AP sources: Bush-era probe involved guns 'walking'

[struggle4progress]

10/4/2011 1:36 PM
AP sources: Bush-era probe involved guns 'walking'

PETE YOST

WASHINGTON (AP) — The federal government under the Bush administration ran an operation that allowed hundreds of guns to be transferred to suspected arms traffickers — the same tactic that congressional Republicans have criticized President Barack Obama's administration for using, two federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and other Republicans have been hammering the Obama Justice Department over the practice known as "letting guns walk." The congressional target has been Operation Fast and Furious, which was designed to track small-time gun buyers at several Phoenix-area gun shops up the chain to make cases against major weapons traffickers. In the process, federal agents lost track of many of the more than 2,000 guns linked to the operation.

When Bush, a Republican, was president, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Tucson, Ariz., used a similar enforcement tactic in a program it called Operation Wide Receiver. The fact that there were two such ATF investigations years apart in separate administrations raises the possibility that agents in still other cases may have allowed guns to "walk."

For months, Issa and other Republicans have focused on whether Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress, suggesting that he knew more than he has admitted about Operation Fast and Furious ...

http://www.ksro.com/news/article.aspx?id=836147

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Shrub's inequities were so GREAT ,WE COULDN'T KEEP UP ,hence

he got away with murder.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Holder perjured himself to a Judiciary Committee hearing about what/when he knew.

WASHINGTON - New documents obtained by CBS News show Attorney General Eric Holder was sent briefings on the controversial Fast and Furious operation as far back as July 2010. That directly contradicts his statement to Congress.

On May 3, 2011, Holder told a Judiciary Committee hearing, "I'm not sure of the exact date, but I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks."

Yet internal Justice Department documents show that at least ten months before that hearing, Holder began receiving frequent memos discussing Fast and Furious.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html

No way should the Justice Dept be investigating the gun issue.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. OH..this just in:House Republicans Request Special Counsel to Probe Holder on 'Fast and Furious'

EXCLUSIVE: House Republicans are calling for a special counsel to determine whether Attorney General Eric Holder misled Congress during his testimony to the House Judiciary Committee on Operation Fast and Furious, Fox News has learned.

I am looking for other sources besides Fox on this.

[spin]

4. Good. Maybe now more Democrats will support the investigation of this scandal ...

I really do not care which party started the operation. I just want to find out the facts and stop such operations from occurring in the future.

[SteveM]

5. I'm with you. Either this will be investigated thoroughly, or canned altogether.

The GOPers don't want the embarrassment, and Obama doesn't want the political damage.

What is important is to get at the hard wiring on this. WHY did this operation start? What were the aims? Did the ATF have any grasp as to how many cartel weapons came from the Mexican military and from sources in Central America? Or were they just acting in a more constricted manner: Trying to stop "civilian" weapons from crossing the border? I am still puzzled at how these weapons were "lost," yet ended up in the Sinaloa cartel, and not the Zetas. Doesn't sound like a "loss" to me.

[spin]

6. This could get nasty if the CIA was involved ...

and it is possible that if there is any danger of this being revealed, the investigation might simply die on the vine.

[Abq_Sarah]

7. Operation Wide Receiver

Involved putting tracking devices into the gun shipments so they could determine where the several hundred weapons ended up. In typically dicked up ATF fashion, the trackers never worked the way they were intended and the gun runners simply out waited the ATF and moved the weapons either when the surveillance planes were heading back to refuel or when the batteries on the trackers had run down. Fast and Furious involved deliberately allowing a couple of thousand guns to disappear with no plan for tracking them. They figured they'd pick up the guns at crime scenes (after they'd been used to kill people) and try and determine who had been using them. One plan was stupid and not well thought out, one plan was completely irresponsible and criminally stupid.

[TheWraith]

8. Here's a thought: How about the government not approve sales of guns to felons?

I mean, if I knowingly sold a gun to a felon, I would be committing a felony myself. Do it hundreds or thousands of times as the feds have over recent years, and I'd be in prison for the rest of my life.

So hey, let's not let the government do it either, eh? I know, it seems radical. But maybe radical ideas are called for.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. re: "...if I knowingly sold a gun to a felon, I would be committing a felony..."

While you are equal like everyone else, you just aren't as 'equal' as say Reagan or Bloomberg. ;)

[Hoyt]

10. Law enforcement and federal agencies have been engaged in similar "stings" for decades. Gunners

just can't stand the gubment doing anything with respect to guns for fear the pipeline might get squeezed.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yeah, that's totally it.

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Atypical Liberal]

12. No. This is about the hypocrisy of drug policy.

It seems likely to me that this operation has been going on for years now, and is likely an attempt to manipulate drug cartels in Mexico the same way we have manipulated warlords, tribes, and other entities overseas for decades.

The difference this time is that we seem to be directly arming people supplying a product that we jail people for using and/or selling here in this country.

Let me say that again: We are enabling the selling of products that we jail people for selling and/or using here in our own country.

This needs to stop.

[Hoyt]

16. No it was not. It was an attempt to track where the guns are going. There are similar "stings"

for auto theft, terrorism, money laundering, financial schemes, you name it.

I'd be pissed if the ATF weren't involved in things like this. This one wasn't handled that well for sure, but I hope this doesn't impede further investigations in gun trafficking, illegal sales, gun terrorism, etc.

However, I do not disagree that drug laws need to be changed.

