Drug gangs seek out guns in the United States because the gun-control laws are far tougher in Mexico. Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.
You know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of what I keep hearing from the gun guys. The gun laws used to be really strict in Washington D.C., yet the gun violence was out of control. They never mention that right across the river in Virginia there are extremely lax laws. The other one is Chicago. Same story, tough gun laws, bad crime, but what they don't readily admit is it's a short drive to Indiana, which like Virginia, is a gun-friendly state.
It seems to me on an international scale, we have the same situation with Mexico and the U.S.
What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses — makes policing them a tall order. Currently the A.T.F. has about 200 agents assigned to the task.
Here's the other thing. Pro gun apologists like to portray themselves as responsible and law-abiding citizens, which I'm sure is truly the case on the whole. But it took months of blood, sweat and tears on this blog to get a reluctant agreement on the fact that gun folks are just like any other folks, some of them have the kinds of problems that don't mix well with guns.
It seems like it might be a tad worse when discussing gun dealers. Over 6,000 have set up shop along the Mexican border, as Iknadosian did, to do what? Have they flocked there in such numbers to provide a legitimate service to the locals? Obviously not. In this situation opportunistic greed has done its part to worsen an already dreadful situation. That is, unless you feel like FatWhiteMan who said, "Who really cares what happens in Mexico anyway? That's their problem."
What's your opinion? Do you care what happens in Mexico? Do you think there's something wrong with American gun dealers profiting from the Mexican drug wars? Do you think the kind of licensed gun dealer who would have no scruples about supplying guns to gangsters across the border would be the type to conduct clean and respectable business in all other areas?
Please leave a comment.
Oddly enough Mike you omit in your post that Mr. Indonesian actions (if the allegations are true) are illegal, have been illegal, and always will be illegal.
ReplyDeleteHe stands to loose his buisness, and all his stock (likely worth a small fortune) and a lot of his time to prison...maybe his life to the death penalty. If this is true, I'd support ALL of the above. Most gun dealers are above the boards (and the amount of paperwork and reporting required suggest a certain degree of negligence on behalf of the BATFE.
Still the elephant in the room I think is the big supplier of Mexican cartel arms:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/06/24/MNG23QIJH11.DTL&feed=rss.news
"In the eight years since the Zetas were organized, more than 120,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted, according to the government's records. Yet the country's military officials have made little effort to track their whereabouts, security experts said, creating a potential pool of military-trained killers for the drug-trafficking gangs wreaking havoc in the country."
As for "Do I care about Mexico". I care about the United states first. I want our gun dealers operating above the boards (weather selling to foreign prohibited persons, or to domestic, it is of little concern)I want Mexico to keep their criminals out of our nation.
As for:
"Do you think there's something wrong with American gun dealers profiting from the Mexican drug wars?" Yes, thankfully such behavior is illegal, and the risk of being caught is VERY high, and the cost of a conviction will ruin most people.
The other questions follow suit. Gun dealers are no different than any other highly regulated business. I went out for Sushi yesterday. I was without fear that my fish would be safe because I know that an illness traced to bad fish would shut down their business and likely bankrupt the owners. This goes MORE for FFLs because most sushi restaurants don't have $100,000+ in fish sitting in their cold room....nor do many spend tremendous amounts of money on security systems.
Finally, since I've answered your questions, why not answer mine:
Why guns, Mike?
And why not, here's a little push-back to the inflammatory language in this post:
ReplyDelete"I've always said that all pro-gun people bear some of that responsibility." And Anti-Gunners bear the brunt of responsibility for violence in gun-free zones, in states with strict gun restrictions, and ignorance about the basics of firearms and firearm laws.
"It reminds me of what I keep hearing from the gun guys. The gun laws used to be really strict in Washington D.C., yet the gun violence was out of control. They never mention that right across the river in Virginia there are extremely lax laws."
Nope we do. Virginia has very low crime. Go figure. Same deal with Indiana. Wonder why? You know why, and you choose to spread ignorance. Sweet!
"It seems to me on an international scale, we have the same situation with Mexico and the U.S." Isn't true, won't be true. Nobody wants to talk about army deserters and police corruption. I wonder why? Again you're the forces of Ignorance, Mike, and people are dying. Go you!
"Here's the other thing. Pro gun apologists like to portray themselves as responsible and law-abiding citizens"
No need to apologies, and no need to portray. We tell the truth, you intentionally lie. I think you need to peek in the mirror, Mike.
"But it took months of blood, sweat and tears on this blog to get a reluctant agreement on the fact that gun folks are just like any other folks, some of them have the kinds of problems that don't mix well with guns."
