IGX

Here's a relatively dispassionate analysis of Mexico from intelligence firm Stratfor:https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/2011020 ... rcent-myth

Schlegel wrote:

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote: Like for Mexico "the BATFE traces a majority of crime guns to a US origin". No, just a majority of the guns they are given, which is a minority of confiscated guns. Guns obviously of other origin are not sent to the BATFE, because the BATFE cannot trace a gun that never entered the US.
...
I could go on all day with examples...

Come on now... the # of small arms going south across the border is pretty large (estimates put that number at 100,000+ and that's low balling it significantly). I have no idea what the number of arms supplied to govts. and rebels throughout Central and South America is, but I'm guessing it's huge.

In truth, no one agrees on the actual number, but it is not possible to say that 90% of Mexican crime guns are known to come from the US, although this is repeatedly published as unquestioned fact. certainly illegal US sales can not be a significant source of full-auto weapons, even though cartels use large numbers of them, since you can not just walk in and buy them in a US gun shop. Arms supplied to governments are known to fall in to cartel hands as an astoundingly high percentage of the Mexican Army defects annually, and they are known to occasionally attack and empty arms depots. By rights, these arms really should be discounted from the analysis, since no amount of US civilian gun control can reduce them.

I guess it all comes down to what you want to count...

Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

Boris wrote:Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

Unless you travel outside N America.

Read up on how much Soviet Cold war era, and modern Chinese and Russian rifles are around in South America and Africa compared to American. We're #1 in dollars, not necessarily # of weapons, because we sell the pricey stuff.

Schlegel wrote:Read up on how much Soviet Cold war era, and modern Chinese and Russian rifles are around in South America and Africa compared to American. We're #1 in dollars, not necessarily # of weapons, because we sell the pricey stuff.

I believe you.

Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

This is possibly the single largest piece of bullshit I have read in this thread. The world is "awash in small arms" because governments sell or approve the sale of military weapons by the container ship and those weapons are then sold by corrupt military and government bureaucrats on the black market. As someone already pointed out about the Russian and Chinese AKs. Private citizens arming themselves with semi-autos have fuck all to do with it.

This article is a bit old, but it was scandalous when it came out. It also put lie to the, "American Citizens are walking guns across the border" bullshit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-us-gu ... g-cartels/

The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico - then diverted to violent cartels - is becoming more urgent. That's because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through "direct commercial sales." It's a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.

Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.

And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.

"I think most Americans are aware that there's a problem in terms of the drug traffickers in Mexico, increases in violence," said Bill Hartung, an arms control advocate with the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. "I don't think they realize that we're sending so many guns there, and that some of them may be diverted to the very cartels that we're trying to get under control."

The State Department audits only a tiny sample - less than 1 percent of sales - but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were "diverted" into the wrong hands, or had other "unfavorable" results.

tonkadtx wrote:

Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

This is possibly the single largest piece of bullshit I have read in this thread. The world is "awash in small arms" because governments sell or approve the sale of military weapons by the container ship and those weapons are then sold by corrupt military and government bureaucrats on the black market. As someone already pointed out about the Russian and Chinese AKs. Private citizens arming themselves with semi-autos have fuck all to do with it.

This article is a bit old, but it was scandalous when it came out. It also put lie to the, "American Citizens are walking guns across the border" bullshit.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/legal-us-gu ... g-cartels/

The problem of weapons legally sold to Mexico - then diverted to violent cartels - is becoming more urgent. That's because the U.S. has quietly authorized a massive escalation in the number of guns sold to Mexico through "direct commercial sales." It's a way foreign countries can acquire firearms faster and with less disclosure than going through the Pentagon.

Here's how it works: A foreign government fills out an application to buy weapons from private gun manufacturers in the U.S. Then the State Department decides whether to approve.

And it did approve 2,476 guns to be sold to Mexico in 2006. In 2009, that number was up nearly 10 times, to 18,709. The State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves, and wouldn't give CBS News figures for 2010 or 2011.

With Mexico in a virtual state of war with its cartels, nobody's tracking how many U.S. guns are ending up with the enemy.

"I think most Americans are aware that there's a problem in terms of the drug traffickers in Mexico, increases in violence," said Bill Hartung, an arms control advocate with the Arms and Security Project at the Center for International Policy. "I don't think they realize that we're sending so many guns there, and that some of them may be diverted to the very cartels that we're trying to get under control."