[Katya Mullethov]

22. They made maps

That oughtta help .

[Lurks Often]

13. Nice to see that you advocate

the ILLEGAL transfer of guns to drug cartels across international borders, without the consent or knowledge of the Mexican Government that has resulted in the deaths of 200+ Mexican citizens and the death of a US Border Patrol agent, all directly attributed, by SERIAL NUMBER, to guns that the ATF allowed to be sold to known felons and that the ATF then lost track of.

And you call gun owners bloodthirsty?

[DanTex]

14. But you miss the big picture...

The guns lost by the ATF are a tiny fraction of the overall flow of guns to Mexico. It amuses me to watch gunners play down most instances of gun violence with the old mantra "guns don't kill people..." but then when it comes to the particular guns the ATF lost track of, all of a sudden, the deaths are "directly attributed" to the guns themselves. Hmmm...

But the reality is that the ATF operation, flawed as it may have been, was actually an attempt to address the much larger problem of US guns fueling gang violence in Mexico. Mistakes were made and lives were lost. But a much larger number of lives have been lost due to guns which were trafficked to Mexico unrelated to the ATF, and this continues to occur, due to loose US gun laws, particularly in border states, and gun lobby resistance against regulations and laws that might reduce this flow of guns.

As one Mexican official put it:

"Yes, it was bad and wrong, and you have to ask yourself, what were they thinking?" a senior official in Calderon's administration said, referring to Fast and Furious. "But, given the river of weapons that flows into Mexico from the U.S., do a few more make a big difference?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-fast-furious-20110920,0,5544168.story?page=2

[Hoyt]

15. Excellent post.

[Lurks Often]

21. How about providing a non-bias source for your

allegations of "tiny fraction of the overall flow of guns to Mexico" excluding of course the guns we sold to the Mexican Government that they probably either turned over to the gangs or had stolen. And 2000+ guns is hardly a few more.

[DanTex]

24. So the LA Times is a biased source?

Because if you read the article, you'll find, for example, that "For Mexico, the U.S. gun problem goes far beyond the Fast and Furious program. Of weapons used in crimes and traced, more than 75% come from the U.S." And this has been known for a while, it has been reported by various credible news sources, along with officials on both sides of the border.

Are you seriously suggesting that the F&F guns are a significant fraction of the overall flow of guns to Mexico? Do you have a credible source for that (and survivalists militia bloggers don't count...) or are you invoking "gunner's prerogative" where you just make things up.

[TheWraith]

28. When they're repeating a stat which has been proven completely false, yes, they're biased.

"Of weapons used in crimes and traced, more than 75% come from the U.S."

Which is kind of like saying that of the people in prison in California, 99% committed murder in California. Completely ignoring that the guns traced make up only a tiny fraction of those actually seized in Mexico, and that the actual percentage of guns seized that are traceable to the US is about 17%.

[DanTex]

31. Oh, the myths that circulate in the gun-nets. LOL

I wonder why you don't give a citation for that 17% number. Could it be that the source is none other than Fox News? I wonder.

And really, I can understand why you prefer not having any source at all rather than citing Fox. It's close call as to whether citing Fox is better than citing nothing. But I'll defer to you since you as a gunner have a lot more experience with the question of "do I simply make unsourced assertions, or do I cite a right-wing rag that nobody in their right mind would find credible?"

And I'll pass this one off to factcheck.
http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/more-on-mexican-guns/

[SteveM]

34. How many are traced to the U.S. via the Mexican military? nt

[DanTex]

41. Only about 1% of those traced. This is another common right-wing myth. Thanks for playing!

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/more-on-mexican-guns/

Some who dispute the 90 percent figure have written to us speculating that many of the weapons traced to the U.S. aren’t actually smuggled across the border. They claim these guns were provided to the Mexican military or police by the United States, and were either stolen or wound up on the wrong side of the law due to corruption. Not true, according to ATF. An agency spokeswoman, Janice Kemp, told us that between 2004 and 2008 only about 1 percent of the guns Mexican authorities asked the agency to trace were found to have been legally transferred to the government of Mexico. Further, an even smaller fraction of the guns ATF researched for Mexico were traced back to the U.S. Defense Department.

[SteveM]

46. What Mexican authorities asked ATF to trace. Unforced error!...

"An agency spokeswoman, Janice Kemp, told us that between 2004 and 2008 only about 1 percent of the guns Mexican authorities asked the agency to trace were found to have been legally transferred to the government of Mexico."

This seems like a nicely-selected sample, courteous of the Mexican authorities.

[DanTex]

48. Yes, only 1% of the weapons traced to the US were connected to Mexican military or police.

In other words it barely affects the trace statistics at all. Do you ever get tired of having the facts against you every single time and always having to resort to some sort of grand conspiracy to explain why the numbers don't come out your way?

Really, do you have any evidence at all to back whatever story you are peddling? Perhaps a source that's not Fox and also not a gun blogger? Or is this more "gunner's prerogative" where you just make things up and toss around random unsubstantiated allegations of a shadowy conspiracy to keep the poor American gunner down?

[SteveM]

52. Yes, what the Mexican authorities asked ATF to trace...

Even you might be a little nervous about the credibility of both these entities.

This "grand conspiracy" is of your own creation, sir. I don't engage in such. I recommend you don't accept the data you quote as "fact" until you take a sober look at the Mexican government and the ATF.

[DanTex]

57. Finally, you cite some evidence from a credible source! Awesome, can't wait to read it!

Oh wait, you didn't...

