Article on NPR about US/Mexican guns

[RoostRider]

Interesting article I just heard on NPR about the "facts" regarding "90% of the guns seized in Mexico are from the US" that the president and others are touting.

The article was pretty balanced it seemed.... and it would seem the numbers are actually slanted *awe*...

It would seem that the real numbers, according to Robert Farley (sp?) from politifact.com (?), are more like 90% of the guns that are recovered from Mexico and sent back to the BATF for tracing, and are traceable by the BATF are actually from the US.

He also stated that his research showed that the Mexican authorities believe that almost all of the handguns come from the US, but assault rifles also arrive "through drug routes" from Africa and other areas.

I was driving and couldn't take real accurate notes, and I only have a minute now to post, so clearly I may have missed some facts... I think they will have it posted on their site (isn't that something they do?)... so check it out if you want all the scoop... just thought you guys would be interested in this.... the 'left' media cutting gun owners some slack...

 

[SWDoc]

The audio will be available after about 6p.m. Central time.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103224899

Steve

 

[Old Fuff]

It came out the other day that the 90% figure is based on the number of serial numbers submitted to the BATF&E; but they only represent something like 17% of the total number of guns that were recovered. The other 83% came from other sources, including members of the Mexican military that deserted, and took their weapons with them.

In other words, the Mexicans are cooking the numbers, and the Obama administration and BATF&E are going along with it.

 

[grimjaw]

It doesn't matter what the truth is. The politicians and media are going to play this one by the "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission" rule.

jm

 

[RoostRider]

In an effort to be factual Old Fluff, there is no evidence present that the "other 83%" came from anywhere in particular.... the odds are likely that some of them are in fact coming from the US....

According to the article, approx. 1/3rd of the guns recovered by the Mexican authorities have been sent back to the BATF for tracing.... of that 1/3rd only some are traceable by the BATF, of those traceable, 90% are coming from the US.

You might assume that the other 2/3rds are not coming from the US, but that would be a pretty big assumption.

grimjaw- this is the media (NPR being one of the more left leaning in fact), which is why I point this out, they are not going with the "easier to ask forgiveness" route, they are investigating and coming up with facts.... facts that counter what the administration is saying.... that doesn't fit with your claim in any way....

 

[jfh]

Well, I think you missed the tenor and the quality of the whole piece.

FWIW, I was at my computer while listening to this--and my comment is the second one up, at about 4:30. Of the current fifteen comments, 14 are critical, for the appropriate reasons. I also sent them a request (contact ATC link) to do another piece, c/w corrections and / or retractions.

Old Fuff in on the right track, I think--except that I see this issue as a taste of how the current Administration will continue to seek to implement antigun policies--IOW, the Mexican complaints are being done at the behest of the US Admin. Arguably, the new Admin is among the most intelligent subset of our political class--and the same old antigun suspects have learned new techniques and new spin to try out with our current Fearless Leader.

It's heartening to see PR listeners holding their feet to the fire on poor journalism like this. This is the kind of outreach needs to be done more and more--so do it.

Jim H.

 

[Old Fuff]

In other words, the Mexicans are cooking the numbers, and the Obama administration and BATF&E are going along with it.

I stand by what I said, and I live on the firing line down on the U.S./Mexican border in southeastern Arizona.

Most of the firearms of all kinds that cross the border going south are not military or military style guns, and they are being bought by Mexican/Americans or Mexicians for they're relatives and friends living "under the gun," in the Old Country. At least some of these are in the 90% figure being touted by the Mexican government and Obama administration.

The chances of buying genuine military equipment and weapons at a gun show here is about the same as it is where you live.

the Mexican complaints are being done at the behest of the US Admin. Arguably, the new Admin is among the most intelligent subset of our political class--and the same old antigun suspects have learned new techniques and new spin to try out with our current Fearless Leader

.

Well put!

 

[grimjaw]

I listened to that report, and this is some of the conclusions I drew.