Nope, not true. We've been pretty open about it. You're the one who's looked away at the facts because they don't support your backward flat-Earth argument. Also most of those "problems that don't mix with guns" have made them illigal to own or buy guns for the better part of 70 years. But you don't want to talk facts or truth.
"Have they flocked there in such numbers to provide a legitimate service to the locals?" Most likely, there's lots of cities on the boarder. A big gun culture in Texas, also with the drug cartels and mexican gangs like MS13, lots of reasons to own defensive arms.
Supply, Demand, and the law. Those all add up to lots of gun shops, and likely they are NOT contributing to the Mexican cartels.
So Mr. Flat-Earth. Why Guns? What is it that motivates you about them? What is it about them that makes you feel fine with spreading ignorance and misinformation?
Okay Mike,
ReplyDeleteLet's take this one bite at a time
I'll bet, during the trial he says he's not responsible for the violence. What do you think about that?
He is not responsible for the violence, he is responsible for illegally selling the tools used in that violence.
Does the gun dealer bear some responsibility for what people do with his product?
If you are a car dealer and sell a char, are you responsible for the deaths that result from a drunk driver? NO.
If you know the person isn't allowed to own a vehicle from drunk driving convictions and sell it anyways, are you responsible for the deaths if he drives drunk? No, but you are responsible for breaking the law if the law says you can't sell the car to him.
There is a difference.
Let's change it up. You sell cameras and an creepy ex-pat living in Italy comes in to buy a camera. You have a bad feeling but all his paperwork is in order (imagine having to do a background check to buy a camera). You later find out that creepy ex-pat living in Italy is using that camera to make child porn?
Are you responsible for the child porn?
I've always said that all pro-gun people bear some of that responsibility, but what about a guy like this who is a bit closer to the bloody action than, say your average Joe who goes to the shooting range on Saturdays?
You can say what you want, that is what makes the world great. Can you prove it legally. Can you show a moral or ethical standard that show WHY I have responsibility.
I own a camera and so do you, I assume. If you are creating child porn in Italy, how does that make me responsible for your crimes?
What is more, the sheer volume of licensed dealers — more than 6,600 along the border alone, many of them operating out of their houses —
First, catch up with the news and define your terms.
There are many different types of FFL licenses. Most of the ones "operating out of their kitchen" are simple "Curio and Relic" license holders, who are forbidden from making a living buying and selling firearms. The firearms they buy and occasionally sell are antiques...50 years or older.
Most of the "kitchen table" dealers were ran out of the business by the ATF years ago.
Mexican civilians must get approval from the military to buy guns and they cannot own large-caliber rifles or high-powered pistols, which are considered military weapons.
Mike, this is key...hope you are paying attention....who is affected by the Mexican gun control laws....the CRIMINALS or the average law abiding citizen?
If we are making laws that only affect the law abiding, don't you think that is pretty frakkin STUPID?
The Mexican gang and drug cartels aren't following the laws, neither are ours. Only our law abiding citizens are being disarmed, and still you support more disarmament.
But it took months of blood, sweat and tears on this blog to get a reluctant agreement on the fact that gun folks are just like any other folks, some of them have the kinds of problems that don't mix well with guns.
But you wont admit that the regular folks also have problems with drunk driving, child porn (how much is produced by ex pats living in Italy by the way?), knives or any other crime.
When looked at in comparison to other crimes, say drunk driving a rational person can see that not very many gun owners are involved in crime in comparison.
Which problem should we focus on Mike, one that caused by 1 in 139 or one that is caused by 0.2% of the population?
Have they flocked there in such numbers to provide a legitimate service to the locals? Obviously not.
There you go again, spouting off without evidence. If you are going to accuse people of doing things to break the law, shouldn't you back up your words?
You have no idea of how many firearms are bought for legitimate reasons and how many for criminal reasons...but you accuse all 6,000 plus dealers of being criminals.
Then you get pissy when we get tired of being smeared by you.
Nothing has changed. I still don't really care what happens in Mexico.
ReplyDeleteAnd as long as Mexico is exporting drugs and millions of criminals into the U.S., I really don't care if 1 or 2 U.S. gun dealers break Mexican laws and sell South of the border.
Do you think there's something wrong with American gun dealers profiting from the Mexican drug wars?
ReplyDeleteAs much as I think there is something wrong with Mexican drug cartels profiting from dealing drugs.
Something that is illegal in most countries.
So, once again it comes down to CRIMINALS not obeying the laws and innocent people suffering because the government "thinks" imposing another Assault Weapon Ban will make a difference.