[friendly_iconoclast]

69. You have a slight problem-"Credible" apparently means "confirms what I believe".

Other than that, I find your posts to be first rate!

[SteveM]

74. Evidence of what? You made the assertion and supplied "evidence"...

I merely questioned its reliability.

[gejohnston]

53. there is a fallacy for that

Really, do you have any evidence at all to back whatever story you are peddling? Perhaps a source that's not Fox and also not a gun blogger? Or is this more "gunner's prerogative" where you just make things up and toss around random unsubstantiated allegations of a shadowy conspiracy to keep the poor American gunner down?

Yes we have many times, and none of them Fox. You are the only one talking about Fox.

[DanTex]

58. Really, you have some evidence that a lot of the guns "traced to the US" actually come from...

...Mexican Military?

Wow. I can't wait to read it. This should be good.

[gejohnston]

61. Central American military bases

Latin American Herald, remember the link I provided a week ago? Do you even bother to read them?

[gejohnston]

36. selective reading or dishonesty?

We have. I have personally last week. None of them were Fox or any gun blog. Show us one example of anyone using Fox as a source on this issue.

The 17 percent is found in your factcheck link:

As we noted in our article, Obama and others would have been accurate to say that more than 90 percent of the guns that Mexican authorities recover in crimes and submit to ATF for tracing come from the U.S. One lingering question, though, was why the Mexicans ask ATF to trace so few of the guns they recover. In fiscal 2008, trace requests came in on 7,743 guns, and in FY 2007, it was 3,312 guns, for a total of 11,055. But Mexico’s attorney general has said that authorities there recovered about 29,000 guns in that period. That means roughly 18,000 guns captured by law enforcement were not submitted for tracing.

I am surprised that someone as scientifically literate and so knowledgeable of academia's inner workings, like you, would miss this.

Non Fox:
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth

[DanTex]

39. Did you read the other factcheck link?

So first of all, we can all agree that the 17% number is Fox News BS, and it has no business being posted on a Democratic board. The 17% number is only "found in factcheck" in the context of "The Myth of 17%". Nice try though...

Second, there were two links. The second was a follow-up, where the looked into the exact question of why so few guns get traced. And it turns out that the most common reasons are clerical and bureaucratic.

Here, I'll quote a whole big long excerpt for you, that way you don't even have to click the link yourself:

Why not? Several reasons, according to Houser. One is that some officials — in the U.S. as well as in Mexico — don’t realize the benefits of tracing a weapon. In many cases, law enforcement has sufficient evidence to convict a suspect without running a trace on any gun that might have been recovered, Houser said. He and other ATF officials preach the gospel on the information that can be gleaned from tracing. For instance, traces on guns picked up in routine traffic stops might reveal a pattern that would unmask gang activity. It’s all about making larger connections. "We have spent several years going around the United States saying that it’s not just about one moment in time and one single investigation," said Houser. "It’s about what is the source of guns for whatever the deal is that’s going on. What’s the big strategic picture of the movement of these firearms?"

Other reasons: In Mexico, the farther away a police station is from a major city, the less likely it is that officials there will have access to ATF’s eTrace system, which allows a trace request to be submitted to the agency via the Internet. Without that access, requests can be submitted the old-fashioned way, via paper, but the hassle factor increases and with it the willingness of police to go through with it. "We’ve got to distribute more broadly so it’s closer to where the recovery comes from," said Houser. "Let’s face it, without the electronic means of tracing, you’re relying on faxes or paper moving from one inbox to another. It’s not particularly efficient, and it takes a long time for to finally get traced."

And there’s a major impediment to using eTrace in Mexico even where it is technologically possible, Houser said: There is no Spanish-language version of eTrace yet. That’s in the works, according to Houser, but it’s not yet online. With the new version will come the ability to transmit digital photographs of weapons, as well. Currently, a trace request should include a physical description of the gun as well as serial number and any other identifying information, but that description is often flawed. "The number one reason a gun trace is not successful, with regards to Mexico and with regards to the United States, is the same," said Houser. "The gun description is wrong. A bad gun description."

None of this changes what we said in our article, which is that we simply don’t know whether the guns submitted by Mexico for tracing are a representative sample of all the guns recovered in criminal matters in that country. We can’t conclude, therefore — and neither can anyone else — that 90 percent of all the crime-related firearms recovered in Mexico come from the U.S. Nevertheless, Houser said that in his view, the claim is correct. "The government of Mexico says that virtually all of the guns that they recover come from the United States. … I’ve been down there. Other agents have been down there. A lot of agents are there in the vicinity. They haven’t seen any indication of any significant number of foreign-made guns whatsoever and the trace information seems to corroborate it. From what we know about gun trafficking, it makes sense to us. Who’s the nearest manufacturer of firearms? The United States."

Besides, the original points I made are that
(a) guns trafficked from the US are a major source of guns for the Mexican drug gangs and
(b) the guns lost by the ATF are only a very small fraction of the total gun flow.
Are you denying either of those? Because none of the sources that you or anyone else has posted here come anywhere close to denying either one.

[gejohnston]

44. Did you read the other links?

Is stratfor.com Fox BS?
McClatchy Fox BS?
Who other than Factcheck quoted Fox? Factcheck is a good source for the most part, but it is also important to remember that its resources are limited, so they can not do real in depth research.

