A few days ago, a sure-to-be controversial report was released, titled "Halting U.S. Firearms Trafficking to Mexico." It was sponsored and put together by three US senators - Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, and Sheldon Whitehouse - for the US Senate Caucus on International Narcotics control.
Feel free to read the entire report HERE. What I'm hoping to do with this blog post is to summarize the key points, and try to suss some meaning out of all the statistics and recommendations:
Analysis: This is a relatively lengthy and detailed report (although I've seen MUCH longer on this issue). But the section of the report that will garner the most attention is this one: Based on updated ATF tracing data, of the 29,284 firearms seized and successfully traced in Mexico in 2009 and 2010, 20,504 came from a US source (meaning a gun shop, gun show, or private sale). That comes to 70 percent, if you don't want to go searching for the calculator in the junk drawer. Now, 69 percent of those firearms were sold in either California, Arizona, or Texas.
There were other things that the three senators discovered that they weren't thrilled with. First, they noted that under federal law, background checks are not required for sales by unlicensed sellers at US gun shows. Second, they said military-style weapons are readily available for civilian purchase in the US: "Many of these are imported from former Eastern bloc countries and then can be bought by straw purchasers and transported to Mexico. In addition, some importers bring rifle parts into the United States and reassemble them into military-style firearms using a small number of domestically manufactured components." There were a few other things noted, but many of them were legislative in nature and not as controversy-stimulating as these three things.
Tackling the first one, most of my readers know (and avidly take one side or the other) that it's been a constant battle between the US government and the NRA and other pro-gun groups to determine where most of the guns in Mexico come from. The first major salvos were fired after the infamous "90 percent" figure came out. That refers to reports by the ATF and Government Accountability Office that roughly 90 percent (more like 87 percent) of firearms seized in Mexico and successfully traced to a point of sale came back to US origins.
The US government and a considerable number of mainstream media outlets used that figure as a springboard for making the US [even more] complicit in Mexico's drug war, and launching a rash of new initiatives for slowing down the southbound flow. Pro-gun groups like the NRA and conservative media outlets blasted the government statistics, claiming they were overblown to support an agenda for restricting firearms ownership and stepping all over the Second Amendment. Those groups also believe that Mexican TCOs use and obtain more military-grade weapons than US-origin rifles and handguns from places like Central America, Asia, and former Eastern bloc countries.
The crux of the problem is that no one knows, with any real degree of certainty, where most of the firearms in Mexico are coming from because 100 percent of them are not seized, and therefore 100 percent of them are not traced. In fact, it's impossible to know exactly how many rifles, handguns, grenades, and RPGs are in Mexico right now and being used by the TCOs, so the 29,284 that were seized in 2009 and 2010 could be most of them or just a drop in the bucket; I'm putting my money on the latter. Furthermore, it's impossible to know what proportion of TCO firepower consists of firearms readily available in the US, like rifles and handguns, and what proportion consists of military-grade arms, like grenades and RPGs, that are not.
That brings us to the recommendations that the three senators make. Most of them do involve increasing gun law restrictions: Reinstating the assault weapons ban, requiring ALL gun sellers at shows to run background checks, requiring the reporting of multiple long guns, and some others. This comes as no surprise, as all three senators are Democrats, and the Democratic Party generally favors gun restrictions. I'm sure if this investigation and subsequent report had been conceived by three pro-gun Republicans, it would have read very differently, so keep that in mind.
So, if fully implemented tomorrow (hypothetically speaking), would any of the recommendations made by the three senators have an impact on the drug war and associated violence? In my opinion, probably not. And I say that only because I don't believe anyone has a true grasp of the weapons trafficking situation across the US-Mexico border. Not because of bias or incompetence, but because of the very nature of the problem. Not many people are inspecting southbound vehicles into Mexico, where most US-origin guns are being transported. It's very difficult to detect firearms transactions between Central American dealers and TCO purchasers. Shipments of weapons come into Mexican ports, where they're rarely searched. Firearms either seized or used by Mexican soldiers and police often wind up in TCO hands, and that's not tracked.
Also, straw purchasers who work for TCOs are using our gun laws - and loopholes - against us. The assault weapons ban only covers a few of the firearms most used and coveted by TCOs. More rigorous background checks won't accomplish much because straw purchasers are selected for use by TCOs for their squeaky clean records. I do like the requirement to report sales of multiple long guns because (a) that's already being required for multiple pistol sales, and (b) I do believe that's a good indicator of a suspicious purchase. I know several people will have an angry response to this, but I just don't get why anyone without bad intentions would want to buy eight AR-15s for personal use and sporting purposes.