Was there any effect on crime as a result of the first Assault Weapon ban?
It doesn't indicate a problem when someone doing illegal shit gets caught. Unless the media reports are more biased than usual, Iknadosian deserves to be in jail.
ReplyDeleteThe situation in Mexico indicates that restricting legitimate guns doesn't help--Corrupt people with guns have an easier time reaching their goals if there are fewer decent people with the ability to effectively defend against them. Absolute numbers matter less than ratio. Restricting guns invariably makes the ratio worse, because the people who benefit society by being armed are the ones to obey and are disarmed by rules.
If you restrict guns enough to make a dent in the numbers of criminal guns, you still haven't helped ratio, and you have created another problem--Government now has a monopoly on legitimate force. Corrupt local officials would sometimes round up the guns of black citizens "to prevent an incident" before KKK events.
Was the American Revolution immoral?
If circumstances get that bad again, shouldn't we have the ability to take similar action?
Shouldn't we be suspicious of a government that wants to remove that ability from us?
The story claims 6,600 dealers along the border, insinuating that most of them are to feed the illegal flow to Mexico. How big is the border area they talk about, and is the distribution of gun dealers here significantly different than in other similar areas? Based on past statistics, I'm guessing there are 6,600 federal firearms license holders in border states. Are they all actual dealers, or are most "curio and relic" license holders , whose license doesn't entitle them to run a business, or deal in modern firearms?
I would expect that the legitimate residents of Mexican border states would have a higher proportion of gun ownership than average--Not because they are near Mexico, but because those areas have an outdoorsman tradition.
Based on those numbers, each agent has an average of 33 dealers to check. Doesn't sound like an overload to me--They could spend an entire day harassing..er...inspecting every dealer, every 2 months. That should be plenty to find the few bad ones, and keep the good ones in line. Does a health inspector have only 33 restaurants to check? An OSHA safety inspector 33 factories?
So Mike. Do you believe the news reports that the drug lords are getting grenades and RPG's from US gun shows?
ReplyDeleteI applaud the guys who spend the time here to prove you wrong Mike. They do it in civilized manner. I don't have that kind of patience. Maybe it's growin on me but this is the first post that grew on me and I categorize it as a cheap shot. I figure I have about a month of patience left to check things out here.
ReplyDeleteGive me a list of the 6,000 licensed FFLs set up on the US-Mexico border to stoke the Mexican drug war and I'll publicly suck your dick 15 times over and you can film it for youtube. I'm sure I'll get some "chiding" from the gun clubs about, well, NEVER, which is when when you'll dig up an accurate list with 6,000 dealers on it as you described them in your post. Don't get your hopes up.
ReplyDeleteThomas
"Does the gun dealer bear some responsibility for what people do with his product?"
ReplyDeleteNo. Not at all. Which of course is exactly the case with other consumer products.
If, however, he is knowingly selling to persons prohibited then yes, he should be punished for breaking the law. That is a separate issue however.
"I've always said that all pro-gun people bear some of that responsibility."
Nope. Sorry Mike but I'll continue to call this out as BS. I bear NO responsibility whatsoever for an FFL dealer knowingly breaking the law and selling to illegals. (allegedly)
Do I bear responsibility for every bar that serves to underage folks simply because I also drink in bars sometimes?
Do I share responsibility for the actions of drunk drivers just because I own a car and drink responsibly?
Should Cutco or Benchmade be held responsible if some people use their products to commit crimes?
"many of them operating out of their houses"
ReplyDeleteMy FFL dealer runs his business out of his basement. Nothing wrong with that. He's fully legal.
A word about the responsibility factor. Isn't there a law in recent years that the bartender can be held liable if a patron leaves his establishments and crashes the car drunk? Is that similar to the gun dealer who sells to criminals?
ReplyDeleteThanks Sevesteen for pointing out that the supposed overwhelming workload is anything but that. That kinda makes the whole story suspect for me.
ReplyDeleteBob, your never ending comparisons are completely beside the point. Now Weer'd's getting into the act with the idea that as an anti-gun guy I'd be responsible for the shootings that happen in gun free zones.
Here's the thing. The admittedly tenuous connection between legal gun owners and gun violence exists only because it is you pro-gun guys who stand in the way of eliminating guns among the civilian population. Now I know you don't agree with that, you say it's not possible, I know, but it's my theory we're talking about, OK? So, here's how it works.
There is no one trying to ban cars or swimming pools. But there are people who want to ban guns and since you are preventing that from happening, I feel, you must bear some of the responsibility for the unhappy results.