The State Department audits only a tiny sample - less than 1 percent of sales - but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were "diverted" into the wrong hands, or had other "unfavorable" results.

I knew just throwing that out there without any further explanation might rile some people. I'm not trying to start an argument, just discussion.

I wasn't limiting the scope of the discussion to guns that were sold from a store and ended up in the cartels hands vs. govts "diverting" them.

I will check the link later. Thank you.

China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Turkey, Pakistan, etc. - yes, others make, sell, trade arms. I know that.

I can't quote numbers off the top of my head, but something like 6 of the top small arms manufacturers in the world are from the U.S.. Yes, I (and I hope everyone here) recognize that numbers are shady all around, so who really knows exactly?

The NRA lobbies pretty hard against gun control measures at home AND abroad. It's something to consider.

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote:

Boris wrote:

Schlegel wrote: Like for Mexico "the BATFE traces a majority of crime guns to a US origin". No, just a majority of the guns they are given, which is a minority of confiscated guns. Guns obviously of other origin are not sent to the BATFE, because the BATFE cannot trace a gun that never entered the US.
...
I could go on all day with examples...

Come on now... the # of small arms going south across the border is pretty large (estimates put that number at 100,000+ and that's low balling it significantly). I have no idea what the number of arms supplied to govts. and rebels throughout Central and South America is, but I'm guessing it's huge.

In truth, no one agrees on the actual number, but it is not possible to say that 90% of Mexican crime guns are known to come from the US, although this is repeatedly published as unquestioned fact. certainly illegal US sales can not be a significant source of full-auto weapons, even though cartels use large numbers of them, since you can not just walk in and buy them in a US gun shop. Arms supplied to governments are known to fall in to cartel hands as an astoundingly high percentage of the Mexican Army defects annually, and they are known to occasionally attack and empty arms depots. By rights, these arms really should be discounted from the analysis, since no amount of US civilian gun control can reduce them.

I guess it all comes down to what you want to count...

Fwiw, I don't have an agenda and this is not a pronouncement of judgement (even though I know it sounds like one), but it's tough to argue against the idea that the world is awash in small arms largely because of the U.S. and our right to bear arms.

LOL, that's the dumbest thing I've read today. Guns across the world come mostly from military surplus. "The world is awash in small arms" because of... war.

Go to Europe, Asia, or Africa and see if Colt or Smith and Wesson will ship you a firearm. Good luck.

Boris wrote: I can't quote numbers off the top of my head, but something like 6 of the top small arms manufacturers in the world are from the U.S.

And those sales are overwhelmingly to governments, and entirely subject to State Department control; they must approve all arms exports. And again, these stats are always calculated by amount of sales money. A Colt AR-15 is about $900 retail here. A Russian or Chinese full auto AK is about $150 in Africa. So if the US sells 2 AR-15s and the Russians sell 10 AK-74s, the US "sold more arms". I've tried finding firearms numbers, but it's not easy. Everybody just talks total value. Even the anti-gun people, I suspect because if they talked units rather than $$$ the US would no longer look so bad.

BTW, you guys following the Democratic filibustering for gun control? They are going all in. The terrorist watch list stuff is mindboggling. Even if you don't like the NRA, I don't think saying that people wrongly on the list should have a due process legal procedure available so they can be removed from the list is at all unreasonable. But on FB it's all "The NRA wants terrorists to have guns!!" There's a million names on the list, and some estimates that as much as 30% are errors. I don't like the way it's used and administered already, personally. It's illiberal security theater.

Schlegel wrote:BTW, you guys following the Democratic filibustering for gun control? They are going all in.

Delays for people on watch lists is not "all in." This is something 80% of Americans agree with. It's closer to "How is this not already the law it's obvious common sense to an overwhelming number of people."

The terrorist watch list stuff is mindboggling. Even if you don't like the NRA, I don't think saying that people wrongly on the list should have a due process legal procedure available so they can be removed from the list is at all unreasonable. But on FB it's all "The NRA wants terrorists to have guns!!" There's a million names on the list, and some estimates that as much as 30% are errors. I don't like the way it's used and administered already, personally. It's illiberal security theater.

You're overstating the other side's. Nobody is saying, "Yeah, put them on a list that they can never get off of." If there's a mistake, it should be worked out. But until it's worked out, buying guns is going to take longer.

NRA now endorses this, BTW.

I don't have a problem with the watch list if there is due process and an expedient way to get off it in the event of an error.

