GMT - Posted by sofa king stoopid

My favorite is asking anyone opposed to guns, if they would be willing to place a sign in their front yard, stating that very fact. In big bold letters tell the world you have no way of protecting yourself. So far, no takers.

Why do you think the cowardly “D.C. Sniper” drove all the way to D.C. and Maryland FROM California, and literally blasted people from the trunk of his car, killing I think it was 11-13 people total, that is correct, he knew there would be no guns to fire back at him since they were illegal then, hello.

December 29th, 2008 10:41 am GMT - Posted by joe gaynor

Mr Debusmann needs to be more careful with his research before spreading mis-information.
His comments “No background checks and no paperwork is necessary for weapons traded between private citizens on the “secondary” market — gun shows, over the Internet, through classified advertisements” is not exactly correct. It’s my understanding that trading long guns between private citizens does not require paperwork, but paperwork is required for hand guns. Also, I have never been to a gun show where firearms were for sale by un-licensed dealers, therefore paperwork & instant check was required for all firearm purchases. In addition, any transfer between states requires paperwork. In my opinion, The Violence Policy Center is nothing more than an organization hell bent on the repeal of the second amendment, and won’t let facts stand in the way of the message they preach.
In the future, I suggest Mr. Debusmann do some actual research, instead of simply regurgitating someone elses spin on a particular subject. That is, of course, if he ever expects to be taken as a serious journalist.

December 29th, 2008 9:37 am GMT - Posted by Tyler

This article misses the point, which is the U.S.’s failed war on drugs. Without a means to regulate the source of drugs, production and distribution is left up to those who are willing to kill for profit. We need to stop pretending that this war can be won, and remember the deep hypocricies within our own government. Let’s not forget the CIA plane that crashed a few years ago with millions of dollars worth of cocaine. We export our failed war on drugs and at the same time secretly import drugs into our own cities.

December 29th, 2008 7:05 am GMT - Posted by John

Hey Jimbo - check the law books and you’ll find that California has some of the toughest gun laws in the US. In other words, the criminal ignored the gun laws and the law abiding citizens were killed. If they had concealed carry laws in California, I bet those people killed that night might be alive. But their rights to defend themselves had been striped by the government. So you make the case for concealed carry by law abiding citizens even stronger by citing what a criminal can do when you don’t have the right to defend yourself.

December 29th, 2008 6:53 am GMT - Posted by John Stubler

As in any country that has disarmed it citizens, violence takes hold by criminals. An armed citizenry always lowers crime. The numbers prove it in the US when concealed carry laws are established in communities. Law abiding citizens should and have a right to personal protection. You can see what “gun laws” at the border of Mexico do right now. They are ignored by the criminals. Guns and ammunition are illegal in Mexico yet the criminals bring them in by the truck loads. In the US, you’ll notice most massacres occur where guns are prohibited by law abiding citizens. Schools and public buildings are places where citizens don’t have the right to personal protection by concealed carry. Otherwise these crimes would be halted before they happen by law abiding citizens armed to defend themselves.

December 28th, 2008 11:53 pm GMT - Posted by Wil - Indy

In point of fact, any muzzle loading or modern rifle made since the 18th century can penetrate a police type soft kevlar bullet proof vest.

We should seal our borders and decriminalize drug use for adults in USA. Thus eliminate the profit motive that is the energizing motivation of the drug cartels and funding of FARC.

8000 dead by murdering criminals. Kind of puts a perspective on the Iraq War doesn’t it?

December 28th, 2008 11:41 pm GMT - Posted by Wil - Indy

Guns Guns Guns. Incredible bad luck that almost all firearms excepting those owned by wealthy elites and wealthier criminal armies, are banned in Mexico. Perhaps some “good intentioned” imbecile should press for more stringent firearms bans in USA so that Mexico would be forced to acquire guns from - CHINA, RUSSIA, HUNGARY, CZECH REP, VENEZUELA, CUBA, SOUTH AFRICA, EGYPT, SOMALIA. It is unfair that Americans living along the Mexican border should have any means to defend themselves from the encroachments of Mexican Gangsters and Mexican American Gangsters. The 90 year single party rule of corrupt PRI Socialist Party kleptocracy and criminality certainly has nothing to do with the degenerate violent chaos in Mexico.

December 28th, 2008 9:04 pm GMT - Posted by Jason

I’ve re-read this article several times and I still can’t see what the problem is here. The United States is a consumer of drugs and the worlds largest producer of arms. Mexico is a producer of drugs, and so it only makes sense that they would be a consumer of arms.

The US (and Britain) has been trading Armaments for the things it needs for centuries, Oil, heroin, dope, and this is in line with it’s free trade ideology.