It has been recently reported (although if you ask me it's more like crammed down our throats) that "90%" of the guns recovered from drug cartels in Mexico were purchased at gun shops in the United States. The report on NPR showed that it's more like this:

- Approximately 12,000 firearms were submitted to our government by Mexican authorities and were claimed to have come from the cartels. This number is cited as being approximately 1/3 of the total number recovered from the drug traders.
- Of that 12,000, the number of firearms that could be traced (as in, less than 12,000), 90% were traced back to the United States.
- Not reported on NPR, but it is also estimated half a million firearms are stolen every year in the United States. 500,000, annually: that's almost 15 times the number recovered from the cartels in total.
- There have been no numbers produced (although I am sure they are there somewhere) that of the percentage of 12,000 that could be traced, how many were reported stolen from owners in the US and subsequently ended up in Mexico.

Gives you some food for thought on the manipulation of statistics, don't it?

RoostRider,

I listen to NPR frequently, and they reported the number without question for weeks before being corrected from outside their organization. The fact-checker being interviewed, in addition to clarifying the numbers, still agreed with the "90% of the total in Mexico" number as being very close to correct. He acknowledged it as an estimate, but still didn't bother clarifying the numbers more than I have above.

 

[RoostRider]

A closed mind can't be changed Old Fluff... not even with the facts... and where you live has absolutely no relevance unless you live in the one warehouse where all Mexicans get their illegal guns from, and you have been taking notes all along....

I do agree that they are not buying military weapons from gun shows on the border.... lol... clearly....

grimjaw- I do not think that he did agree with the 90% number (aside from with the clarifications above), in fact, I recall him saying that it clearly was NOT the 90%, but that this 90% was in fact a percent of a percent of a percent.

He did however lean towards saying that a very very large number of the guns are from the US and he clearly said that the 17% number being touted by the NRA (?) is pretty far out of whack because it assumes that ALL the guns not returned to the BATF for processing and successfully traced are NOT from the US.

I think it's interesting that some people are more interested in bashing the media than they are in dealing with the truth, even when it is what they want to hear.... the truth of which, in this article, was that the Obama administration was called out for being dishonest about this number, which is what everyone here wanted to see..... but now even thats not good enough... this fact checker guy should have gone and counted the guns himself, traced them himself, and counted and relayed in 2 minutes every statistic even mildly related to the story.... if he wanted to be unbiased... *sheesh*

I still see some huge unanswered questions in the stats given.... such as, how many were untraceable by the BATF? Was this because they in fact came from somewhere the BATF didn't keep records (such as another foreign country)? Are the Mexican authorities only sending back the guns they think came from the US, or a random sample?

Those few things could sway the numbers immensely one way or the other....

Don't get me wrong. I'm not claiming the numbers are right, or wrong. I posted this because I saw threads saying things like "how come they aren't sending us the guns to trace" (which, it would seem, they are, at least to some extent)... and "Where are they getting these numbers?" (which this tells you)... and "someone should call out the administration about this!" (which they just did, albeit perhaps a little lightly...)

I would bet that NPR quits touting that "90%" number from now on... but correcting themselves for having used an incorrect number isn't enough.... they have to say what you (the general you) think they should say....

I don't buy into the 90% number.... never did... but I don't buy into the 17% number either.... since the logic behind it is just as flawed as the logic behind the 90% number....

 

[mnrivrat]

Garbage in means garbage out . The truth is that under the circumstance of the gathering of the presented information, no one can state with any degree of certainty how many of Mexico's seized guns come from the US .

As well, if you consider any number as coming from the us, you can not say with any degree of certainty whether they are stolen US guns, or guns bought at gun shows.

That said, if anyone really believes the 90% of total ,or anything statistically close to it ,they need a reversal of their lobotomy.

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

In other words, the Mexicans are cooking the numbers, and the Obama administration and BATF&E are going along with it.

Say it isn't so!

 

[Old Fuff]

A closed mind can't be changed Old Fluff... not even with the facts... and where you live has absolutely no relevance unless you live in the one warehouse where all Mexicans get their illegal guns from, and you have been taking notes all along....

Well I would like to get into that warehouse...

Anyway, I don't know where you live, and it doesn't matter. The point is that I'm sure you know a lot more about things going on in your particular area then get reported in the local media. You unquestionably know more about what's going on then I do.

And the reverse is true. Because I live where I do I have insights that never make the local media, let alone the mainstream national media.

