from InSight - Organized Crime in the Americas
InSight Crime Analysis
The case is an example of a method commonly used by Mexican drug gangs to get weapons, commissioning “straw buyers,” who usually have clean criminal records, to circumvent laws that prevent foreigners from buying guns in the US. Once legally purchased, the guns are smuggled into Mexico. Indeed, last year a high-ranking member of the Zetas told the authorities that all of the group's guns were bought in the United States and smuggled into Mexico across the Rio Grande.Contralinea magazine detailed the routes by which guns are trafficked into Mexico, including the flow of arms from the U.S. directly to Guatemala, and then over Mexico's southern border in a piece from November 2011.
Despite some attempts by the Obama administration to stem the flow of weapons across the border, there is little political will for real reform to US gun control legislation. The furor over the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' (ATF) botched “Fast and Furious” operation, which critics say allowed guns to “walk” across the border in the hopes of building cases against more high-ranking criminals in Mexico, has made gun control reform an even more heated issue.
For two decades, [Mexico's] southern
border has been a port of entry for the weapons that feed the country's
black market. There are 956 miles of border between Mexico and
Guatemala, where it is enough to arrive to cities like Ciudad Hidalgo,
Ciudad Cuauhtemoc, or in border towns like Corozal, Talisman or Carmen
Xhan, cross the checkpoints and walk around Tecun Uman, La Mesilla,
Peten, El Carmen and Gracias a Dios to be offered weapons. Salesmen in
shacks, adobe huts, or in the middle of the street offer the old M-16s
and Galils that the Central American civil wars left behind; or more
modern weapons, like the M72 and AT4 (anti-tank rockets), RPG-7
rocket-launchers, or 37-millimeter MGL grenade-launchers, with tracers
and armor-piercing capacity, sold by catalogue, and a one-week wait
before delivery.
The weapons arrive mostly from the
United States, through air or maritime routes to Guatemala for
distribution in Mexico, Central America, or South America. The
advantage that this market offers is that purchases can be made without
any middlemen, and that crossing is much easier than on the northern
border.
Weapons acquired in Guatemala to supply
the black market in Mexico are transported using the “hormiga” method,
among the belongings of those who cross the border between the two
countries -- identified as one of the most porous in the world. Or, if
they are large shipments, they are transported along the Suchiate
River, or in secret compartments in vehicles that cross the border, or
in collusion with immigration and customs officials.
So, what is it? Are US guns feeding the Mexican Drug cartels,. or is it rubbish?
It sounds more like lax US firearms laws are feeding the drug cartels to me and the NRA is pointing out its policies of fighting any reasonable regulation is the cause.
"M-16s and Galils that the Central American civil wars left behind; or more modern weapons, like the M72 and AT4 (anti-tank rockets), RPG-7 rocket-launchers, or 37-millimeter MGL grenade-launchers"
ReplyDeleteAre any of these legal items to purchase from a standard firearms dealer in America? These sound like government supplied weapons to me.
And if Obama was serious about stopping the flow of weapons into Mexico from our border then all he needs to do is patrol the border. It doesn't matter if you are smuggling guns into Mexico or drugs into the US - crossing the border illegally should get you arrested. No need to follow gun sales records, watch guns dissappear because you can't prosecute the sales, or whatever. Close the border and the guns going to Mexico that route would be stopped as well.
And if Obama was serious about stopping the flow of weapons into Mexico from our border then all he needs to do is patrol the border.
DeleteGee do you also advocate putting alligators in the Rio Grande, or electrifying the entire border? This is another example of stupid, simplistic, unrealistic proposals that don't work, and can't be implemented. We do not now, and could nto reasonably inspect all shipping containers, and your plan also doesn't address those tunnels under the border, another of one which was just identified yesterday.
You belong to those anti-taxers, and that would cost more than is reasonably possible, even with massive tax increases for little benefit.
Legalizing marijuana and less legal guns would do the same thing more effectively without breaking the bank. That you consistently propose preposterous solutions, while igoring the obvious solution - gun regulation and enforcement - is far more effective and not just against smuggling, but many other crimes of violence.
You just can't admit your precious guns are the problem, not the whole problem, but a core factor of the larger problem. Your gun culture is an unmitigated disaster.
So what kind of castles in the air does your firm build? Pink ones? Do they have little cannons on the parapets shooting plastic cannon balls against fantasy villains in Mexican sombreros weaaring guns in the waistbands of their chinos?
Jim, your firm does military contracts? Is your prime client the Fifty Cent Army?
DeleteYou were talking about the debating tactic of changing the subject--and you just used it.
Comment is made that firearms laws need to be enforceable and enforced, you change it to the preposterous proposition of patrolling the border.
I quote from Wikipedia:
The border's total length is 3,169 km (1,969 mi), according to figures given by the International Boundary and Water Commission.[1] It is the most frequently crossed international border in the world,[2][3][4] with approximately three hundred fifty million (350,000,000) crossings per year.[5][3]
The Wikipedia article discusses the politics of the US-Mexican border.
Quite frankly, los Estados Unidos no tiene los cojones para hacerlo.
If you dealt in reality, rather than trying to build castles in the air, you would realise that the NRA's mantra of enforce gun laws is the most cost effective method to do that.
Problem is that means they would have to agree to the laws which were deemed not to violate the Second Amendment per Heller-McDonald, they would have to allow for the agency tasked with enforcing those laws to do its job rather than demonise them.
