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.

Spetulhu wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor.

You mean the Mexican districts where a good chunk of Mexican federal agents/police are in the back pocket of the Cartels themselves and the 3rd world countries that make up Central America? You believe that they have tighter security against Cartel gun-running than the US-Mexico border?

And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.

Okay, this may come off as a surprise to a lot of Europeans, but America doesn't allow you to buy anti-materiel and assault rifles at Wal-mart while shopping for diapers. Those weapons are regulated by the BATFE and they aren't trivial things to own. They have to be registered, you have to pay extra-taxes, submit to random BATFE searches and so on. There is no thriving industry of Maude running down to the local gun store, picking up an M2 Barrett .50 cal and throwing it across the border for Cartel Carlos to catch. The most common weapons that are smuggled across the border are commonly obtained firearms like pistols and IIRC many of these are illicitly obtained in of themselves. The 2nd Amendment is not killing Mexico.

 jmurph wrote:
Relevant article:I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns

Excellent article. Very interesting to read.

The reason why Mexico is in a bad state with drugs and guns is because it has a long, easily crossed land border with the world's biggest market for illegal drugs, and land borders with several of the world's most productive countries of illegal drugs.

It is thus a key entrepot for illegal drugs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The reason why Mexico is in a bad state with drugs and guns is because it has a long, easily crossed land border with the world's biggest market for illegal drugs, and land borders with several of the world's most productive countries of illegal drugs.

It is thus a key entrepot for illegal drugs.

You may want to look at a map. Mexico has land borders with three countries. The US to the north, and Guatemala and Belize to the south. Belize is a pretty reliable partner in combatting the illegal drug trade, and Guatemala is not really a producer of much except poverty though it is a transshipment route for arms and drugs. You then have several other central american nations before you hit the real drug producing nations on the south american continent. Most shipments do not go over land through all those borders.

If I grasp your meaning correctly, there are minimal amounts illegal drugs going into Mexico via land borders and from there into the USA.

Would that be correct?

My meaning is that your statement that Mexico has "land borders with several of the world's most productive countries of illegal drugs" is wrong. The map shows this.

Unless by 'several' you mean 'none'. And I doubt you meant that.

I also think I was clear when I stated Guatemala is a transshipment point for arms and drugs, and that the drugs don't move from production countries in South America to Mexico across all the land borders in between.

What part should I attempt to clear up, because I am genuinely not sure what you don't get.

I don't get where the drugs go once they are in Mexico.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't get where the drugs go once they are in Mexico.

And nothing in my post was about that, was it?

Assuming you're not being sarcastic (probably a bad assumption) the following may help:



from: http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3536

Right. So loads of drugs go into Mexico through a variety of routes from South America, and other places, and go out from Mexico to the USA.

It is thus a key entrepot for illegal drugs.

 jhe90 wrote:
Its rare. But events like Iranian embassy years ago do trigger that level of response.

Has anything since ever involved that sort of military response? I can't think of anything, but by their very nature, SAS operations aren't going to be publicised; I think their activity at the Iranian Embassy was only revealed because the TV cameras were already there watching.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree in theory, however, in practice however what this means is that policing is increasingly about enforcement of the law and suspect apprehension, which is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving the community, and why there's usually very little reason for most people to favorably view directly interacting with the police.

I definitely agree that policing that focuses too much on enforcement and suspect apprehension fails to serve the community's needs and provide the proper protection. I also agree that such policing is a lot more common than it should be. However, I think that such approaches come for a whole range of causes ('tough on crime' and zero tolerance rhetoric, doing what you can measure etc). I don't think the lack of a specific legal obligation comes in to it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

What? About 2,000 guns are smuggled across the US border in to Mexico every single day. 40% of the guns used by cartels come from Texas alone.
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day

Your post above is just completely and utterly wrong in every possible sense.

 sebster wrote:
Your post above is just completely and utterly wrong in every possible sense.

I think you may have missed a sentence or two in the article you quoted.

insightcrime wrote:The report does not, however, mention Mexican security forces, which InSight Crime found in a 2011 study to be a large source of black market weapons.