Saying that I might have a closed mind on this issue suggests that I don't know what I'm talking about, but I presume that if you don't live in this area (or somewhere else along the border) you are completely dependent on the media for what you know, or think you know. Personally I have little faith in the mass media reporting accurate and unbised information on this issue. I have watched, heard and read too much reporting that personal experience tells me it is pure.... (you know what).

But you still have a right to you're opinion.

 

[bensdad]

Personally, I don't care one bit if every illegal gun in Mexico came from the Cabelas in Rogers, MN. That has nothing to do with U.S. gun laws. If Mexico doesn't like guns, then Mexico is free to take measures to secure their border. How is this our problem?

 

[jfh]

"...I would bet that NPR quits touting that "90%" number from now on... but correcting themselves for having used an incorrect number isn't enough.... they have to say what you (the general you) think they should say...."
​

Not quite. For some of us, well-reasoned discourse is what we expect from NPR. That discourse should be honest, comprehensive, and accurate, and it should take into account the 'standard' Western logic and modes of thought. This news report was lacking in most of these attributes.

I may well have my biases, but I also believe there is such a thing as 'intellectual honesty,' and that this kind of framework exists no matter what "facts" are being discussed.

NPR has long demonstrated that it has become increasingly less-factual because such things as its geographic base (read East Coast) for its primary people (read well-educated, Politically-liberal, and politically-correct), the implicit value structure of its stars, and its willingness to be less-than-comprehensive in their analyses. [The NYTimes is also trapped in its rampant regionalism, and they have yet to understand that problem and how it ties to their declining (economic) value.]

If NPR would move their operation to the Midwest--say Des Moines--they would be less likely to demonstrate the regionalism they do. However, that's also a belief I have about the Federal Government--i.e., if they'd get off the East Coast, we'd have a perspective for governing less susceptible to the same regionalism.

Jim H.

 

[kanook]

they say that Mexico is flooded with illegal firearms from the US. I say say we trade with them and give them back all the illegal Mexicans for all the guns.

 

[Justin]

You might assume that the other 2/3rds are not coming from the US, but that would be a pretty big assumption.

Given that the US has legally mandated serial numbers and tracking via record keeping from manufacture to final retail seller since at least 1968, it can be convincingly argued that if the weapons don't show up in a BATFE trace then they're most likely of foreign origin.

Certainly some percentage of the untraceable guns may be from the US, but unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary I have a hard time believing that percentage to be significant.

 

[RoostRider]

Justin- the 2/3rds number is the guns that are not sent to the BATF at all, hence them not being able to track them is a given, no matter where they came from.

I agree that the article did nothing to provide real verifiable numbers (and therefore useful information), since they failed to address the issue of why all the other guns were not traced by BATF (was it because they KNEW they weren't from the US? Was it because they just took a random sample to see? Was it because the Mexicans knew where they were from already?)

I don't think the article was an example of journalistic brilliance. In fact I agree that it was nearly useless in all but a few manners..... It confirmed that guns were in fact being checked (as opposed to pure guesses), it gave some numbers of guns recovered and how they were traced (or, in most cases, not), and most importantly it directly contradicted the administrations claims, which is what everyone says the media won't do.....

Old Fluff- I wasn't saying you have a closed mind, I was implying that, if you or anyone does, there is no point in clouding the conversation with facts. I was certainly not saying that you "don't know what you're talking about", and a closed mind does not negate knowledge, only further input (bad or good).... sometimes a mind is closed based on the facts.... I happen to be very closed minded about how I feel about rapists and murder's, and I'm OK with that....

 

[grimjaw]

Personally, I don't care one bit if every illegal gun in Mexico came from the Cabelas in Rogers, MN. That has nothing to do with U.S. gun laws. If Mexico doesn't like guns, then Mexico is free to take measures to secure their border. How is this our problem?

AGREED! Since we can't locate the serial numbers of "illegal" drugs produced in Central and South America that end up in the United States in order to trace them back, I'd say we're already doing more than our fair share to help stop the gun trade!

If the Mexican government's ineffectiveness, or just plain incompetence, is going to become our problem, you can bet I'm not giving up a fundamental, Constitutionally recognized right because Calderón doesn't like it.