The information is also two years old, so quite out of date. New information came out since then, including a Wikileaks dump. It also does not answer these questions:

From US in what context? Does it simply mean manufactured in the US? Nowhere does it say that they were civilian weapons straw purchased and entering their northern border. Not that it does not exist, the issue is to what extent.
Does "traced to the US" also mean stolen military weapons entering through the southern border (since we sold them the guns)? What does Houser base his opinion on? Simply taking someone's word at face value?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112616/drug-gangs-help-themselves-to.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112595/cable-lax-honduran-controls-on.html
http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=390473&CategoryId=14091
While likely true with handguns (as the last article points out)I wonder how it is defining assault rifle. True assault rifles have been all but banned in the US since 1934. That begs the question: How many are assault rifles and how many are "assault rifles"?

Notice the second to the last sentence:
They haven’t seen any indication of any significant number of foreign-made guns whatsoever and the trace information seems to corroborate it.
That means these also were uncommon (if we are to take it at face value).
All handguns made by any of these companies:
Glock, Walther, SIG, FNH, most Berettas
That also excludes all AK variants because no US manufacture makes them. All guns since at least 1968 that has been made or imported to the US can be traced by serial number to some degree.

Here let me quote from a private intelligence service, who is not connected to either side:

According to the report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican officials in 2008. Out of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them, (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure comes from the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by the Mexicans or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. The 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing.

]In a response to the GAO report, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) wrote a letter to the GAO (published as an appendix to the report) calling the GAO’s use of the 87 percent statistic “misleading.” The DHS further noted, “Numerous problems with the data collection and sample population render this assertion as unreliable.”

The remaining 22,800 firearms seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were not traced for a variety of reasons. In addition to factors such as bureaucratic barriers and negligence, many of the weapons seized by Mexican authorities either do not bear serial numbers or have had their serial numbers altered or obliterated. It is also important to understand that the Mexican authorities simply don’t bother to submit some classes of weapons to the ATF for tracing. Such weapons include firearms they identify as coming from their own military or police forces, or guns that they can trace back themselves as being sold through the Mexican Defense Department’s Arms and Ammunition Marketing Division (UCAM). Likewise, they do not ask ATF to trace military ordnance from third countries like the South Korean fragmentation grenades commonly used in cartel attacks.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090708_mexico_economics_and_arms_trade

[gejohnston]

54. post script

forgot to add one thing: since there were few if any non US made guns, that also means there were few if any FiveSevens with the "cop killer bullets". The guns and ammunition are made in Belgium by Fabrique Nationale d'Herstal (usually shortened to Fabrique Nationale or FN).

[DanTex]

56. Nobody's denying that there are also military grade weapons coming from Central America

That's pretty much all that those links you keep posting say. So let me repeat my points, which apparently you missed:

(a) guns trafficked from the US are a major source of guns for the Mexican drug gangs and
(b) the guns lost by the ATF are only a very small fraction of the total gun flow.

If you have any evidence that either of those points is incorrect, please come forward with it.

If you'll look upthread a bit, you'll find that someone challenged my claim that the guns lost by F&F consist of only a tiny fraction of all the guns that get trafficked to Mexico from the US. That's what kicked this whole discussion off. I'll ask you again, do you agree about this? Do you really think that the F&F guns constitute a substantial portion of the gun flow to Mexico from the US? Please answer. I'm curious.

As far as the exact percentages of weapons coming from the US, it's true that nobody knows the exact numbers, because the estimates are based on a sample and we can't tell exactly how representative that sample is. As the second factcheck article points out, though, we do know that the usual myths that you and others toss around are just that (e.g. that "traced to the US" includes many guns stolen from the Mexican Military, that the main reason guns don't get submitted for tracing is that they lack US markings, etc.). So there are no really good reasons to suspect that the trace percentages are way off the mark.

About your accusation that factcheck doesn't do in-depth research, it may be true that they don't have as many resources as, say, the Washington Post. But I imagine that as a gunner you feel that WaPo, along with NYT, CNN, LAT, MSNBC, etc. is all part of the big anti-gun conspiracy, so I was hoping that maybe we could find some common ground with factcheck.

And it's funny that you would go after factcheck and at the same time put so much credence in the Stratfor, which also doesn't have nearly the resources of a WaPo. And, on this very issue, factcheck (unlike Stratfor) did manage to secure an on-the-record interview with Charles Houser, chief of the ATF’s National Tracing Center. This is a guy who has talked to many agents and officials on both sides of the border, has been to Mexico, and has intricate first-hand knowledge of how exactly the tracing works. So if anyone is in a good position to know exactly why some guns are traced and some are not, it would be Hauser.

Of course, you don't like what he had to say, so you naturally just dismiss him as "simply taking someone's word at face value". Contrast this to your beloved Stratfor, which doesn't seem to cite any sources whatsoever for their claims about why some guns don't get traced. What exactly do you think Stratfor is basing its claims on? Don't you think it might be a good idea to, you know, talk to the guy who heads the ATF tracing as part of the research for this article? I guess it doesn't matter to you as long as they are saying what you want to hear...

And still, even Stratfor concedes that there has been a "long and well-documented history" of arms smuggling from the US to Mexico, and that this is a "significant source" of weapons for drug cartels. They just disagree with the 90% number. So Stratfor and the head of ATF gun tracing disagree on the exact percentages, but both agree that the US is a significant source of weapons. And that's fine with me.

