Gun Control, the Mexican Drug Cartels, Violence and the Black Market

First and foremost, I would like to start this post off by saying that I am a registered gun owner... in Australia.

Secondly, I would like to point out that I will be covering a few points related to American gun culture (in case the title didn't give it away).

Now, I am from Australia, and I am sure that most of you reading this would have seen the John Oliver segment about Australian gun control laws following the Port Arthur Massacre (if not, linked, because I am nice like that), so I am not going to regurgitate it, but I will give some details as to what living with gun control is like.

It's easy. True, there is some bureaucracy that slows getting a gun down (you have to go to the police department, fill in a form that is then sent to the Firearms Department and, when approved, do a Firearms safety course (which is easy), the results of which are sent back to the Firearms Department before they send you your licence. After that, buying a gun is easy, but each must be registered as soon as feasibly possible. The only other important points are that guns must be stored in a secure safe and handguns take a little longer to obtain initially.

Now, there have been some good flow on effects, aside from the fact that there has not been a massacre since. First and foremost is how police act. Most people are not armed, and police rarely need to act as though a potential suspect may be armed. You may not think this is a huge thing, but when you see the results of a more relaxed police force, it is a truly wonderful thing. Best of all, this is not an isolated case, as the numbers for other countries with gun control legislation show a trend, such as in England where fatal police shootings dropped to 1 last year and none in 2013, or Iceland where the first ever fatal police shooting on record only occurred recently. Essentially, gun control in these countries has allowed for police forces who rarely engage in fatal shootings, and where some are even phasing out giving firearms to on the beat cops, to some extent. We don't have guns, and our police force knows it and knows that they don't need to come off as aggressive or intimidating, whereas American police officers can never be sure, meaning that there is always an element of fear going in.

The other good flow on effect is that the price of guns on the black market has gone up. For example, the average global cost of an AK-47 is $535, and in California it is $400. In Australia, that same guns costs $15,000. And the evidence seems to back it up that the price is continually going up.

And that is my clunky segue into Mexican Cartels. You see, in Mexico they have gun control and they only have one gun store and it is operated by the Mexican military. So, you might scream that 'GUN CONTROL DOESN'T WORK! LOOK AT MEXICO', but that gun store only sells small calibre rifles and pistols, and you can only have one. The weapons being used don't come from the Mexican gun store... they mostly come from American gun stores. In fact, preliminary findings by the University of San Diego found that a "significant proportion of U.S. firearm dealers are dependent on Mexican demand", that "a sizeable and growing percentage of US firearms sales are destined for Mexico" and that, unfortunately, "the U.S. and Mexican authorities are seizing a comparatively small number of firearms at the border". The Mexican-American border has more holes in it than a large sieve, but unfortunately it seems that Americans only seem concerned about what is coming into America, and not what is going out. Gun control in America, such as gun registration and licensing, may actually go a long way to helping slow arms trafficking over the border. True, it won't solve the problem, but like we have seen in Australia and other countries where gun control has been enacted, it will at least bring the price of weapons on the black market up considerably.

Now, I bring all these elements up for a reason. From what I have seen, when Americans talk about gun control, they tend to only talk about what is happening in America. It is often brought up that states with the strictest gun control measures also have the highest firearm related crimes. What seems to be missed is that a weapon bought in a state with lax gun control measures can easily find its way into a state with strict gun control measures, much easier that going from America to Mexico. The answer is not to relax gun control measures in those states, I would argue that it is actually to have uniform gun control measures across the country. The reason for this is that it will go a ways to stopping gun violence from state to state and, on top of this, will have the flow on effect of raising the price of weapons on the black market across the board, and not just in those few states with strict gun control laws.

Of those gun control laws, I would argue the following is somewhat essential.

1. That licensing and registration of firearms is necessary: No brainer. This allows for legal and responsible gun owners to obtain firearms, but also for police to monitor to prevent those with criminal records or associations with criminal elements from being able to obtain firearms. This will have the flow on effect of forcing cartel and gang members to go to the black market, where firearms prices should increase significantly.

2. That some measure of restrictions be in place for the types of firearms be brought in: This, again, has a lot to do with making certain types of weapons more expensive on the black market. By making it harder (not impossible) to obtain semi and full automatic weapons, you increase their rarity and drive up their price on the black market.

3. Bring in gun storage laws: This is both to prevent the theft of firearms but also to help curb mass shootings and accidental homicides by people and children who are able to access family members' firearms.

In my experience, most gun owners are sensible people who have a love of the sport. Most Australian gun owners I know are perfectly content with the laws as they stand, because they are no-nonsense and quite common sense. These laws that I am suggesting will not affect sensible and law abiding gun owners, but they will have flow on effects that will directly benefit the American people.

 

Enjoy your nanny state.

