Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The article in question.

So, I sample many news outlets over the course of the night at work. One of them is MSNBC. I've seen this type of story on several outlets, but MSNBC is the worst offender by a long shot imo.

One of the articles I have seen a lot of lately is linking Mexico's drug violence to the flow of guns from the US (the role of drug use in the US to the violence in Mexico is a different matter, and offtopic). Often, these articles show a table of guns that the Mexican government captured from drug gangs they broke up, and all sorts of Mexican politicians talking about how loose US gun policy is fueling these drug wars.

These articles never, ever explain exactly how some of the items on the tables (M203 grenade launchers, full auto AK's, hand grenades) moved from the US market to the Mexican underworld. Because, of course, that would break their lying premise; because you can't buy that gak here legally either.

Obviously, it's not true that NO gun has ever crossed the border (Just ask Eric Holder!). I'm sure that for the sake of expedience, if you need a Barett to shoot down a police helicopter like, today, you might want to make a straw purchase in Arizona. But generally speaking, I think the whole thing is massively insulting:

President Felipe Calderon on Thursday unveiled a "No More Weapons!" billboard made with crushed firearms and placed near the U.S. border. He urged the United States to stop the flow of weapons into Mexico.

The billboard, which is in English and weighs 3 tons, was placed near an international bridge in Ciudad Juarez and can be seen from the United States.

'Mexico needs your help'
Calderon said the billboard's letters were made with weapons seized by local, state and federal authorities.

"Dear friends of the United States, Mexico needs your help to stop this terrible violence that we're suffering," Calderon said in English during the unveiling ceremony.

"The best way to do this is to stop the flow of automatic weapons into Mexico," he added.

Gunbattles, carjackings: US expands Mexico travel warning

Before unveiling the billboard, Calderon supervised the destruction of more than 7,500 automatic rifles and handguns at a military base in Ciudad Juarez.

There is no flow of large amounts of automatic weapon from the US legal market to Mexico. For non-US Dakkaroos, manufacture of machine guns for civilian use have been banned for almost 30 years. The only legal, civilian machine guns in the US are pre-ban ones, and those are of course very expensive (about USD $10,000 give or take) and exceedingly tightly regulated. There is, of course, no such act in Ecuador, or Bolivia, or Colombia....

The real story, of course, is that while US made guns are being sold to Mexican Cartels, it's the Mexican Army that's selling them.

Sorry for the long rant. Over the last year or so, I've seen variations of this story maybe a dozen times. It's irritating how dishonest this slant on the story is. But that's the MSM, I guess.

If any guns are being sold in the US to mexican cartels it's more along the lines of sidearms probably. Even then they could probably get them cheaper from other countries.

Ouze wrote: For non-US Dakkaroos...

Dunk-a-roos were awesome.



As to the"insulting" part, I don't know.

Based on probable cost I would assume most weapons come from SA, not NA.

I want to know WTF the last paragraph is even about. It's headline is Will Mexico Elect 1st Female President. Then doesn't say anything at all about who,why, or when. Just how one woman put another one in jail.

I thought it was tight drug policy fuelling the drug wars.

Eric Holder admits firearms PERMITTED ON HIS WATCH will kill people for years to come:
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/17/mission-implausible

During a tense confrontation with Congress back in December, Attorney General Eric Holder made a startling admission. Holder testified that weapons tied to a failed gun-tracking initiative will be used in crimes both in the United States and Mexico "for years to come"—with often deadly results.

I think Mexico just wants to blame us because we buy their drugs. We could always make a giant bale of pot and leave it next to a bridge and have a sign that says, "We need your help to stop drug trafficing. Stop selling us this."

We could always start making our own pot.

We need drug independence! NO MORE BLOOD FOR MARY JANE!

That picture with all the USD made me laugh. Mexico needs a marine corps? For what? To protect the people? No, I doubt it. Probably to make their hodge-podge military look better in the eyes of foreigners.

And why the heck do they get to use MARPAT, but the navy's EOD and Seabees units have to have a separate pattern, even though MARPAT has been proven to essentially save lives? But Mexico gets it? Ugh.

I've heard various things from various people that would indicate that mexico's drugs are gakky anyway. No one wants mexican pot, because it's just about the crappiest gak on the market, and there's better stuff made right here in america.