[gejohnston]

60. You assume a lot.

Do you really think that the F&F guns constitute a substantial portion of the gun flow to Mexico from the US? Please answer.

I have no idea, but who claimed that? Not me. When you keep ranting about Fox, while I show up with Stratfor and McClatchy, (and no Fox) I start assuming some things. Never mind that. We are talking about violation US, Mexican, and international law. Questions we both should be asking: Why did ATF leave Mexican officials in the dark? Since the big fish are in Mexico, what would the ATF do about it even if the managed to trace them? Ignore Mexico's sovereignty?
An important thing missing is how they can afford this stuff. While the more than one rifle requirement would be of little consequence for the average buyer, the dealer will have to buy a few more stamps etc. That is of little consequence to me. Will the ATF get any actionable intelligence out of it? I doubt it.
Here is my attitude in a nutshell: I do not use illegal drugs, I do not sell guns without consigning through an FFL for background checks, I do not sell drugs. I contribute nothing to the gun violence in the US and Mexico. Yet, my rights would be restricted. On the other hand, some of those who wring their hands about gun violence in both countries and want to restrict my rights, contribute more to gun violence by lining the gangs' pockets. That is total bullshit regardless of where anyone sits on the spectrum. That is a little like Walker and the Kochs blaming unions for the current depression. The typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than I do. It is the stupidity, hypocrisy, and blind faith to a narrow ideology.

About your accusation that factcheck doesn't do in-depth research, it may be true that they don't have as many resources as, say, the Washington Post. But I imagine that as a gunner you feel that WaPo, along with NYT, CNN, LAT, MSNBC, etc. is all part of the big anti-gun conspiracy, so I was hoping that maybe we could find some common ground with factcheck.

I don't know about anti-gun conspiracy, but I do know that when several hundred thousand anti war protesters show up took to the streets they said nothing, but make a big deal out of a couple of teabaggers. I lost faith in the MSM because of the WMDs (or lack of), Ted Koppel describing Rush Limbaugh as "an expert in environmental issues." (I was watching it when he said it.) NYT did cheerlead the latest Iraq invasion. I would say it has more to do with the quality of journalism in the US, interlocking boards of directors that own the media companies, and editorial policy. When it comes to economic issues, they seem mostly on the side of Wall Street and have an anti-union bias.

Stratfor, which also doesn't have nearly the resources of a WaPo. And, on this very issue, factcheck (unlike Stratfor) did manage to secure an on-the-record interview with Charles Houser, chief of the ATF’s National Tracing Center. This is a guy who has talked to many agents and officials on both sides of the border, has been to Mexico, and has intricate first-hand knowledge of how exactly the tracing works

What do you know about Stratfor? Stratfor is an intelligence service that employs former intelligence types. IIRC, Stratfor said the WMD in Iraq was bullshit even when WaPo was cheerleading with NYT. Stratfor does not have to suck up to keep access. Everyone knows how tracing works.

you know, talk to the guy who heads the ATF tracing as part of the research for this article? I guess it doesn't matter to you as long as they are saying what you want to hear...

I don't remember questioning anything he said other than pointing out that he said "there were few non US made guns" also meant few if any Glocks (Austria), Walthers (Germany, although the PPK is made under license in the US), Heckler & Koch (Germany and no relation to the Kansas Kochs) or semi automatics that are based on Kalashnikov design, because no US company makes them. It also means no FN FiveSevens (the so called "cop killer"). None of them are of US manufacture. That is simple deduction. Colt, Ruger, Smith & Wesson is a different issue.

And still, even Stratfor concedes that there has been a "long and well-documented history" of arms smuggling from the US to Mexico, and that this is a "significant source" of weapons for drug cartels. They just disagree with the 90% number. So Stratfor and the head of ATF gun tracing disagree on the exact percentages, but both agree that the US is a significant source of weapons. And that's fine with me.

I don't know if anyone questioned guns going south. What Stratfor is saying is that most of guns were not submitted for tracing, meaning those submitted for tracing is a small subset of all guns. 90 percent (or 70 or whatever) of those traced, but a much smaller number of all guns captured. You seem to be under the impression that it is 90 percent of all guns captured. Two very different things. If you read the factcheck article closer and Stratfor's pie chart, it does point that out. Something your side seems to miss.

As far as the exact percentages of weapons coming from the US, it's true that nobody knows the exact numbers, because the estimates are based on a sample and we can't tell exactly how representative that sample is. As the second factcheck article points out, though, we do know that the usual myths that you and others toss around are just that (e.g. that "traced to the US" includes many guns stolen from the Mexican Military, that the main reason guns don't get submitted for tracing is that they lack US markings, etc.). So there are no really good reasons to suspect that the trace percentages are way off the mark.

True to a degree. A lot of things come to light in two years. My sources were more recent (including a Wikileaks dump). Factcheck is over two years old. I missed where they got their source for that. That being the case, the "we know what is a myth" no longer applies. There is more that we don't know and not likely be reported with open source methods any time soon. We know about the Guatemalan sales through Wikileaks. The cable is classified SECRET with a declassification date of 2019. Did they tell the ATF? Given my experience with "secret squirrels", I'm not counting on it.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112594/cable-guatemalan-military-selling.html

[gejohnston]

68. to better clarify

Based on Fact Check:
29,000 guns recovered by Mexican authorities
11,055 guns Mexican authorities gave to ATF to trace
ATF received 38.1206897 of all guns.
Assuming 90 percent of those traced were from the That makes it 9,949.5 were traced to the US.
That comes out to 34.3086207 percent of all guns were traced to the US.