The CESOP report also does not explain where it sourced its estimate that 2,000 weapons illegally cross the US-Mexico border every day.

So the report covers imports from America but does not cover those from Mexican security forces and does not source its claims. It seems to me that TheCustomLime's at least somewhat correct, even if he did understate America's contribution to the problem.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

But they do run guns from the US for their own use. It could be it's just so much easier to get the gun across one border than moving it across multiple Mexican districts and maybe in from a southern neighbor.

You mean the Mexican districts where a good chunk of Mexican federal agents/police are in the back pocket of the Cartels themselves and the 3rd world countries that make up Central America? You believe that they have tighter security against Cartel gun-running than the US-Mexico border?

And military grade, well - the US is one of the few places where .50cal rifles is just another gun anyone can have. Cheap Chinese pistols is another matter, that's probably something easy enough to get by the cargo container that the cartels wouldn't bother dragging them through the US.

Okay, this may come off as a surprise to a lot of Europeans, but America doesn't allow you to buy anti-materiel and assault rifles at Wal-mart while shopping for diapers. Those weapons are regulated by the BATFE and they aren't trivial things to own. They have to be registered, you have to pay extra-taxes, submit to random BATFE searches and so on. There is no thriving industry of Maude running down to the local gun store, picking up an M2 Barrett .50 cal and throwing it across the border for Cartel Carlos to catch. The most common weapons that are smuggled across the border are commonly obtained firearms like pistols and IIRC many of these are illicitly obtained in of themselves. The 2nd Amendment is not killing Mexico.

Personally, I put a large amount of blame on what is happening in Mexico on the drug users in this country who either can't make the connection or care that their money is empowering the cartels to turn Mexico into a hell hole where tens of thousands of people a year are killed. It'd be interesting to know how many of those drug users are anti gun.

 Breotan wrote:
I think you may have missed a sentence or two in the article you quoted.

Nah, you should just click through on the links. The link about Mexican security forces being a source of weapons... still has all those weapons coming from the US. Seriously click through to the link - it talks about police and security forces being a key part of the operation to bring US guns across the border. And then it talks about 'recycling guns', ie taking weapons captured in raids out of police lockers before they are decommissioned and then selling them on the black market. At no point does it mention a primary source of weapons as being anywhere other than the US.

You make a fair point about the 2,000 per day count. I did wonder about whether to use that number or not, and decided in the end that the reply was punchier and shorter that it would otherwise be. I figured whether the figure was 580 or 2,000 it was still a lot. But I should have just used 580, so you make a fair call there.

It seems to me that TheCustomLime's at least somewhat correct, even if he did understate America's contribution to the problem.

But the only issue is the US contribution to guns in Mexico. And so by understating that by a long way, his answer became wrong. And it isn't just TheCustomLime, and I don't want to feel like I'm picking just on him, similar sentiments were expressed by a few posters. There appears to be an idea that the guns in Mexico aren't primarily from the US, and that belief is simply wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:
Personally, I put a large amount of blame on what is happening in Mexico on the drug users in this country who either can't make the connection or care that their money is empowering the cartels to turn Mexico into a hell hole where tens of thousands of people a year are killed. It'd be interesting to know how many of those drug users are anti gun.

You can assign blame to the drug users. Its not wrong, in that people are responsible for the consequences of the goods they consume. But I'm just not sure it's a particularly useful approach - do you think anyone is likely to give up drugs because we've assigned them some of the blame?

I agree, Sebster. I find it laughable, though, that I have seen drug users who are anti gun because they "want to save lives".

Relapse wrote:
I agree, Sebster. I find it laughable, though, that I have seen drug users who are anti gun because they "want to save lives".

Fair enough. There's no shortage of people who want the product but don't want the reality of how they get their product.

Someone mentioned the police in Ireland before, I just wanted to add that the police forces here are so poorly equipped and their attitude is so bad that I have no confidence at all in their ability to do any actual protecting, and that bothers me.

The shenanigans there is why the Northern Irish are the only (I think) Brits still allowed to own handguns.