To wrap up, we know that a good number of firearms being used by TCOs in Mexico come from US sources. I'm not going to go into Operation "Gunwalker" in this post because that accounted for only 1,795 weapons, and we're talking about tens of thousands here. We also know that TCOs are getting a good amount of military hardware from other-than-U sources. However, no one - not the US government, not the Mexican government, and not the NRA - knows what proportion of each is being used by the TCOs, and what percentage of each comes from where.
I don't believe that additional gun legislation is going to solve any problems related to southbound weapons trafficking, although I'm sure it would make some politicians happy to feel like they're trying to do something about it. There is no easy answer to the problem, especially since the TCO need for guns is ultimately derived from US demand for drugs, and ending that is impossible. The best we can hope for is a much-improved understanding of the nature of weapons trafficking to Mexico, and better intelligence-driven investigations and operations.
Wikipedia: "Investment has different meanings in finance and economics. In Finance investment is putting money into something with the expectation of gain, that upon thorough analysis, has a high degree of security of principle, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time. In contrast putting money into something with an expectation of gain without thorough analysis, without security of principal, and without security of return is speculation or gambling."
For those with experience or sufficient study, buying firearms or collector automobiles with the expectation of gain is, by definition, a valid "investment".
Posted by: Ike | June 18, 2011 at 07:20 PM
I generally try to stay out of the debates involving guns because, well...it's not good for my health. But I've been reading all the back-and-forth about guns as an investment, and had to put my $.02. If I'm saving for kids' college tuition or my retirement, I'm putting my money in an IRA or mutual fund and calling that an investment. We have some art in our house, and maybe in 20 years it'll be worth more, and maybe not. I guess you could say the same about mutual funds (look at the economy now), but if you told anyone that you were saving for your retirement or kids' college by investing in firearms, they'd tell you you were off your rocker.
Posted by: Sylvia Longmire | June 18, 2011 at 07:25 PM
Sylvia:
I've been 'investing' in older, collector firearms for some 50+ years, and this has been a far, far better investment than any other. My mutual fund tanked several years ago - so I bailed out. My stocks have been so-so. I'll stick to my guns! (pun intended) Am I off my rocker? Probably so, but I can live with it! I now have a nice healthy little nest egg that exceeds my social security and civil service retirement - and may continue for the rest of my life.
You might want to reconsider your investment portfolio?
Posted by: Ike | June 18, 2011 at 08:56 PM
@Ike
I reject Wikipedia as a qualified reference.
However, let me explain why your reference proves my point:
"An investment has a high degree of security of principle, as well as security of return, within an expected period of time."
According to this quote and investment must provide two things: 1) security of principle and 2) security of return
Collections do NOT meet either criteria. First, the prices of cars, coins, stamps, rare books, fine art and guns, yes, guns, rise and fall. Ferraris peaked in the early 1990's, coins in 1980, rare books and fine art are very illiquid and gun resale values rise and fall.
Second; what "return" does a gun, car, book, stamp, or piece of art provide? My rare books do not mate and reproduce. Coins do not multiply, cars do not get newer, fine art does not grow on the wall and guns are metal in a box. Their function (driving, reading, viewing pleasure, firing) is a benefit ("joy") of ownership, not a 'secure return'.
If you do not believe me then please contact your financial adviser and ask him if collections provide a "security of return within an expected period of time."
A collector is a consumer, not an investor.
I am happy for all those who had the foresight to engage in the hobby of their choice and benefit financially. I just wanted to call BS on the ridiculous statements that people use to justify buying weapons.
Posted by: Beltonwall | June 19, 2011 at 12:09 AM
I'm sure Wikipedia can live with your rejection!
Well, we'll simply agree to disagree. I didn't call your position BS, but you are the one resorting to name-calling. You call it BS. I, and thousands of others like me, call it financial security.
Any "secure return" is an illusion. All companies, countries, currencies, securities, commodities, art and even gold, rise and fall relative to all other things of value to people in different locations.
You say a collector is a consumer - yet he doesn't consume. He preserves and protects the goods, and resells at a later date. Hardly the definition of 'consumer'. You should look that up in Wikipedia.....
Posted by: Ike | June 19, 2011 at 03:53 PM
Ike,
I think that we must agree to disagree. For the record, I did not call you a name. I made a remark about an idea, not a person. Please note the difference and that this is a hallmark of civilized debate.
"Secure return" is not an illusion. Please refer to the structure of US Treasuries or Certificate of Deposits.
I encourage you to expand your understanding of the word 'consume'. Restaurant meals are consumed within an hour. Gas in your gas tank is consumed to the extent that you drive (an afternoon, one day, week or even month). Food is consumed when eaten or when it is rotten and thrown out. Clothes are consumed over a period of months or years, depending on their quality. Computers are consumed over a period of years, hopefully :)
Fine art, rare books, coins, stamps, guns and collector cars can be consumed over generations or even centuries. Collectors attempt to slow or stop the aging ('consumption') process. They maintain their collection by protecting it from the elements to save for the next generation. Maintenance costs (incl. storage and cleaning) are an expense borne by the collector and are an additional form of consumption.