Your side is saying that 90 percent of the 29,000 (26,100) were traced to the US.

In the stratfor pie chart, (based on GAO numbers) the total guns captured were 30,000. 7,200 were submitted to the ATF. Of those 7,200; 3,480 were traced to the US.

[DanTex]

70. Yes, not all guns get traced, we all know that.

If you read the factcheck interview with the head of ATF gun tracing, he points out that the biggest reasons why guns don't get traced are clerical and bureaucratic. Sometimes a gun isn't traced because the case is solved quickly and the police don't think it is necessary or valuable. Other times it's because of language barriers. Etc.

So there's no good reason to believe that the guns that get traced are a severely biased or unrepresentative sample. You, for example, parroted the myth that the guns that don't get traced didn't have US markings. Another poster parroted another common myth, that the guns traced to the US include large numbers of guns that were sold to the Mexican military, rather than smuggled over the border. If I hadn't been on this board for as long as I had, I might have been surprised by this sort of misinformation being regurgitated by Democrats. But by now I know better.

Anyway, although we don't know for sure how biased the sample is, the estimates of 70%-90% that we are seeing are likely to be reasonably accurate in terms of the overall fraction of guns that come from the US. And this is exactly what Houser, the head of the ATF gun tracing, said to factcheck. And, as even Stratfor points out, regardless of what the actual percentage is, guns smuggled from the US are a significant source of weaponry for Mexican drug cartels. The only people denying that particular point seem to be pro-gunner extremists on the net.

[gejohnston]

71. who says it is a myth?

You, for example, parroted the myth that the guns that don't get traced didn't have US markings. Another poster parroted another common myth, that the guns traced to the US include large numbers of guns that were sold to the Mexican military, rather than smuggled over the border.

He said, not pointed out. Quality journalism is fact checking what the interviewee said. Investigative journalism 101: never take any source or press release at face value. Did he see the guns for himself or was it something he was told. His position of authority does not mean that much. Sorry, there is no reason to believe the nontraced ones are of US origin. Given the number of native born Americans at are also fluent in Spanish (I lived in the Southwest. I used to work or one.) I can't help but be skeptical about "language barrier".

Even if they are of US origin, it does not mean they came from the legal civilian market. Given that these cartels have the resources to build submarines to smuggle their goods, it seems a little more than absurd to me that they would limit themselves to only civilian weapons at a huge mark up, when they can get full autos in bulk and much cheaper, just like their grenades. I tend to think many of the US gun shop guns are picked bought by otherwise law abiding Mexicans to defend themselves against the gangs and their bought and paid for police.

I do know this for certain: every picture I found of captured weapons with the article, few of the guns are found any any gun store I have been in.
You read drug cartels into it. It applies to common street criminals as well.

Like I said before: where do admitted pot heads like Bill Maher get off wanting to restrict my rights for a problem he contributes more than I do (unless his is all homegrown)

That said, the Brady talking point that 90 or 70 percent of all smuggled guns are from the US civilian market is baseless. Even if it were true, see above line.

[DanTex]

72. "every picture I found"!

Dude! Why didn't you just say so in the first place? Who would listen to the head of ATF gun tracing or factcheck.org when instead we could go with "gejohnston looks at pictures"?!?!

Anyway, if you've got some evidence to back any of your myths about the gun tracing, I'd love to see it. I won't be holding my breath though. As for your lectures about investigative journalism, my favorite part is how you take Stratfor at their word even though they didn't even have a single source on the record. Factcheck spoke to two ATF officials on the record for their story, one of which was the head of ATF gun tracing.

Besides that, as I've mentioned many times and you continue to ignore, even Stratfor concedes that smuggling from the US is a significant source of guns to Mexican cartels. Do I need to repeat that again?

Stratfor concedes that smuggling from the US is a significant source of guns to Mexican cartels.
Stratfor concedes that smuggling from the US is a significant source of guns to Mexican cartels.
Stratfor concedes that smuggling from the US is a significant source of guns to Mexican cartels.

[gejohnston]

73. where is your evidence?

Even so:
No gun law is going to make a difference. Like I said before:

I do not use illegal drugs, I do not sell guns without consigning through an FFL for background checks, I do not sell drugs. I contribute nothing to the gun violence in the US and Mexico. Yet, my rights would be restricted. On the other hand, some of those who wring their hands about gun violence in both countries and want to restrict my rights, contribute more to gun violence by lining the gangs' pockets. That is total bullshit regardless of where anyone sits on the spectrum. That is a little like Walker and the Kochs blaming unions for the current depression. The typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than I do. It is the stupidity, hypocrisy, and blind faith to a narrow ideology.

The typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA.
The typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA.
The typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA.
The typical bong owner contributes more to gun violence than the NRA.

[TheWraith]

37. Your own link confirms that the LA Times is full of shit. Did you even read it?

The only dispute is whether it's 17% or 36%, depending on which numbers you get from the Mexican government--which has a huge vested interest in blaming the US for the complete failure of it's system.

[DanTex]

40. Umm... No it doesn't.

The factcheck article says very clearly that the 17% that you quoted from Fox is a myth. I believe the sentence is "The Myth of 17%". Did you even get that far?

It then goes on to say that the range of possibility is between 36% and 95%, it depends on how representative the sample is of guns that get traced versus all guns used in crimes in Mexico. That's in the first article.