"Now Weer'd's getting into the act with the idea that as an anti-gun guy I'd be responsible for the shootings that happen in gun free zones."
ReplyDeleteNo act. Blood on your hands, liar!
Mike
ReplyDeleteYou really can't be this stupid, I'm starting to agree with Weer'd.
Isn't there a law in recent years that the bartender can be held liable if a patron leaves his establishments and crashes the car drunk? Is that similar to the gun dealer who sells to criminals?
Yes, there are laws and the bartender can be found to be in volition of those laws if (s)he knowingly serves someone who is drunk.
However, what you want to do is hold everyone in the bar liable also. That is simply wrong. I have no liability for the actions of the bartender and especially no liability for the person who drives drunk.
Both of them have violated multiple laws at that point. Just like the FFL dealer and the purchaser who violates the law.
You claiming that I have responsibility because I stand in the way of eliminating firearms shows your true goal.
You don't want only the "right" people to have firearms, You don't want anyone to have them.
Tom, there is no sense in posting a comment like that. Now I have milk and Cheerios all over my keyboard and monitor.
ReplyDeleteThere is no one trying to ban cars or swimming pools. But there are people who want to ban guns and since you are preventing that from happening, I feel, you must bear some of the responsibility for the unhappy results.
ReplyDeletesee, that logic right there is what makes absolutely no freakin' sense at all. by what line of ethical reasoning should the efforts of one party to create a legal ban be what imposes a moral responsibility upon that first party's political opponents? how is this not barefacedly knuckling under to any random moral panic to come along next?
Bob said, "You claiming that I have responsibility because I stand in the way of eliminating firearms shows your true goal.
ReplyDeleteYou don't want only the "right" people to have firearms, You don't want anyone to have them."
All I'm trying to do with this is force you to admit that I may have a point. We're not legislators, Bob. We're just guys talking. I've made an effort to explain my rationale. Your jumping to the conclusion that I don't anyone to have guns just shows your paranoia, that you're unbending when it comes to personal responsibility.
"Isn't there a law in recent years that the bartender can be held liable if a patron leaves his establishments and crashes the car drunk? Is that similar to the gun dealer who sells to criminals?"
ReplyDeleteThere have been laws made about bartenders continuing to sell alcohol to individuals who are very drunk. They are vague and rarely enforced.
There are laws on the books about FFL dealers knowingly selling to criminals.
Yet you want the people following the law to be held accountable for those who don't. You should be held responsibility then for child pornography since you continue to use and support the means that it is distributed by.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteAll I'm trying to do with this is force you to admit that I may have a point.
I've considered it Mike, honestly. If my actions knowingly allowed criminals to easily access my firearms I would accept your point. But that isn't the case.
We're not legislators, Bob. We're just guys talking.
Thank goodness because if you were my legislator we would vote you out of office so fast your head would still be spinning months later.
I've made an effort to explain my rationale.
And you've refused to accept any counter arguments to your rationale.
As Thirdpower says, as I've said; are you responsible for child porn because you continue to use and support the means used in child porn?
(by the way, you should start getting some interesting search terms hits on your blog )
Your jumping to the conclusion that I don't anyone to have guns just shows your paranoia,
No Mike, I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm using your own words. You said that I'm responsible because I'm standing in the way of the elimination of guns from society. Did you say that, YES OR NO?
that you're unbending when it comes to personal responsibility
The question is Mike, why aren't you unbending on personal responsibility? I can't be responsible for your actions.
Why should you be responsible for my actions.
Going back to the bar issue. You are a patron at a bar...do you have to monitor how much everyone else is drinking to prevent an accident or just your own?
It really is that simple Mike, Personal Responsibility. Isn't that why the justice system doesn't jail a criminals parents, his/her spouse and relatives?
"All I'm trying to do with this is force you to admit that I may have a point."
ReplyDeleteI'll admit it, you have a VERY good point. Your point is you want more people to die from violent crime for the sake of your Ego. Better to be totally full of shit, and push the confiscation of property, misinformation, and have people die, than ever say the words "Wow, was I wrong on this issue."
You've become quite the scumbag, Mike. Oddly I don't think you were always like this.
Leaves me wondering why?
Weer'd - As I said in a previous post on the mental deficiencies of the anti's. (just replace "she" with "he")
ReplyDelete"She has to attempt to argue a factually indefensible position without tying herself in an emotional knot. Deep down she knows it's indefensible."
When his position is bigoted and both factually and logically indefensible what else can Mike do other than lie?