 SickSix wrote:
You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.

Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.

Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.

Well, here's a glaring example on how NOT to deescalate a situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkci3wFr-Gk

jouso wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.

Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.

Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.

Well, here's a glaring example on how NOT to deescalate a situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkci3wFr-Gk

That's more complicated than it first appears, actually.

For those who can't watch:

-Suspect enters bus
-Suspect attempts to bribe bus driver
-Suspect gets aggressive
-Bus stops to let passengers out
-Policewoman charges in gun first, hoping to make the suspect surrender
-Suspect collides with Policewoman almost as soon as she gets in
-Both fall over, Policewoman fires gun, Suspect trying to separate himself from Policewoman
-Policeman runs in, gun ready, tries to separate the two
-Suspect struggling for control of the gun
-Policeman shoots him at the first safe opportunity

Suspect was scared of being shot, hence attempting to get the gun away is justified
Policewoman doesn't know that he isn't trying to kill her, so her struggling is justified
Policeman sees a fight over a gun, cannot make the situation safe without either removing both guns, or shooting the Suspect.
Policeman makes the call and shoots Suspect.
Shoots him multiple times to ensure success/safety. Moderately justified from the Policeman's perspective.

The whole thing's a mess really. Now, if Policewoman hadn't rushed in, the three of them would have had time to think about the situation and react more sensibly. The suspect would then probably not have been shot.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't get where the drugs go once they are in Mexico.

And nothing in my post was about that, was it?

Assuming you're not being sarcastic (probably a bad assumption) the following may help:



from: http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3536

Is it weird that I have been to McAllen, Tijuana, Laredo, and ElPaso? Why you ask...er no reason...

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't get where the drugs go once they are in Mexico.

And nothing in my post was about that, was it?

Assuming you're not being sarcastic (probably a bad assumption) the following may help:



from: http://geo-mexico.com/?p=3536

Is it weird that I have been to McAllen, Tijuana, Laredo, and ElPaso? Why you ask...er no reason...

So Mexico is the main staging point to go into US.

Guess the corruption and such means you stand a far better chance than landing them direct.

 Selym wrote:

jouso wrote:

 SickSix wrote:
You can't compare international police policies to America. No other country has privately owned firearms as a fundamental part of its culture.

Our police will always need guns. However it would be great if they could use them less.

Hopefully continued use and training of less than lethal methods will decrease use of lethal force.

Well, here's a glaring example on how NOT to deescalate a situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkci3wFr-Gk

That's more complicated than it first appears, actually.

For those who can't watch:

-Suspect enters bus
-Suspect attempts to bribe bus driver
-Suspect gets aggressive
-Bus stops to let passengers out
-Policewoman charges in gun first, hoping to make the suspect surrender

That's the moment it goes south.

Either you keep the suspect at gunpoint from outside the bus (probably not doable since the driver would be in the line of fire) or you go in without your gun drawn. There's two of you (rather heavily built) against a skinny fella, once you put a gun in the equation something can go very wrong.

That was awful. Poorly handled by the initial officer. WTF was she thinking charging in with gun drawn without ordering him off first? Next step would be to get the bus driver out and make sure the vehicle is not capable of movement. Crackhead isolated on the bus is a lot easier to deal with.

http://www.theladbible.com/more/uk-british-police-deal-with-possibly-armed-suspect-without-firing-a-shot-20160724

Herzlos wrote:
http://www.theladbible.com/more/uk-british-police-deal-with-possibly-armed-suspect-without-firing-a-shot-20160724

Police officers in the US deal with possibly armed and actually armed suspects without firing a shot on a daily basis. Those videos just don't make the news.

So do the British, but they still only shoot a handful of suspects a year.

They also don't carry guns as standard.

There were 123 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in 2015 in the US. There were 2 in Britain; 1 shot. Different environments.

 sebster wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
I don't necessarily disagree in theory, however, in practice however what this means is that policing is increasingly about enforcement of the law and suspect apprehension, which is not necessarily the same thing as protecting and serving the community, and why there's usually very little reason for most people to favorably view directly interacting with the police.