Then there's the second article, the follow-up where they checked into why so many guns don't get traced at all. It turns out that the most common reasons are clerical and bureaucratic, so there's not really any reason to think there is a huge amount of sampling bias, thus debunking the right-wing myths that guns don't get traced because the "don't have US markings" and so on. That's why many officials on either side of the border, as well as agents and experts like the head of the ATF gun tracing center, who was interviewed by FactCheck, believe that the 70%-90% estimates, though based on a subset of all criminal guns in Mexico, are roughly accurate in terms of what percent of the guns come from the US.

The FactCheck article the goes on to debunk the myth that many of the "guns traced to the US" actually are legally transferred to the Mexican Police or Military and then stolen. It turns out that this accounts for only about 1% of the traced guns. I notice that this other myth has also made an appearance in this thread.

And so on. The point being, that, as usual, Fox News is completely wrong, and the only people pushing the "17% myth" and other such nonsense are militant gun bloggers and right-wing media outlets. In fact, one thing I've come to learn is one of the most reliable signals that a statistic or claim is truthful is when gun militants start denying it.

Here, I'll post the link again. Hopefully you'll read it this time:
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/more-on-mexican-guns/

[rl6214]

47. And you don't find factcheck to be at all biased?

Many do.

[gejohnston]

23. no, you certainly are missing the big picture

While rifles and pistols from the border states are a problem, but hardly to the degree claimed. Given these gangs' resources, why buy pay over a grand for a semi-automatic, when you can get military surplus full autos for a couple of hundred bucks from the middle east or Africa?

due to loose US gun laws, particularly in border states, and gun lobby resistance against regulations and laws that might reduce this flow of guns.

Out of the guns submitted to BATFE for tracing (about ten percent of all guns. The rest apparently had no US markings) most were indeed of US origin. That does not mean they were all straw purchased from gun shops. It means they were made in the US or had a US wholesaler. M-16s stolen from the Mexican military would fall in that category. So would weapons stolen from from other militaries and entering through the southern border would also fall in that category. According to McClatchy (and they put the Wikileaked cables online), the southern border is a greater concern.
While most of the pistols are from the US, the average age of the pistol is 14 years old.

Another question worth asking: How many of our guns are going to otherwise law abiding Mexicans to defend themselves from the gangs.
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Gun-owners-in-Mexico--121814734.html

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112616/drug-gangs-help-themselves-to.html
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/21/112595/cable-lax-honduran-controls-on.html
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-mexico-arms-race15-2009mar15,0,7497626,full.story
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090708_mexico_economics_and_arms_trade

To inoculate myself from the "right wing propaganda from Fox" tirade, can you show that any of these sources are connected to Murdoch or any right wing organization?

One question progressives (or liberals) never seem to ask is "who pays for this stuff"? That is because some of the same people wringing their hands about "lax gun laws" are helping pay for it, but are either too stupid or stoned to know or care. We both know that.

[TheWraith]

26. Out of curiosity, do you also say the same thing about the Iraq War?

After all, that was "good intentions" driven too, even though it was so fucking stupid as to be mind boggling, as well as in violation of several international laws. Kind of like knowingly selling thousands of guns to felons with no means of tracking them, and then just letting them walk away.

[Atypical Liberal]

32. It's not a pretty picture.

First of all, it doesn't really matter how many guns criminals in Mexico buy from America. This has absolutely no bearing on me or any other lawful gun owner in this country, and we aren't going to tolerate restrictions on all of us for the sake of them.

But secondly, I seriously doubt that this ATF operation actually was an ATF operation, and I don't think it had anything to do with trying to stem the flow of guns into Mexico. I believe that this was part of a concerted effort by the CIA to arm drug cartels rival to the Zetas. This wasn't about stemming the flow of guns into Mexico, it was about purposefully getting them there.

[Kennah]

63. Throwing gasoline on a fire is also flawed, even though one is addressing the problem

[Hoyt]

17. I advocate nothing of the sort. But I don't want the ATF investigations into gun trafficking stopped

because those that support the expansion of guns are turning this into a political issue. Don't have a problem with
disciplining those who messed the "sting" up, but not at the expense of castrating the ATF. Too many friggin guns out, and too many gun terrorists.

[one-eyed fat man]

18. So the political appointees

in the ATF and the Justice department who dreamed up this mess and pushed it over the advice of actual street agents should get a pass because "their heart was in the right place?"

They are acting worse than children caught red-handed.

First they try lying, they try covering it up:

"Never heard of it."

"We didn't do it."

"They did it but we didn't know it."

"Those other guys did it too"

In the end they say, "Everyone does it, why pick on me?"

This isn't the first time you have taken the position that the end justifies the means.

[Hoyt]

19. If they had been successful in the sting, you guys would still bash the ATF.

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lurks Often]

20. In this case they aren't investigating the gun

trafficking, they ARE the gun traffickers.

As for the rest of the your post, it is the usual slander without documentation that we've come to expect from you.

[beevul]

29. Enough with the "sting"schtick already. EVERYONE but you knows there was no sting.

There CAN NOT be a sting, when guns are DELIBERATELY allowed to walk, and no effort is made to monitor them or their route to their final destination.

There CAN NOT be a sting, and no effort can be made to monitor them or their route to their final destination, when guns are allowed to walk past a border on the other side of which those allowing guns to walk have NO JURISDICTION, when NO attempt to involve Mexican government/authorities was made.