Automatic Weapons? If we wanted to make some cash selling what few we have to spare, there are plenty of NATO countries that would use them to protect our interests, rather than mexico.

Yes, it's American guns and not the rampant corruption in Mexico's government that are causing these problems.

Monster Rain wrote:Yes, it's American guns and not the rampant corruption in Mexico's government that are causing these problems.

Don't forget American machine guns, grenade launchers, and rocket launchers with Russian sneakily language instruction carefully inscribed to hide that they're American.

Melissia wrote:We could always start making our own pot.

We need drug independence! NO MORE BLOOD FOR MARY JANE!

+1

Melissia wrote:We could always start making our own pot.

We need drug independence! NO MORE BLOOD FOR MARY JANE!

Grow, baby grow!

Melissia wrote:We could always start making our own pot.

We need drug independence! NO MORE BLOOD FOR MARY JANE!

I'm not sure if you're joking, but I remember reading awhile back that something around the 80% mark of marijuana used in the U.S. is grown locally, mostly in heavily rural states like Kentucky.

http://www.drugscience.org/Archive/bcr2/MJCropReport_2006.pdf

In 2006, pot was the most profitable cash crop grown in the U.S.; I doubt too much has changed.


Cocaine, on the other hand...


Edit: In regards to the O.P., please keep in mind that numerous weapons legally sold in the United States are semiautomatic rifles that are fairly easily converted to fully automatic. I'm not looking to ban gun sales or anything (I own two myself), but the simple fact of the matter is that numerous guns purchased legally in the U.S. end up in Cartel hands. Saying that they're not automatic when sold so it's somehow not our fault, is a little misleading.

streamdragon wrote:

Edit: In regards to the O.P., please keep in mind that numerous weapons legally sold in the United States are semiautomatic rifles that are fairly easily converted to fully automatic. I'm not looking to ban gun sales or anything (I own two myself), but the simple fact of the matter is that numerous guns purchased legally in the U.S. end up in Cartel hands. Saying that they're not automatic when sold so it's somehow not our fault, is a little misleading.

Other than the guns sold by the Justice Department to the cartels, you have any actual proof to back that up?

Here's one example I guess?

I remember it was a fairly big news story for awhile.

If you mean proof that semiautomatic weapons are easily converted to fully automatic weapons, that information is easily available online.

streamdragon wrote:Here's one example I guess?

Fair point.

Assuming the Op posted the right link I don't see MSNBC itself saying anything in that piece. It isn't an editorial/column.

What I do see is a story detailing what officials in Mexico are saying about an issue, and then what some officials in the US are saying about another issue (border security).

So how exactly is MSNBC lying? The article never attempts to support or confirm any of the accusations.

The point of this article is to highlight the tension between the US and Mexico surrounding border issues. What they are arguing about is secondary...

Frazzled wrote:Fair point.

Spoiler:

Hah! Bet you didn't expect that did ya!

Can't lie, I laughed.

My understanding is the ATF has forced (domestic) manufacturers toalter receivers when the conversion is what they consider to be too easy to convert, no? Granted, they can't pressure all those Bulgarian AK manufacturers... but at the end of the say, it doesn't make sense to buy super expensive US AK's, convert them to full auto one at a time, and smuggle them over the border when you can just buy out of the box full autos from Central America.

CT GAMER wrote:Assuming the Op posted the right link I don't see MSNBC itself saying anything in that piece. It isn't an editorial/column.

What I do see is a story detailing what officials in Mexico are saying about an issue, and then what some officials in the US are saying about another issue (border security).

So how exactly is MSNBC lying? The article never attempts to support or confirm any of the accusations.

The point of this article is to highlight the tension between the US and Mexico surrounding border issues. What they are arguing about is secondary...

My friend only reads Drudge. He said he did so because it was "unbiased". I mentioned while no media is actually unbiased, Drudge's conservative slant is actually pretty clear. His retort was that he just posts the stories, he doesn't write them. That's both true, and irrelevant, since he picks them. (he also rewrites the headlines sometimes, which changes his role a bit when he slants a story in the direction he prefers). He exerts editorial control by the stories he selects. That is the way he exerts bias - he picks stories he considers to be "newsworthy", such as a bad thing Obama does, and doesn't post or buries stories he considers "not-newsworthy", such as a bad thing a conservative did.