 

A well reasoned and respectable argument. You should be proud of it if you made it yourself. If someone else did, make sure that person knows they did a good job. That being said, good luck getting a good counter argument to it. I'll try one, but I doubt it will work. In order for the US to make the reforms that you suggest, we can think of it like a stand off. Neither side wants to give in its guns, but it has to be done. Thus it's not going to happen unless one side forcibly takes it from another side. Isn't this denying freedom then? They won't be able to have guns, or at least as much liberty as before.

 

Fantastically well reasoned response. I am guessing that is why so many conservatives were saying that they were coming to Australia after Obama won his elections? Because they wanted a nanny state?

 

It was taken from a few different sources and a lot of reading. I tried to quote most.

This is not about taking all guns away, because that is stupid. This is simply changing the process which one must go through in order to obtain guns. As I said, law-abiding gun owners realistically would not find any limitations in obtaining guns, it may take a little longer, but once you have your licence, obtaining a gun is really simple.

Even handguns, which in Australia are heavily restricted (you need to have a licence and be a member of a gun club for a minimum of two years before you can apply for a handgun licence. Once obtained, the gun must stay at the gun club for the first year and, in that time, you must obtain a separate, secure storage area in your car for it, as well as at home. At the end of the year, you can take it home), but despite those restrictions, I know a lot of people who own them. It's not hard to obtain them, and they are not ridiculously priced in gun stores. However, on the black market in Australia, they are significantly more costly.

As for the which side will institute it, both sides of American politics need to man up and support the measure. We were lucky in Australia because our conservative party brought in the legislation, but it would have happened regardless because of the Port Arthur massacre and the growing need for reform. The same can happen in America as well. As I understand it, the major hurdle is the NRA, but most gun owners in America are not members of the NRA. Parties should be reaching towards those gun owners in order to create legislation that takes into account the interests of sporting shooters but also allows for the necessary legislation to pass.

And again, this will have the flow on effects in multiple areas of life. Obtaining weapons in Mexico will be harder, and jack up the prices, which may very well help to take down the Cartels. Now, they can still buy from other places, but when you don't share a border that makes trafficking so easy, you make it harder for cartels to get their weapons. Weapons and ammunition are going to cost more for the cartels and the gangs that are in America as well.

 

14. MULTIPLE USER ACCOUNTS

Multiple user accounts are not allowed. The use of anonymous proxy IP addresses and systems, which are often used to hide identities for the purposes of creating multiple accounts, is also prohibited. Usage of these tools can lead to immediate and permanent banning.


LonelyWanderer is clearly another account created by the same person who posts as Bowerbird.

 

I am not Bowerbird. As well, I believe that forum etiquette is that if you have a suspicion of a rule violation, you would need to privately report it to moderators.

 

I'm very pro gun. But I see no problem with this. Most people have to obtain a permit to carry, so the govt already assumes you have guns. The problem is will it actually solve the problem? Probably not. We already have an background check requirement, people are somehow still getting guns. It might. If it's registered to you then if a crime is committed you get charged with accessory. The way to keep government out of it is have a private company who stores gun sales receipts, name, address, and firearm serial. Must update address if you move. The government can only have access to the data by a subpoena from the court under lawful terms, IE someone has a gun who shouldn't.

On the other side "those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither" - Benjamin Franklin. How practical this is is up for debate. Ever since the government existed there's never been absolute freedom. People were imprisoned or hung for crime, civil laws existed etc. And it's generally been for the better.

 

People are still getting guns because there are a lot of loopholes and ways around the measures. Background checks are a good start, but I do think that firearm registration is important, as well firearm licencing. I don't think you will ever "solve" the problem of illegal arms trafficking, but you can make it substantially more difficult and expensive. And that is the point. I am not sure if a private company is the way to go, but I am all for an independent body if that makes you happy.

I disagree entirely that you give up freedom for security. You certainly give up certain liberties, but I don't think that that is the same as giving up freedom. You still have the freedom to own and operate a firearm, and I think it would be fool-hardy to ever completely curtail that freedom, but you are regulating an industry and a sport which has clear and present dangers.

The other reason that I don't believe that freedom and security are contrary is because too much freedom can lead just as quickly to authoritarianism. Not to get too off-topic, but if you do go to unregulated political boards where there are no rules, there quickly becomes very little room to move from what the majority of posters on that board are in favour of. For example, if you go to the 4chan political board, a board famous for no oversight and unrestricted freedom of political belief, you cannot stray from the overly white, racist, homophobic, xenophobic and misogynistic mantra that their posters hold. There are no rules, so the majority of posters made their own and straying from their tightly-held beliefs instantly isolates you.

Freedom and security are not counter-posed to each other. I will admit, that you can go too far and certainly it may come off as authoritarian, but that is the same if you go too far either way. I think it is more striking a balance between the collective good versus the private good.