Schlegel wrote:BTW, you guys following the Democratic filibustering for gun control? They are going all in. The terrorist watch list stuff is mindboggling. Even if you don't like the NRA, I don't think saying that people wrongly on the list should have a due process legal procedure available so they can be removed from the list is at all unreasonable. But on FB it's all "The NRA wants terrorists to have guns!!" There's a million names on the list, and some estimates that as much as 30% are errors. I don't like the way it's used and administered already, personally. It's illiberal security theater.

The idea that someone is deemed too much of a terror risk to be allowed on an airplane, even a puddle-jumper commuter with 10 passengers and crew, but is allowed to buy an assault rifle than can easily shoot 70+ people in minutes...that's just plain fucking nuts.

Lone wolf born in the USA citizen converted ISIS sympathizers would be stupid to do anything other than just buy themselves an assault rifle and have at it. Why build a bomb over weeks and months when you can buy an AR or a SIG in minutes? Just too easy. Expect more bigger of these events, more often.

nafod wrote: The idea that someone is deemed too much of a terror risk to be allowed on an airplane, even a puddle-jumper commuter with 10 passengers and crew, but is allowed to buy an assault rifle than can easily shoot 70+ people in minutes...that's just plain fucking nuts.

This is a well taken point if it were clear what it took to get on the watch list and what it took to get off. It's anything but and seems as political as rational. The gov't doesn't have to tell you you're on it, or how you can get off it. The criteria is not "too dangerous to get on a plane." That's what the criteria should be. Most of the people on the watch list are foreign nationals from what I understand, which makes them automatically ineligible to purchase a gun anyway. Do note that this guy was not on a watch list. He was dropped from investigation because the reports of co-workers were dismissed as racist. Not that he didn't make the comments but because he made them because of the supposed racist environment he worked in. See my diddy in the other thread about "I'm not responsible 'cause everybody else." While we're at it, just to be sure, the 'no-fly' list and the 'terror watch list' are not one in the same. The former, about 40k people, mostly not US citizens. The latter, over a million folks on that one. Seem a bit high to you?

nafod wrote: Lone wolf born in the USA citizen converted ISIS sympathizers would be stupid to do anything other than just buy themselves an assault rifle and have at it. Why build a bomb over weeks and months when you can buy an AR or a SIG in minutes? Just too easy. Expect more bigger of these events, more often.

Been stated many times but worth saying again. The terrorists in France got AK's, little problem. The terrorists at the Boston Marathon bombing didn't spend weeks or months making bombs. Again, Mateen was on it, then off it, so any legislation being proposed would not have stopped him because, ya know, he was not on any list.

I believe in a list, I believe it should stop people from buying until investigated but it should be very clear what it takes to get on and what it takes to get off. If you're gonna take people's rights away, there has to be due process.

what's the future of the machete?

Police in Bangladesh have arrested more than 14,000 people in the last week and authorities have urged citizens to be vigilant. One district even armed some residents with bamboo sticks and whistles.

Yet police said Thursday that machete-wielding assailants had struck again, wounding a Hindu college teacher at his home in southern Bangladesh.

As a weeklong crackdown against suspected Islamist militants concluded Thursday, the massive numbers of arrests were not sufficient to stop the relentless spread of machete attacks that have claimed at least 49 lives over the last 17 months in Bangladesh.

dead man walking wrote:what's the future of the machete?

Police in Bangladesh have arrested more than 14,000 people in the last week and authorities have urged citizens to be vigilant. One district even armed some residents with bamboo sticks and whistles.

Yet police said Thursday that machete-wielding assailants had struck again, wounding a Hindu college teacher at his home in southern Bangladesh.

As a weeklong crackdown against suspected Islamist militants concluded Thursday, the massive numbers of arrests were not sufficient to stop the relentless spread of machete attacks that have claimed at least 49 lives over the last 17 months in Bangladesh.

Rwandan genocide, some 800k people by most reports, was largely perpetrated by machete.

What is the future of knives?

An attack by knife-wielding men at a railway station in Kunming in south-west China has left at least 29 dead, the state news agency Xinhua says.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-26402367

Death Toll in Xinjiang Coal Mine Attack Climbs to 50

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/ ... 74319.html

i am not a member of the NRA. Probably never will be. The terror watch list could be improved with notification and due process to the approximately 2% of the list that are American Citizens, the rest of them can have due process after US Citizens are handled. But in the current environment and this or any administration who shows the willingness to use the machinations of government to target their political enemies, i.e. the IRS or BLM, gives me little faith in this list.