So, back to the article - "So how exactly is MSNBC lying? The article never attempts to support or confirm any of the accusations. " In my opinion, it is the job of the media to do exactly the latter when they post it. They shouldn't blindly post press releases from people. That's not journalism. Especially when those assertions are baldly false on their face. If they run them unchallenged, they own them in my book.

The fact is, their editorial staff selected a deceptive story with clear untruths in in to run, they posted this particular slant on a story repeatedly despite it being clearly unlikely to be true because it serves their political bias, they decided not to challenge any of those assertions (either by laziness or malice, you pick), and posted it under their name. It's not an AP story, it's an MSNBC sourced story. I think it's a fundamentally dishonest cop-out to say that they're just reporting what the Mexican government said.

The media has a responsibility to ensure the stories they publish are accurate, is what I think I mean.

CT GAMER wrote:So how exactly is MSNBC lying? The article never attempts to support or confirm any of the accusations.

Read the responses to any post including a link to Fox News. Whenever someone types "Fox" pretend they're saying MSNBC.

That should give you a pretty good idea of the argument here.

It is no secret that tabloid journalism is isanely popular in the US. Sadly as a result we see news organizations trying to capture that flavor and style because it attracts readers/viewers.

People don't want hard facts and actual news as much as they want to know what famous person x is doing/saying and how famous person Y reacted to it, etc.

And thus you end up with pieces like this that don't actually present any "news" or explore any issue in true journalistic fashion, but instead you get a tabloid-esque look at what some famous dude(s) said angrily to each other...

So while it is a horrid fluff piece, I think the title of this thread makes little actual sense and misses what is really wrong with the piece...

*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Makarov wrote:*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Need a *cough-drop*?
You mean the program started under W, right?

alarmingrick wrote:

Makarov wrote:*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Need a *cough-drop*?
You mean the program started under W, right?

I never said it wasn't...

Makarov wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Makarov wrote:*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Need a *cough-drop*?
You mean the program started under W, right?

I never said it wasn't...

Easy big fella, just asking for clairification!

alarmingrick wrote:

Makarov wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:

Makarov wrote:*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Need a *cough-drop*?
You mean the program started under W, right?

I never said it wasn't...

Easy big fella, just asking for clairification!

Fair enough

alarmingrick wrote:

Makarov wrote:*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Need a *cough-drop*?
You mean the program started under W, right?

Long answer: you're thinking of Project Gunrunner. That's the one where we allowed guns to get into the hands of criminals and tracked the guns. Operation Wide Receiver, under Gunrunner, was stopped in 2007 when we realized that the Mexican government wasn't going to cooperate. You know, by actually following the guns.

In 2009, coincidentally not during President Bush's term, Operation Fast and Furious, named after a particularly terrible episode of Vin Diesel's career also known as the "Dark Ages", involved the AG deciding that we should do the same thing again, but this time do away with the "tracking the guns" part of the plan.

Short answer: no, not even close.

Ouze wrote:
So, back to the article - "So how exactly is MSNBC lying? The article never attempts to support or confirm any of the accusations. " In my opinion, it is the job of the media to do exactly the latter when they post it. They shouldn't blindly post press releases from people. That's not journalism. Especially when those assertions are baldly false on their face. If they run them unchallenged, they own them in my book.

That part of what the media should do, but not the whole of it. There is merit to releasing stories that take no stand on the information presented.

You're right, that isn't journalism, its reporting.

alarmingrick wrote:

Makarov wrote:*Cough*Fast and Furious*Cough*

Need a *cough-drop*?
You mean the program started under W, right?

Operation "Wide Receiver"

The problem is that the meta story, if you will, is tthat America's loose firearms laws aids lawless behavior in Mexico. This is a stance that both governments have been bouncing around for years. As Ouze pointed out, the national press doesn't want to really dig into the story in a way that will interfere with the desired meta story. From the discriptions of weapons seized most of the hardware is getting to the cartels after approved governmental sales of military hardware from the US, to Mexico governmental agencies, to include the police.
In One border town in Mexico all the police firearms were confiscated, and the police started to carry sling shots.
From an economic stand point, it makes no sence to buy an expensive american Frankenstein AK, and rebuild it as a combloc weapon that you can buy in many third world countrys for under $100 US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Example
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2011/06/24/mexican-gangs-importing-usa-made-grenades-from-foreign-militaries/