 

I have a few good examples of where it hurts rather then helps. My family moved from Massachusetts because on more then one occasion they tried to take me and my siblings from my parents. We were never abused, neglected, and extremely happy. Same thing happened to a girl with mitochondrial disease. The state did not treat her because they said the parents made it up and she got much worse. The state considers them to be in custody of the state and only given to you unless they deem you unfit. No court action necessary. Laws to protect us don't often. And I'm very leery of giving the government control over something that could potentially be abused.

 

Well, at the moment, I am the only one on this thread that has quoted research. I have yet to use opinions based upon speculative fear.

Germany at the time of Hitler did not have a long-standing tradition of democracy or freedom. The Weimar Republic, which was instituted at the end of the Great War was Germany's first attempt at democracy. And even then, that democracy was immediately tainted by the stab-in-the-back rumours, losing some form of legitimacy in the eyes of conservatives and monarchists. Germany, therefore, was not a country with a long-standing tradition of freedom, and therefore the argument is invalid.

Yes, so that simply means that you move to bolt, pump and lever action variants of long-arms. That's all I am really asking. But, please, continue playing with semantics.

Then please respond to the following as Texan has so far failed to do.

Shooting a weapon at a kilometre distance requires a mathematical understanding of several different factors, taking even into account the coriolis effect. Even at shorter distances, an understanding of the mathematics behind the trajectory of the bullets will help you account for where to aim at 100, 200 and 300 metres. So, for example, the weapon I routinely use requires the same targeting at 100 and 300 metres, but at 200 you actually have to aim at the base of the target. This is because the ammunition I use, as well as the rifling, makes the bullet travel in a very specific pattern.

 

The study conducted by Trans-Border Institute; the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies and the Igarapé Institute was done in colusion with and paid for by the Obama administration.

The Mexican army is one of the biggest supplier of guns to the Mexican drug cartels. In my life time I've never seen a full auto G-3 rifle in a gun store in America. But the Obama administration tried to say that the rifles were bought in Texas and Arizona gun stores. Just another Obama lie. Then right after the lie, Obama got caught in "Operation Fast and Furious" when his administration was purchasing guns at gun stores and transporting the weapons across the border and distributing them to the dug cartels in Mexico.

But I digress.

The following is posted in it's complete entirety by permission of Strafor:

 

Ahh how cute you watched Shooter, do you think Mark is sexy?

 

I am sorry to hear that. However, I think this may have more to do with the agencies administering the legislation rather than the legislation, or intent thereof, itself. I am not blind to the fact that not all legislation works as it was intended, but I also don't think that means throwing out the baby with the bath water. Laws, legislation and regulations should constantly be scrutinised to ensure they are working effectively and as they were intended, and if not, they should be changed or updated in order to do so.

But also, the reality is that for every horror story that you hear, there are just as many heart-warming stories enacted from the same legislation. It should be about minimising the horror stories so that legislation and regulations work as intended.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, I was trained by the Australian Army. Nice try though. Never seen that movie.

 

Ohh yeah well I'm a Navy Seal, SAS, secret agent, astronaut. Usama was nothing, I captured lord xenu.

 

So? Governments routinely order studies into complex problems in order to provide information and clarity that helps address a problem. The question is not always who ordered the study, the question is on the integrity of those conducting the study. For example, a few years ago the Koch brothers donated to a study conducted by climate change sceptic and noted physicist Richard Muller, who was a vocal member of the 3% of climate sceptics. See, the thing is that Muller was a scientist as much as he was a sceptic, so when his own investigation went to prove that global temperatures have risen, even taking into account what he saw as flaws in other studies, Muller was converted into the 97% of global scientific consensus on the issue.

Now, I am fully well aware of the influence that funding organisations can have on attempting to influence results of studies, or at least influencing how the studies are conducted in order for them to say what they want. However, governments (except for crazy ones) tend to have the least motivation for trying to influence outcomes of studies, mainly because governments need to act with the best information available to them (of course, that may also be me simply being naive of American political parties).

In fact, I would argue in this instance that the US government had the least motivation for influencing the outcome of this study, primarily because Americans historically have a distinct lack of concern for whatever is happening outside of their borders (or, at the very least, a concern more for stateside policies over foreign policies. Most presidents have won on their policies concerning what was happening at home over foreign policies, even if we retrospectively pretend that foreign policy was a major contributor). Knowing that, what political advantage or gain would the Obama administration have in proving that American guns find themselves across the border? In terms of policy, the advantage is only in relations with Mexico and for government agencies that patrol the border. With voters, I would argue, that realistically there would be no political advantage.

The Stratfor study does not discount the fact that a large number of firearms do come from the US. True, gun stores are not the source of the H&K G-3, but what of .50cal long arms and semi-automatic versions of other 5.56cal and 7.62cal assault rifles? Or 9mm handguns? Your own source admits that many of those originate in America because they are cheaper and easier to obtain than in Mexico in larger numbers.