I definitely agree that policing that focuses too much on enforcement and suspect apprehension fails to serve the community's needs and provide the proper protection. I also agree that such policing is a lot more common than it should be. However, I think that such approaches come for a whole range of causes ('tough on crime' and zero tolerance rhetoric, doing what you can measure etc). I don't think the lack of a specific legal obligation comes in to it.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
A big problem in Mexico is the defection of army personnel and the theft of army property to and by the Cartels. Yes, a portion of cartel owned firearms -do- come from the US but claiming that our gun laws put military grade firearms in the hands of criminals that wouldn't otherwise have them is a grossly inaccurate generalization.

What? About 2,000 guns are smuggled across the US border in to Mexico every single day. 40% of the guns used by cartels come from Texas alone.
http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/2000-illegal-weapons-cross-us-mexico-border-every-day

Your post above is just completely and utterly wrong in every possible sense.

I think the lack of specific legal obligation to protect citizens plays a big part in the establishment of policing policies. There are many financial, political and legal incentives to push for more enforcement and suspect apprehension policies while there are virtually no incentives, other than better public relations, to decreasing that type of policing and emphasizing more community based de-escalation policies. That level of imbalance in incentives is why it's so hard to change the current style of policing.

In regards to the US-Mexico gun smuggling issue, the article you linked says this:

A 2013 study (pdf) by the University of San Diego and the Igarape Institute in Brazil -- and a follow-up to that report published in 2014 -- estimated that, on average, 212,887 firearms were bought in the US every year between 2010 and 2012, by purchasers who intended to traffic them. This represents some 580 weapons a day -- just 29 percent of the figure provided by CESOP.

While arms trafficking on the US-Mexico border is undoubtedly big business, the discrepancy between the two estimates highlights the uncertainty of just how many weapons are being trafficked into Mexico.

"Getting a firm grasp on the scope and scale of arms trafficking across the US-Mexico border is exceedingly difficult," Robert Muggah, an author of the joint 2013 study, told InSight Crime.

Until the Mexican government produces data that supports their claim of 200,000 firearms being illegally smuggled into their country from the US each day I don't see a reason to repeat their claim as fact.

Even in the USD/Igarape Institute study they repeat the same misleading claims:

AT F efforts to trace firearms provided
in Mexico have consistently found that an overwhelming proportion of firearms - as high as 90% - came to Mexico
from the United States (Serrano, 2008).12 For example, a 2007 AT F trace of firearms confiscated in Mexico found that
1,805 (73.5%) of 2,455 firearms came from three of the four U.S. border states: Arizona, California, and Texas (Marks,
2006). Likewise, a Government Accountability Office (GA O) report found that of 4,000 weapons traced by AT F (from an
original sample of 7,200 serial numbers sent from Mexico), some 3,480 (87%) could be traced to US dealers (McGreal,
2011).

The percentage of guns sent to the ATF for tracing that can be traced to the US is still only a subset of the number of guns confiscated by Mexican authorities. 3,480 is 87% of 4,000 but 3,480 is only 48% of 7,200 so where did the 52% of confiscated guns that weren't sent to the ATF for tracing come from?

Obviously straw purchases happen and are very rarely prosecuted because they are difficult to prove. Even when the ATF sets up sting operations to allegedly track the movement of straw purchased firearms to Mexico to effect arrests of high level smuggling ring members such as Operation Fast and Furious shows how the ATF can monitor gun walking but then have very little pay off for watching thousands of guns get walked across the border. We can't make straw purchases even more illegal than they already are and we can't put everyone who purchases a gun under surveillance to track their movements. We already have laws that limit the amount of guns a person can purchase at a time or over a set amount of time but that doesn't stop cartels or smuggling rings from just enlisting more people into their operations.

The best way to reduce the gun smuggling would be to reduce the demand which gets us back to how the federal, state and local governments legislate against drugs and enforce and prosecute drug crimes. Right now our laws create a high demand for illegal drugs and that high demand creates a hugely profitable illegal drug trade which creates violence as cartels and criminals vie for control of portions of that lucrative trade in illegal drugs.