As for
"M-16s and Galils that the Central American civil wars left behind; or more modern weapons, like the M72 and AT4 (anti-tank rockets), RPG-7 rocket-launchers, or 37-millimeter MGL grenade-launchers"
The drug cartels could blast their way through any US border crossing if the M72, AT4, RPGs, Grenade lauchers, etcetera made up the bulk of their arsenal.
And if you thought 9-11 was scary, I'd hate for you to have to live in that world.
You might want to work on your pathetically sparse education by learning about the Mexican–American War, which seems to be a neglected part of US history. Probably because it was described by a certain Lieutenant Grant as:
Generally, the officers of the army were indifferent whether the annexation was consummated or not; but not so all of them. For myself, I was bitterly opposed to the measure, and to this day regard the war, which resulted, as one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.
As I said, if the drug cartels get too well armed, 9-11 was just a taste of what the US will have to deal with.
"The drug cartels could blast their way through any US border crossing if the M72, AT4, RPGs, Grenade lauchers, etcetera made up the bulk of their arsenal." I was not the one that said those arms were available in Mexico as catalog orders. That was Contralinea magazine as quoted by you. I was merely questioning which gun control laws would need to be updated to prevent the straw purchase and exportation of such weapons. I did not think any of those were legally purchasable through your standard firearms dealer down by the border or anywhere else in America.
DeleteDG - as a non gun owner I do not have any "precious" guns so I am not sure why you directed such a comment to me.
As far as the taxes required to secure our borders I would gladly pay more if needed for such a program - it is an actual duty of the federal government to protect our country from invasion. I would ask that all of the non mandated programs be stopped first and see if we have the money already coming in to handle the border protection, but if more was needed I would be ok with that.
Jim, do you realise what a reality challenged proposition "patrolling the border" happens to be?
DeleteOr do you need me to translate it into idiot for you?
I know this is an impossible request for you, Jim, but try to use what little intellect you have to learn about this topic before once again showing us what a fuckwit you are.
We don't want to do your thinking for you--we would prefer that you try to use your brain.
But one hint--it's been tried before.
As far as the taxes required to secure our borders I would gladly pay more if needed for such a program
DeleteAh, good; so you're willing to put yourself in an 80% tax bracket then, just to police the borders? And it makes sense to you, does it, to quadruple our military to do that -- and of course that would mean no more military for any use anywhere else OTHER than patroling the border, right? And pulling out money from all kinds of other programs - say no more disaster relief ever, no federal assistance for schools, and so on?
Just because you are willing doesn't make it cost effective or a good idea, or a viable idea. It is stupid, and your response only underlines how little you grasp that fact. Do, as Laci pointed out, your homework; your ignorance is not only showing, it is waving madly on a flashing neon parade float.
In contrast to that, changing our drug laws to something more rational, and dramatically altering the number of firearms and the sales of firearms would go a much longer way to ending our problem. It would be more successful, and more cost effective, and just plain make more sense while making us more free and more safe.
You are clearly one of those people who gets an idea in his head, who cannot rationally evaluate it, but rather hangs on to it with a death grip based on emotions. You are apparently incapable of realisticall and analytically examining your permise.
- it is an actual duty of the federal government to protect our country from invasion. Except we are not invaded; if we were, the people crossing our borders wouldn't cross back after a brief visit.
I would ask that all of the non mandated programs be stopped first and see if we have the money already coming in to handle the border protection, but if more was needed I would be ok with that.
1. You clearly haven't a clue what a mandated program is and what programs are or are not 'mandated'. 2. You once again demonstrate a disproportionate focus, and an inability to recognize or understand competing demands, or cost/benefit analyses.
Your thinking is not ony simplistic, it is superficial, badly informed, and lacks integration with both concepts and facts. Your total lack of a knowledge of history is particularly appalling.
You demonstrate the level of thought one would expect from a rather easy computer game. You need to learn how to think, to observe, to understand the difference in deductive and inductive reasoning, and when each applies.
Worst of all, you are so dim, you are not even able to appreciate how little you apply rational thought or critical thinking, or how much you don't know. That is not just ignorance, it is profound willful ignorance.
OK, the Guatemalan Civil War ended in 1996
ReplyDeleteOne of the things UN peacekeepers in these conflicts (MINUGUA, ONUCA,and ONUSAL) did was disarm the combatants, which means taking an acetylene torch and cutting the weapons as well as verifying that this has been done.
But, drug cartels have loads of disposable cash and it isn't too hard to find someone who will sell them the weapons which is why the UN small arms treaty also needs to be ratified, which is yet another thing the NRA is fighting.
"So, what is it? Are US guns feeding the Mexican Drug cartels,. or is it rubbish?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds more like lax US firearms laws are feeding the drug cartels to me and the NRA is pointing out its policies of fighting any reasonable regulation is the cause."
"M-16s and Galils that the Central American civil wars left behind; or more modern weapons, like the M72 and AT4 (anti-tank rockets), RPG-7 rocket-launchers, or 37-millimeter MGL grenade-launchers"
Yup. The NRA is to blame again. (Oh wait? Is this the week that the NRA's power is a myth or was that last week, I can't keep up). Anyway. If the NRA would just stop pushing for no background checks at WalMart for grenade launchers and RPG's, the cartels would be forced to through turds at each other.