RoostRider, if from now on NPR challenges every politician and pundit that throws out an unqualfied "90%" figure, I'd say the report you reference was relevant. Otherwise, what use was it other than responding to criticism from outside their own newsroom? I still say the consensus reached between the reporter and the fact-checker was: the majority of guns used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States. "Majority" could be 51%, but no number was mentioned as being credible besides "closer to 90%."

I will admit I am very pessimistic about the news coverage, and it's not just from inaccurate reports about firearms. IN GENERAL, the news outlets seem to inaccurately or incompletely report things as fact more than you or I would be allowed to as successful percentages in our jobs yet still keep them. If we have a higher standard of responsibility to meet as gun owners, they have a higher standard to meet, too. The freedom of the press comes with just as much responsibility (and peril) as the right to keep and bear.

NPR et al can shove that in their collective pipe and smoke it.

jm

 

[Old Fuff]

My reply in post #12 was more based on this:

[

... and where you live has absolutely no relevance unless you live in the one warehouse where all Mexicans get their illegal guns from, and you have been taking notes all along....

Because as I explained in that post, I believe there is often a difference in knowledge when one lives in an area where the issue is actually happening vs. somewhere else, where they have to be dependent on the national news media to keep informed. I am sure that observation is true for both of us. In the present instance I can tell you that those that live within long-range eyeball distance of the border know a lot more then you’ll ever see in news media sources that have their own agenda.

 

[Ed Ames]

For those that think news organizations will stop using the 90% quote...

They have already started saying "...90% of guns traced by us authorities on behalf of the Mexican government..."

Of course that is completely factual but they know most of their readers will not ask the question "when, why, and how often does the mexican gov ask the us to trace a weapon?" In fact plays off of elite prejudice against mexico of the "they need our help to do anything" variety.

That's the correction you have forced on them. 5% of the readers will recognize the twist, the rest will think it's just awkward writing.

 

[RoostRider]

RoostRider, if from now on NPR challenges every politician and pundit that throws out an unqualfied "90%" figure, I'd say the report you reference was relevant

I might make the argument that it is not the responsibility of NPR to challenge every politician and pundit that throws out an unqualified figure, be it about firearms or the number of mosquitoes in a swamp.

It is their responsibility to tell the truth to the best of their knowledge within reasonable limits.... that truth could be that Obama said "90%", or that the Obama administration is not giving a real number (they have done both now). I would agree that if NPR keeps using that "90%" figure, or if NPR keeps quoting others using that 90% figure, and they fail to include that the 90% figure is proven inaccurate, then we are talking about biased reporting.... until then, no one can be held responsible for 'poor listening skills' of the people who listen to NPR, or any report of any kind.... when I hear the phrase stated above "...90% of guns traced by US authorities on behalf of the Mexican government...", I don't think "Oh, that means 90% of the guns from there", and neither does any educated listener.... in fact it begs the critical listener to think "well, that means nothing more than that SOME guns are coming from the US".... how can NPR put it better now that they know the facts? They could not report that 90% number, or they could clarify it every time they do use the number... time is money on the radio, and repeating the same 'factoid' constantly drives off listeners, so it is best to just ignore it and go on, not report on it every time a politician or pundit uses it.

Old Fluff- If we were talking about the weather on the border, I'd be with you on your logic, or even many other things about the area (being there makes a difference, no doubt). I still don't think that where you live puts you in much better touch with the number of guns being shipped to Mexico illegally than say, the guy who studies the actual numbers and goes to Mexico asking questions (the 'fact checker' from the story).... unless you are somehow connected with the trade.... (purely joking, I hope you know)

 

[RoostRider]

I thought about this some and I wonder if it isn't more a matter of "whats wrong with the people watching/reading the news?" than it is a matter of "what's wrong with the people broadcasting the news".

I look around here and see a lot of people who, like myself, are able to critically review a "news story" and note where there is missing information, unsubstantiated claims, rumor and supposition....

It should be understood by even the simple minded that you can't cover 'every' aspect of a subject in a 'news story'.... and the title even implies that it is a 'story', which can only be a interpretation of the information they found (leaving lots of vagueness)...