But, only when they are rusted out, burned up or otherwise destroyed then they are finally 100% 'consumed'.
Shall we review some collections that are today worthless? Cabbage patch kids? Beanie Babies? Tickle-me Elmo? Longaberger baskets? Hideous movie 'collector' plates that no one collects? "Precious Moments" figurines? Bottle Caps? Beer Cans? 8-track cassettes? Compact discs? VHS movies?
At one point people 'collected' these items. What is the resale value to these items today? According to your definition ("preserves, protects and resells later") these are not collections as there is no resale market. Yet at the time of purchase the buyer would tell you he was 'collecting' these items when in fact he was consuming.
Posted by: Beltonwall | June 19, 2011 at 06:54 PM
Dear Sylvia,
As someone who supports a total ban on handgun ownership in the United States and don't consider our Constitution to contain a right to own arms (i.e., firearms), why don't you want to get into the merits of gun ownership?
As an intelligence analyst, I am sure you saw significant number of guns flow into Mexico from the United States.
Aren't you not bother by it?
Are you intimidated by the passionate defense of the right to own arms by certain segment of the population?
As a young white guy with strong liberal political views, I could care less about their passion to own guns.
From my observation, the typical profile I see in the passionate gun owner is a middle age white male who feel abandoned economically by both parties (Democratic and Republican Parties), and at least owning guns make them feel somewhat secure (and hence votes Republican because they believe conservative politicians will at least let them own guns).
While many of them are working class, some of these have college degrees, but they tend to have skills that don't make them earn good money anymore.
At the same time, they see Asians and Hispanics are taking over jobs that whites used to do (white collar jobs for Asians and blue collar jobs for Hispanics).
I used to work for a San Francisco Bay area high-tech company (as an engineer) and I saw that 70% of the engineers were Asians (50% were east Asians, and 20% were south west Asians).
While not everyone drove a luxury car, I have never seen a beater at the company parking lot.
If you are a white engineer like me, yes, you do feel like you are a minority.
If they were whites in the company, they tend to be in the area of management (most of the officers of the company were white and the CEO was getting filthy rich from stock options) and other non-technical parts of the company (finance, HR, marketing).
My mom who lives in the western suburban Chicago area of Illinois has noticed the rapid influx of Asians and Hispanics (noticeable especially in shopping malls) in the region and feels like she is becoming a minority in her own country (the area was virtually white when she grew up there 40 years ago).
I feel the rise in the gun ownership support among whites is the products of ever increasing non-white immigration to the U.S. and white people's growing economic insecurity.
Posted by: bluemountain196 | June 19, 2011 at 07:33 PM
Ike,
To me it seems as if your definition of investment is 'anything that increases in value'.
Investments occur in the four factors of production and are not 'anything that increases in value'. Collections consist of consumer products that may or may not increase in value. If a consumer product increases in value it has not magically transformed into an investment. It is still a consumer product.
For example, all of today's collector cars were at one point new cars. And later they were old cars. Nothing special, just cars meant to be driven and 'consumed'. Today some cars are worth much more than their original sales price, even after adjusting for inflation. This does not mean that they are now 'investments'. They are still cars that can break down, get wrecked, and need maintenance. Their value can still go to zero or near zero. They can still be fully consumed as they are still consumer products--for a different intended consumer than originally planned, to say the least.
Treasuries and CD's on the other hand, cannot be consumed. They cannot wear out, rust, be burned or have their value go to zero and they do have a secure return.
Posted by: Beltonwall | June 19, 2011 at 09:44 PM
@bluemountain196 | June 19, 2011 at 06:33 PM
"From my observation, the typical profile I see in the passionate gun owner is a middle age white male who feel abandoned economically by both parties (Democratic and Republican Parties), and at least owning guns make them feel somewhat secure (and hence votes Republican because they believe conservative politicians will at least let them own guns)."
What a racist and naive statement.
Posted by: anonymous_hero | June 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM
To anonymous_hero,
Truth hurts, doesn't it?
Merely stating that white economic insecurity is one (if not all) of the reasons why whites tend to favor gun ownership rights is nothing radical, and it is certainly not racist.
Maybe you are white and is bothered by the constructive comments I have made.
But I suppose it is as taboo as saying that many African Americans don't finish high school, and as a result don't do well economically.
By the way, candidate Barack Obama did echo the same sort of comment (he did also cited religion as another item presumed white working class people cling onto along with guns), although he didn't mean to make the comment public.
I do stand behind the comments I have made 100%.
Posted by: bluemountain196 | June 20, 2011 at 03:29 PM