(Tomas Bravo/Reuters)ABC reports on the percentage of guns used in the Mexican Drug Wars which are estimated to have come from the U.S.
A shocking new report obtained by ABC News says that as many as three out of four guns used in crimes in Mexico can be traced to gun stores just across the border in the U.S. The numbers bolster complaints by Mexican officials that the country's unprecedented bloodshed – 28,000 people have died in drug-cartel violence since 2006 – is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons.I don't know what's new or shocking about that, in fact they used to say 90%, so I guess if they wanted to they could spin this as progress.
Getting away from the percentage for a moment, what do you think about the idea that the bloodshed in Mexico "is being fueled both by the U.S. appetite for drugs, and by American weapons?" Isn't that a fair way to say it?
Please leave a comment.
> A shocking new report
ReplyDeleteI'm shocked that ABC completely missed ten minutes of fact-checking that shows this MAIG report is bull.
From a footnote of the very report discussed in the news piece:
> In addition, it is important to note that although trace data is the best available information for evaluating gun trafficking patterns, there are limitations to this data. Specifically, traced firearms do not represent all crime guns, as not all guns used in crimes are recovered, and not every recovered crime gun is traced. In addition, not all efforts to trace guns are successful. ATF cannot trace guns that were neither manufactured in nor imported through the U.S., but that affects only a small share of guns submitted from Mexico.21
That "21" indicates a footnoted citation for the footnote. An lengthy report by the GAO. You actually read it and you get this gem calling for clarification from the DHS:
> DHS officials believe that the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e. out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those -- 3,480 -- originated in the United States.) Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.
So you have 3,480 out of 30,000. Looks like a famous 10%.
ABC News has never been caught lying about guns or anything.
ReplyDeleteVD shares an all too common affliction of gunloons: statistical ignorance.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate: VD claims that since all the crime guns aren't traced--the information is bogus.
The footnote VD proudly holds aloft is a pretty standard disclaimer in most every statistical analysis as such studies do not wish to give the impression every item was investigated or researched.
To the comment that DHS believes the figure is misleading--that is the *opinion* of a Govt aagency that was singled out for criticism. The GAO responded to DHS thusly: "We disagree that our use of the 87 percent statistic is misleading. Our report clearly states that the number of firearms traced by ATF represents a percentage of the overall firearms seized in Mexico. More importantly, ATF trace data for each year since 2004 identified that most of the firearms seized in Mexico and traced came from the United States. Our recommendation to the U.S. Attorney General and the Secretary of State to expedite further enhancement of eTrace and work with the Government of Mexico to expand its use is designed to shed further light on the origin of guns seized in Mexico."
I say we should make a deal with Mexico. When they can keep their citizens from illegally immigrating into the US, we will keep our guns from illegally being exported into their country.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, Az Red shows us his weird grasp of capitalism.
ReplyDeleteAs demonstrated by the recent news that illegal immigration has been at record lows--this shows that if the jobs are unavailable, they won't come. This means--as I've sagely noted for years--that if we crack down on businesses who often recruit illegal immigrants, the problem will go away.
OTOH, the US firearm industry is deliberately fueling a civil war in Mexico.
The war is fueled by the hunger for coke and pot in the US and the available of guns to export illegally.
ReplyDeleteI say we crack down on the gun owners who are users of those substances. They're doubly responsible.
Mikeb (jokes?):
ReplyDeleteI say we crack down on the gun owners who are users of those substances.
Er--it's already illegal to use those substances, and it's especially illegal to own a gun while being a user of those substances.
Are you saying we don't have enough drug law enforcement in this country? The government doesn't do enough along the lines of telling us what substances we can put into our own bodies?
Also, I take it, then, that you reject the idea that drug laws are the reason there are drug wars? If there were no laws against putting naughty substances in one's body, or against providing those substances to those who like them, there would be no black market, and no incentive for violence. Don't buy that, Mikeb?
You're an odd one.
Even if 100% of Mexico’s guns came from the US- it is simply another example of a failed gun ban.
ReplyDeleteEven if 100% of Mexico’s guns came from the US- it is simply another example of a failed gun ban.
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense. Essentially, TS is claiming that because the law was broken--we may as well forget about the law.
So, by TS' logic, since we still have rapes and murders--we should just toss the laws against rape and murder.
If the anti-freedom loons apply the same logic then they would ban consensual sex to stop rape.
ReplyDeleteJade, nothing in your reply to Van Dyke answered this:
ReplyDelete"...the 87 percent statistic is misleading as the reference should include the number of weapons that could not be traced (i.e. out of approximately 30,000 weapons seized in Mexico, approximately 4,000 could be traced and 87 percent of those -- 3,480 -- originated in the United States.)"
Yes, the GAO stood up and claimed:
"We disagree that our use of the 87 percent statistic is misleading. Our report clearly states that the number of firearms traced by ATF represents a percentage of the overall firearms seized in Mexico."
That's true, it does represent a percentage, but not the correct percentage, and not a percentage of all firearms seized, especially if 30,000 were seized and only about 4000 were (or could be) traced.