If we are talking about Mexico’s “problems”, this is nothing more than a trade war between Mexico’s biggest producers. Trade wars are violent, as the past 200 years of trade wars shows us. The genocide of the Native Americans in the US was basically a trade war. The American Civil War was basically a trade war. WW1 has been called a trade war by some historians. WW2 was a financial war.

Clausewitz said, “war is the continuation of politics by other means”, but I say that war is business competition by other means.

December 28th, 2008 3:41 pm GMT - Posted by jimbo

Hey Hoss, in the US people are the government. Heard Junk, I have the time to read them so go ahead and post them. But also include all the stories of crimes committed by previously law-abiding gun owners like the recent California Christmas eve massacre.

December 28th, 2008 2:49 pm GMT - Posted by rob

If Mexico was smart they would stop doing the US’s bidding and simply legalize all narcotics. That would solve the problem of the “drug war” and drug dealers. Mexico’s problem is not with drug abuse, it is with trying to interdict drugs on behalf of the US. All Central and South American countries should legalize and solve their own problems and then the US would have deal with its own issues.

December 28th, 2008 2:24 pm GMT - Posted by carlos

Apply the same reasoning to drug smuggling. Why the intervention in Colombia is better than the border control in US?

December 28th, 2008 10:57 am GMT - Posted by Nevlin

It is never the criminal that is at the core of these discussions. There is no “war” on anything — Iraq, drugs, STD’s, pirates, teen pregnancy, illegal border crossings, etc. There is only a media induced hyperbole of limp-wristed nose pinchings taking place, under the guise of war. War should be swift, resolute, deadly and it is indeed ugly. The skirmish in Iraq could have been over years ago, if the troops would have been allowed to conduct a war. There is no war. Today we have — Skirmish … why yes son, I was in World Skirmish III.
Welcome to Obama Land … welcome to the Obama Nation. BHO — the poster boy for all of you that skirmish. Now, would you all please stand aside, and let those who know how, take care of things.

December 28th, 2008 8:24 am GMT - Posted by Hoss

2 points:

Someone mentioned that existing gun laws in the U.S. are not prosecuted heavily enough; that too many deals are being cut by prosecutors. This, too, has its root cause in the failing U.S. war on drugs. Way too much time, prison space, and taxpayer dollars are spent on drug users, petty dealers and idiotic 3 strikes laws. VICTIMLESS CRIMES SHOULD NEVER BE PROSECUTED!!! We should be focusing our law enforcement efforts on violent offenders and not distracting ourselves with social engineering.

For the bleeding hearts: Yes, it’s terrible that people are killed with guns. But it’s your bleeding heart that won’t let you blame the person for the crime, so you blame an inanimate object. Americans must decide whether they want to be able to protect themselves against the government (the original intent of the 2nd ammendment) or entrust the government (this same government that brought us Iraq, a bankrupt Social Security, Fannie and Freddie, the Carter years, Vietnam, etc. ad nauseum) with our protection. This same govt. that we love to criticize is the one who would be confiscating our means of self defense.

December 28th, 2008 8:21 am GMT - Posted by Alex

I live in the USA, I have worked in Mexico City DF since 2000, I worked in Costa Rica, Brazil, Argintina and a few other sparce places, my point is all of these Countries - states all have the same anti-or no legal gun laws what so ever. In Brazil for example, I worked the Amazon Region from Manus east to Belem and I spoke to many poeple whom live off the land, fish, hunt, etc. To obtain a shotgun is nearly impossible.
But if you just travel to the south machine guns rule the getto and the drug lords take on the Army and Police all the time. So, did the light bulb come on with regards to Mexico yet? Because Brazil is not attached by land to any country that has favorable gun laws, Agentina to the south is completely Left wing, all the western and nothern latin countries are no guns, and pretty much left wingers. Whats the bottom line, the governments are all corrupt, not that ours here in the good ole USA isnt, we just think its not.

The majority of the US population is not very well traveled, and has no outside world understanding, most cant read a map let alone point out countries on a blank world map or globe. So, all I can say is this, be ready because the difficulties that lay ahead for most will not be solved by Bush, Clintons, or Obama printing money and giving it to Bankrupt corporations.

Its going to be a very long drawn out process, and anyone that reads this should consider entering technical college to become well skilled, retrained, and able to do what ever comes along. Just think, all the lawyers of the USA, who and what will they attack, how will they make money?

It will be a time to try to forget, but its just to large to run away from! Go out buy what you need, a gun, ammo, reloader etc, it might be what you need one day and cannot obtain.

Lexx,

December 28th, 2008 7:04 am GMT - Posted by Carlos

The answer is to decriminalize drugs and then guess what?? Drug wars will end.