The PC nonsense that kept this Mateen scumbag off the list is ludicrous. The San Bernardino folks go their guns illegally. Maybe if the management at the Gay Bar had a long gun inside for their staff to use it would have been different.

Like i said after Katrina, if your plan is to wait on the roof for the gubmint helicopter to save you, don't be surprised if it isn't as timely and perfect as you want. So if your plan in a shooting is to hunker down and wait for SWAT keep in mind you have 3 hours to kill waiting. And so does the shooter.

powerlifter54 wrote:i am not a member of the NRA. Probably never will be. The terror watch list could be improved with notification and due process to the approximately 2% of the list that are American Citizens, the rest of them can have due process after US Citizens are handled. But in the current environment and this or any administration who shows the willingness to use the machinations of government to target their political enemies, i.e. the IRS or BLM, gives me little faith in this list.

This is the VERY real problem. Watch Lists are unconstitutional. Full Stop. How they apply to foreign nationals or residents worries me very little compared to how they apply to US citizens. Yes...I realize in this case that still means 49 dead....which is tragic. The incremental abuse of due process free Watch Lists leads to far worse....and it's not just Islam...there's nutters of all faiths at play here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/31/world ... .html?_r=1

Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're overstating the other side's. Nobody is saying, "Yeah, put them on a list that they can never get off of." If there's a mistake, it should be worked out. But until it's worked out, buying guns is going to take longer.

NRA now endorses this, BTW.

What we have right now is functionally a list you can't get off of. Read this page from the ACLU about how to get off the list and tell me it sounds fair: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/w ... o-fly-listThis is not a good procedure, your lawyer doesn't go in front of a judge, you don't get to testify or even see the evidence so you can refute it, you have to just beg the powers that be and hope they say OK. That is not due process.

And yes, I know the NRA endorses using the list, I kind of had to in order to type out what their position is. That due process caveat is the critical thing.

I don't find the current process acceptable, I think it's an abuse of power, I don't care who does it, Republican or Democratic administration.

powerlifter54 wrote:The PC nonsense that kept this Mateen scumbag off the list is ludicrous.

It was my understanding that he had been on the list a couple of times and showed no further reason to leave him there. Sort of like a hospital triage - you focus on the most important people and leave the less important for later. Unfortunately, this asshole eventually went crazier and killed lots of people.

Maybe there should be an asterisk to the watch list? If it's been 5 years and you were on the list at one time and you try to buy a gun, maybe the FBI should show up and ask you a couple of questions.

Schlegel wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're overstating the other side's. Nobody is saying, "Yeah, put them on a list that they can never get off of." If there's a mistake, it should be worked out. But until it's worked out, buying guns is going to take longer.

NRA now endorses this, BTW.

What we have right now is functionally a list you can't get off of. Read this page from the ACLU about how to get off the list and tell me it sounds fair: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/w ... o-fly-listThis is not a good procedure, your lawyer doesn't go in front of a judge, you don't get to testify or even see the evidence so you can refute it, you have to just beg the powers that be and hope they say OK. That is not due process.

And yes, I know the NRA endorses using the list, I kind of had to in order to type out what their position is. That due process caveat is the critical thing.

I don't find the current process acceptable, I think it's an abuse of power, I don't care who does it, Republican or Democratic administration.

Is the "No fly" list the same as the "terrorist watch" list that the NRA now approves the use of?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:
Is the "No fly" list the same as the "terrorist watch" list that the NRA now approves the use of?

Let's get back to basics. When is that you think the NRA changed its view?

Schlegel wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: You're overstating the other side's. Nobody is saying, "Yeah, put them on a list that they can never get off of." If there's a mistake, it should be worked out. But until it's worked out, buying guns is going to take longer.

NRA now endorses this, BTW.

What we have right now is functionally a list you can't get off of.

You realize that can change, right?

Yes I Have Balls wrote:It was my understanding that he had been on the list a couple of times and showed no further reason to leave him there. Sort of like a hospital triage - you focus on the most important people and leave the less important for later. Unfortunately, this asshole eventually went crazier and killed lots of people.

This is known in common parlance as "making stuff up." There's no focusing on anybody just because they're on the list. They're just on there. He was dropped because "everybody else is racist."

Yes I Have Balls wrote:Unfortunately, this asshole eventually went crazier and killed lots of people.

So you think there should be no list. No predictive power there. That's a turnaround.