If they extrapolated their numbers, figuring that we could perform traces on these guns (about 4000), but not these (the remaining 26,000 or so) then their reasoning was as faulty as their work. If the guns cannot be traced, it is illogical to assume that they would have the same rate of origin as the traceable guns. Especially when we're talking about such a significant portion of the overall number.
According to the DHS, 86 percent of the guns couldn't be traced, or weren't.
Secondly, what number of those traced guns were reported stolen, not sold or otherwise "legally" transacted to Mexico?
Jade: “This makes no sense. Essentially, TS is claiming that because the law was broken--we may as well forget about the law.”
ReplyDeleteNo jade, we’ve been over this dozens of times. Mexico is a perfect example of criminals still getting their guns- which is something the gun rights side has claimed all along. So yes, we can forget about those GUN laws. If the US had Mexico’s gun laws, where do you think our criminals would get their guns from? I know you don’t think the US is the only country with a plethora of guns.
Rape and murder should be illegal because these are the things we are trying to prevent by punishing those who do it. Gun control tries the indirect path of preventing rape and murder by controlling guns- so therefore it should be evaluated in it’s ability to prevent the end result. Unless of course the desire is to prevent honest citizens from owning guns- which these laws have proven very affective at.
Mikey W: A sample size of 4000 (out of 30K) is more than adequate to render the 87% figure perfectly valid.
ReplyDeleteThis is Probability and Statistics 101.
Jade missed the day in "Introduction to Statistics" where they discussed the importance of a random sample.
ReplyDeleteStill not Mike W, but I do appreciate the compliment.
ReplyDelete4,000 out of 30,000 is a sizable number to do sampling, true. But we're not looking at sampling, or polls, dumbass. This kind of statistic taking is why polls have a margin of error of (whatever) %. Because they realize that by taking only a small sample, and applying it across a likely known number can be and often is incorrect.
4,000 was the total number that was capable of being traced, out of 30,000 captured guns. 86%, therefore could not be traced. It is folly to use the 4000 traceable arms and claim that "sampling" percentage must therefore carry over to the remainder.
It's sloppy math and a perfect example of the "lies, damned lies, and statistics" quote.
Actually, Mikey W., there is a margin of error. It's +/- 5%.
ReplyDeleteThis means the number could be as low as 82% or as high as 82%.
Nice math there, Jade. Makes as much sense as anything else you have to say.
ReplyDeleteZorro asked, "Also, I take it, then, that you reject the idea that drug laws are the reason there are drug wars?"
ReplyDeleteNo, actually I go for that idea. I've even posted a few times about legalizing drugs and all that.
But whether you say the problem is the hunger for drugs or the laws prohibiting them, doesn't it boil down to the same thing?
I thought you were a pragmatic and practical kinda guy. With all the trouble the U.S. is having legalizing pot, do you think it's on the horizon that we put the cartels out of the cocaine business? No, of course you don't.
So, we're back to what I said, it's the hunger for drugs, and don't overlook the other part, the availability of guns for illegal export.
I thought you were a pragmatic and practical kinda guy. With all the trouble the U.S. is having legalizing pot, do you think it's on the horizon that we put the cartels out of the cocaine business? No, of course you don't.
ReplyDelete"Pragmatic"? Me? Apparently you're unaware of which side of the "Threeper/Prag" schism I'm firmly on.
But moving on, I take it you're saying that since drug legalization (particularly hard drug legalization) is politically unrealistic, we're just going to have to stick with our failed policy of prohibition.
Furthermore, since a direct result of that prohibition is a great deal of criminal violence, you're "solution" to that violence is to double down on the prohibition policy, and extend it to firearms--brilliant, and it's working swimmingly in Mexico, isn't it?
Gonna tell me that you're not advocating a gun ban, so it's not really "prohibition"? Tell me that if you want, but I'll call bullshit, because you have said repeatedly that you want to dramatically increase the number of people who cannot legally own guns. For those people, you are advocating a gun ban.
Yeah, you could call it a "gun ban." By doing so you're guilty of a slight twisting of what I say. "Ban" as a word, brings up all those crazy images of forced disarmament and the total prohibition of guns. That's not what I'm into.
ReplyDeleteMikeb:
ReplyDelete"Ban" as a word, brings up all those crazy images of forced disarmament and the total prohibition of guns. That's not what I'm into.
So the disarmament you're proposing isn't forced? All the people you claim shouldn't have guns (who can legally have them now)--your plan to disarm them will be voluntary? A request, a suggestion? Not really a law after all? In that case, I have no real objection--make all the goofy suggestions and requests you like. It's when you talk about laws (enforced, ironically, by people with guns) that force disarmament, that your agenda crosses the line into evil, and must be stopped, by whatever means necessary.
And by the way, what's the difference between a "total ban," and a . . . partial ban. If banning one kind of gun doesn't make you a gun banner, then I suppose murdering one person doesn't make one a murderer.
Wouldn't it be like the difference between "murderer" and "mass murderer."
ReplyDeleteUh-oh, did I just fall into a trap?