If they think its significant that "...90% of guns traced by US authorities on behalf of the Mexican government...", then shouldn't they be allowed to say that? If you bother to read it properly, it clearly makes no claims about any guns that were not sent back, or any number of guns at all. Isn't it your responsibility as a listener to analyze the information they give you, and seek more if you deem it worthy? Isn't that the point of the News?

If they think it's insignificant that they only even bother to check 1/3rd of the guns, should they have to say it anyways? Should they have to tell you how many guns that is?

If they were stating facts that weren't true, such as the administration was doing before with statements such as "90% of the illegal guns in Mexico come from the US".... then they are spreading disinformation, and deserve ridicule... if they are only giving you the facts they deem worthy, they are just 'news stories'...

It's to be expected that someone reporting a 'story' to you will miss some details, omit others, and put emphasis on yet others, no doubt some according to how they felt the story should lean... you need to be able to work through that in order to even have a meaningful conversation, much less a healthy debate or to gain real knowledge from a news story...

I think legally the media would even have the right to lie outright, wouldn't they? There is freedom of the press.... but here I note that they aren't even really falling on questionable moral grounds... they gave you numbers, you analyzed them and concluded somewhere closer to the truth than was implied..... good job guys....

Now all we have to do is train the rest of the world to understand that, and we will never have to fight another issue regarding the right to keep and bear arms again (plus it might well solve a lot of other problems if people learned to reason as well.... lol)....

I definitely don't see that article as optimistically as I used to.... thanks to you fuddy duds pointing out all the still evident flaws in it, despite the correction of a "fact" you disputed.... *sigh*.... back to reality.... media hates us....

 

[Madcap_Magician]

The issues as I see them are these:

1. 90% of guns recovered in Mexico are NOT traceable to the US, and of those that are, this is not necessarily a problem because:

A. I find it reasonable that all guns sent to the US for tracing are done so because the Mexican government expects that tracing them in the US will do some good, i.e. they do not send thousands of full-auto M-16s that are marked "Mexican Army," or full-auto AK-47s that are clearly from South America for tracing because there's no reason to expect that tracing them in the US will lead anywhere. In short, Mexico only submits guns for tracing that it reasonably guesses were obtained in the US.

B. Second, all guns that are manufactured or sold in the US can be 'traced' to the US. That DOES NOT MEAN that they were sold by "unscrupulous gun dealers willingly selling guns to the cartels." They may have been stolen, from stores or from lawful owners. They may have been lawfully sold and then resold by an illegal straw buyer.

C. No one has said that all of these guns seized by the Mexican government were seized from known drug cartels. Illegal gun possession is widespread in many parts of Mexico by otherwise law-abiding citizens. It's nearly as much a part of their culture now as it is in Texas. Moreover, the number of citizens willing to own guns illegally undoubtedly increases proportionately with the level of fear those law-abiding Mexican citizens have of being victims of violence-- which I would argue is extremely high. So it's entirely possible that many of these guns traced to the US are guns that are actually going to citizens whose only crime is wanting means of self-defense against corrupt government and violent drug cartels fighting in their backyards. And who can blame them?

 

[Old Fuff]

You’re evaluation is largely correct, but from our perspective the bottom-line problem is that this whole thing is a scam, designed to give an anti-gun American president, congress and empire-building bureaucracy an excuse to increase controls over certain firearms commonly, but incorrectly called “assault weapons.” They’re intent is not to keep guns out of Mexico, but rather out of the hands of U.S. buyers.

 

[RoostRider]

I'm with you Madcap and Old Fluff...

Heres some things I think the typical listener should be able to pull from the story without it being said

although the articles focal member (the 'fact checker') said that it is likely that the number of guns from the US is closer to the 90% number claimed by the administration than the 17% number claimed by the NRA, he didn't back that up with any reasons as to why he feels that way.

Why would they ask the BATF to trace guns they know are not from the US?

Wouldn't it then stand to reason that a high percentage of the guns traced by BATF are in fact from the US?

They don't say why or how they decided which weapons to trace

They don't mention, in any way, how it is that these weapons are illegal, or where they are coming from.

This brings me back to the former question.... What is wrong with people when they can't see the 'facts' through a pile of subjective reporting... given that the VAST majority of reporting is subjective, if for no other reason than the fact that people are subjective.