What is it that is so bleeding hard for YOU to understand about this hoyt?

[Katya Mullethov]

30. But

have you seen the map ? They made a map .

[Hoyt]

43. I do understand. Gunners have always hated the ATF and laws restricting their access to weapons.

This operation failed and you guys are happy to pile on, perhaps with some reason. There are plenty of gunners who would have been glad to sell their guns for top dollar without a background check or any concern about where the guns were going. So the guns would have gotten there anyway.

I'm glad to see us trying to stem the trafficking of guns. I'd suggestion some better schemes and throwing more people in jail who try to circumvent the laws.

[Katya Mullethov]

51. We' re working on that , right this very moment

We were told it would die on the vine , that it would be forgotten , that it was nothing more than dirty partisan politics , that it was GW's fault , and then that GW did it too , and WE WILL NOT be ..oh wow , look , something shiny .

[Straw Man]

65. So let me get this straight...

You think that it's OK for the ATF to sell the narcotraficantes their murder weapons of choice because if they didn't do it, someone else would? Is that what you really believe?

Please tell me you're not in law enforcement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. He's as conversant with law enforcement techniques as he is with firearms technology.

A real Renaissance man, bless his heart....

[rl6214]

49. You mean like Maj Hassan

That sort of gun terrorist?

[gravity556]

25. It can't possibly be because .gov is selling arms to cartels and then blaming law abiding gun owners

No, that couldn't possibly be the reason. Nor could it be that the same blame that .gov is laying on the law abiding, we also get Calderon screaming about the Second Amemndment and how it's to blame for all his country's problems. Hey, how about you clean up your own fucking house beore your complain about the dust behind the TV at our place. Senor Presidente.

And all F&F managed to do is ensure that the cartels had extra guns, courtesy of Holder and ATF and company.

Pipeline get squeezed? What pipeline, Hoyt? You mean our constitutional rights? Yeah, you could say that gun owners are pretty pissed about being blamed for some bullshit the window licking short bus riders over at BATFE are pulling. Particularly when they figuratively scrawl on the walls of the bus in feces and then blame it on the non-drooling idiot next to them. Of course, the fact that there are folks who shall remain unnamed who believe that the kid whose hands aren't covered in feces and can actually spell "stupid" is really the one to blame.

[SteveM]

33. Your "pipeline:" The "gubment" created this, you realize. nt

[spin]

35. "Stings" do not normally lead to 200 deaths ...

and this figure will rise in the future.

If I allowed a person to buy one of my firearms knowing that he intended to smuggle it into Mexico and give it to members of a drug cartel, I would suspect that the firearm would end up being used to kill or injure innocent people.

Of course, I would never do such a thing and I would expect that law enforcement agents who are in charge of stopping the illegal sale of firearms would also not permit such sales.

Obviously firearms are lethal items and should only be in the hands of honest, sane and responsible individuals. That is why I refuse to sell any of my firearms to a person that I do not personally know and that person has to have a valid concealed weapons permit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. The only "sting"...

...here is what is/will/should be felt by many careers of those involved with "Gun Walker" working in the DoJ.

[rl6214]

45. "Gubment"?

Your mom needs to get you out of her basement more often, maybe send you off to school instead of home schooling you.

[Hoyt]

50. Most gunners I've known pronounce it like that. Where I'm from, home schooling and love of guns

go together . . . . . .

As a matter of fact, that is exactly how one of our popular governors -- who chased Blacks out of his restaurant with a gun -- pronounced it.

[gejohnston]

55. got that

regional bigotry, anti rural bigotry, guilt by association thing down pat don't you?

[PavePusher]

59. Does that kind of bigotry sell in the screen-writer business, Hoyt?

'Cause it sure as fuck doesn't sell here at D.U.

You seem to have trouble understanding that....

[Hoyt]

62. Seems Michael Moore is popular here? I admit it, I too am "bigoted" against those who promote guns

in every corner of our society. He, and many others, are too.

[oneshooter]

77. Have you surrendered your firearms to the Police for destruction?

If not, then why not?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

75. Are you on drugs?

Should you be?

What the fuck is wrong with you Hoyt?

[Kennah]

64. If local vice cops used the same tactics ...

... they'd be out fucking prostitutes in an effort to combat prostitution.

DickWalker anyone? Which is different from that dick, Walker.

[one-eyed fat man]

66. One teeny weeny difference

The story amounts to a statement by an unnamed Justice Department person that during an undercover operation, straw men were allowed to receive guns. OK, that's in the nature of an undercover operation. Nowhere in the story is it claimed that the straw men were allowed to ship the guns into Mexico, which is the key point.

Fast & Furious was a "sting operation" right up until guns crossed the border without surveillance and no way of knowing where they would wind up. The Mexican authorities couldn't pick up surveillance, they were deliberately not informed, violating only a few "minor laws and treaties."

Holder got caught "misunderstanding the question" on an operation that involved three agencies that work for him, ATF, DEA and FBI and at least a handful of US Attorneys that superintend the legal issues of those agencies.

Now, one more time slowly, a sting operation requires you to track the contraband up the chain of supply to find the bigger fish. To provide contraband to the low level buyers and simply watch them walk away is useless. To let them walk away with guns and wait until one of them is found at the scene of a murder is criminal.

[Hoopla Phil]

76. Excellent summation and contrast. Thank you.