Guns and Mexico ... a statistical error

You've heard this shocking "fact" before -- on TV and radio, in newspapers, on the Internet and from the highest politicians in the land: 90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States.

-- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said it to reporters on a flight to Mexico City.

-- CBS newsman Bob Schieffer referred to it while interviewing President Obama.

-- California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said at a Senate hearing: "It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico and used to shoot judges, police officers and mayors ... come from the United States."

-- William Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified in the House of Representatives that "there is more than enough evidence to indicate that over 90 percent of the firearms that have either been recovered in, or interdicted in transport to Mexico, originated from various sources within the United States."

There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:  It's just not true.

In fact, it's not even close. The fact is, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.

What's true, an ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com, in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director, "is that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing, because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.

"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market,"

Read more...

Hillary: Mexican Drug Violence Is the Fault of the United States

In the latest salvo from the "Blame America First" Party, Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton lays most of the blame for Mexico's drug violence on the United States.

An "insatiable" appetite in the United States for illegal drugs is to blame for much of the violence ripping through Mexico, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Wednesday.

Clinton acknowledged the U.S. role in Mexico's vicious drug war as she arrived in Mexico for a two-day visit where she discussed U.S. plans to ramp up security on the border with President Felipe Calderon.

A surge in drug gang killings to 6,300 last year and fears the violence could seep over the border has put Mexico's drug war high on President Barack Obama's agenda, after years of Mexico feeling that Washington was neglecting a joint problem.

"Our insatiable demand for illegal drugs fuels the drug trade. Our inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals causes the death of police officers, soldiers and civilians," Clinton told reporters during her flight to Mexico City.

"I feel very strongly we have a co-responsibility."

There is no question that the US should take responsibility for some of the blame.  But not the way Clinton suggests.

Hillary blames the US for having an "insatiable appetite" for drugs.  True, to a large extent.  And which party is it, pray tell, that wants drug laws to be soft?  Which party wants to let drug users off scot free, for the most part.  And, on the other hand, which party would like to lock up habitual users, especially those who commit crimes to support their habits and remove them from society?  Hmmmmm.  Maybe that has something to do with our appetite.  No incentive to stay away from illegal drugs.

Clinton also blames our Second Amendment right for much of the Drug violence in Mexico.  That seems a little strange to me, particularly since many of the drug lords down there are beheading their enemies to send a message.  When was the last time someone used a hunting rifle to behead someone?

How about blaming the Democrats for not securing our borders?  How about blaming the Democrats for being soft on drug enforcement?  How about blaming the democrats for being soft on illegal immigrants who are here committing crimes?

It is the Democratic party who wants as many illegal immigrants here as possible, who wants to protect them and give them health care, education and welfare, so they'll stay, become citizens and vote for more Democrats.

Yes, Hillary, some of the drug violence in Mexico is the fault of the US.  And most of that blame can be laid at the feet of you and your party.

By the way, I should be commended for not highlighting and making a joke of the article's unintended double entendre, when it said that Mexico had long felt that "Washington was neglecting a joint problem."

Read more...

An American Revolution on the Way?

I had an interesting conversation, yesterday, with a gentleman who came in to the place I work.  I'm not going into details about how the subject came up, but at one point, he mentioned that he has been "running into" a lot of people who are arming themselves in preparation for martial law.

I wasn't sure what to make of this at first.  But after doing some research online, apparently this is really happening out there. 

A significant number of Americans believe that Obama is going to take us so far to the left, that at some point martial law will be declared and America will fall into chaos.

The point isn't whether or not this will actually happen, but rather the fact that a large number of people out there believe it will happen.  Gun sales have been through the roof.  Some gun manufacturers that had sluggish sales over the past decade or so, now have a 3 to 4 year backlog of orders that they are having trouble filling.

Recently, a Russian political scholar predicted the fall of the American government within the next 24 months.  

Again, I'm not sure what to make of this.  I must say that I hesitate to predict this sort of thing.  (I run this blog as a non-prophet organization, so to speak).  But the idea of large numbers of Americans arming themselves for such an eventuality, is indeed, alarming. 

Thoughts?

Read more...