Ok, so I read the Stratfor article and I have the following points.

As to the 90% myth, I do agree, it is a myth. However, the study does not make a distinction between manufactured in the US and trafficked from the US. The other reason I agree that it is a myth is simply because there have not been enough studies to actually accurately determine the number of weapons trafficked across the border. More studies would help have a normalising factor in determining the true number. As well, they are only going by the number of firearms seized, not the total number of firearms. However, as a counterpoint, the Stratfor article is also talking about weapons which are not firearms (in terms of rifles, shotguns and handguns). Not a hugely contentious issue, but I do believe the study was talking about them and not grenades, rocket launchers and other military ordnance.

Next, the Stratfor article does agree that a large volume of weapons are purchased in America for the purpose of being trafficked into Mexico. From the article:

And this is my point. Firearms are being trafficked from America to Mexico. There is no magic cure-all to solving Mexico's cartel problem because it is a multi-faceted and complex problem. Firearm legislation in America can be one part in solving that problem. It is not going to magically cure it, and I have never stated as such, but you are going to have flow on effects and benefits from doing so.

And that is also my point.

But the flow on effects are not just for Mexico. I would like to point out the following from the Stratfor article:

The emboldened section is what I would like to talk about. There are a lot of cheap guns available in the US which are not being tracked in the US. Discounting Mexico for a second, think of the detrimental effects that gun control legislation would have on organised crime in America. By having that legislation, you are forcing criminals to the black market for weapons. By making it harder to obtain weapons in the US, you would be skyrocketing the price on the black market in the US. Background checks are a start, but as the Trans-Border Institute study pointed out:

Firearms licensing and registration helps to eliminate the effects of straw purchasers. Weapons obtained by straw purchasers and seized by police and ATF officials would help to identify and eliminate straw purchasers from arms trafficking. In that way, you are narrowing the means by which criminal organisations are able to obtain weapons. Furthermore, it allows for another subset of laws by which criminals can be charged for (i.e., unlawful ownership of firearms).

 

I am not lying about my service. I won't say more as ADF policy is for members not to advertise that they are soldiers. That said, I neither have a profile picture, nor have I given any distinguishing information about myself, so I feel confident that I can confidently state my service without exposing private information about myself.

And I have only indicated that I have been trained by the Australian Army. I never claimed deployment history nor that I was in a combat orientated role. However, all soldiers who go through basic are taught infantry skills and are required to keep up weapons proficiency, regardless of job role, be they combat or support.

 

no it isn't

registration is the Holy Grail for the gun confiscation movement and Criminals are exempt from it under US V. Haynes

anything civilian cops can use for civilian environment law enforcement other civilians should be able to own and freely buy

we tire of nanny state subjects wanting to spread nanny state misery on us

- - - Updated - - -

registration has only one real purpose

to facilitate confiscation

it doesn't even apply to criminals

your solutions only screw over honest gun owners which I believe is the real intent of 99% of the gun banners or "restriction"fans

 

Once again we see foreigners pretending they know what's best for America. Shoo!!!

 

If remember correctly, I did go to public school, did we fight a war about that and win, twice?

Does the English empire want to loose another war?

 

I know.

I'm still waiting for the results of the government funded study on what effect watching porn by Norwegian rats had on their sex lives.

 

And that's what Stratfor points out, it was another Obama lie to introduce new gun control legislation in Congress.

It was the Obama administration that released a photo of dozens of German manufactured military G-3 rifles, foreign manufactured full automatic general purpose machineguns, etc. and claimed they were all purchased from gun stores in Arizona and Texas and transported across the Mexican border.

Where the Obama administration revealed how stupid they were, they should have photo shopped the photos first removing the yellow painted numbers on the rifle stocks. Many armies in the world paint a number on the side of rifle stocks so soldiers can retrieve their individual rifle from a rifle rack containing dozens of other soldiers rifles so they don't have to look at the serial number of each rifle looking for their rifle they were issued.

All of the weapons that the Obama administration claimed came from gun shops in America were actually Mexican army weapons that the Mexican army sold the the cartels in Mexico.

What guns that are purchased and find their way across the border into Mexico, who's purchasing those guns ? Mostly former Mexican illegal aliens who were awarded amnesty in the past and anchor babies of illegal alien parents. All a result of liberal political policies.

You are aware who Stratfor is ? One of the biggest private geo-political intelligence agencies who is contracted by the CIA.

 

If Obama and Holder wants to arm the drug lords. Why not the american people?

 

read Aesop's fable about the fox without a tail for edification on what motivates many of our foreigner "Buttinskis"

- - - Updated - - -

Drug lords are more likely to contribute to his party than patriotic gun owners?