Wash. Times advanced "myth" that 17 percent of guns recovered in Mexico can be traced to U.S.
SUMMARY: The Washington Times advanced a Fox News report that 17 percent of guns recovered in Mexico have been traced back to the U.S. However, FactCheck.org has reported that Fox News' 17 percent figure is a "myth."
In an April 20 editorial, The Washington Times advanced the "myth" that 17 percent of guns recovered in Mexico have been traced back to the United States. The Times wrote that "[i]t is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. ... Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number." However, FactCheck.org reported in an April 17 article that "the 17 percent figure is a myth, too. The [Fox News] reporters made some mistaken assumptions about how many guns had actually been traced to U.S. sources. ... The Fox numbers are 'a subset' of the actual total traced to U.S. sources, one official said." FactCheck.org added that if the rough figure provided by Mexico's attorney general is accurate, the real number is "more than double what Fox news has reported."
FactCheck.org wrote of Fox News' 17 percent "myth":
Fox News has put the percentage at only 17 percent, but we find that to be based on a mistaken assumption that throws its figure way off. We can't offer a precise calculation because we know of no hard information on the total number of guns Mexican officials have recovered. But if a rough figure given by Mexico's attorney general is accurate, then the actual percentage of all Mexican crime guns traced to U.S. sources is probably less than half what the president claims, and more than double what Fox news has reported.
[...]
The Myth of 17 Percent
According to a Fox News report, titled "The Myth of 90 Percent", only "17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S." But the 17 percent figure is a myth, too. The reporters made some mistaken assumptions about how many guns had actually been traced to U.S. sources.
Fox News reporters William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott note, quite correctly, that Mexico doesn't submit all the guns it recovers to the U.S. for tracing. Furthermore, Fox reported, this is "because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S." And it quoted a law enforcement official as to why:
Fox News, April 2: "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," Matt Allen, special agent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News.
We were able to confirm that with an ATF spokeperson, who said that U.S guns have special markings that make it possible for the organization to trace them. That means that the guns that ATF is given to trace are far from a random sample of all guns recovered. Indeed, it omits those that Mexican officials have reason to believe come from elsewhere, and includes only those guns with a good chance of being traced to U.S. sources.
But the Fox figure of 17 percent is based on a misreading of some confusing House subcommittee testimony by ATF official William Newell. The Fox reporters come up with a figure of 5,114 guns traced to U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 2008. That figures to 17.6 percent of the 29,000 figure for guns seized in Mexico, as given by the country's attorney general.
The 5,114 figure is simply wrong. What Newell said quite clearly is that the number of guns submitted to ATF in those two years was 11,055: "3,312 in FY 2007 [and] 7,743 in FY 2008." Newell also testified, as other ATF officials have done, that 90 percent of the guns traced were determined to have come from the U.S. So based on Newell's testimony, the Fox reporters should have used a figure of 9,950 guns from U.S. sources. That figures out to just over 34 percent of guns recovered, assuming that the 29,000 figure supplied by Mexico's attorney general is correct.
Even that number is too low. At our request, an ATF spokesman gave us more detailed figures for how many guns had been submitted and traced during those two years. Of the guns seized in Mexico and given to ATF for tracing, the agency actually found 95 percent came from U.S. sources in fiscal 2007 and 93 percent in fiscal 2008. That comes to a total of 10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years, or 36 percent of what Mexican authorities say they recovered.
The mistake the Fox News reporters made was to focus on some numbers given by Newell and Hoover in separate testimony, regarding numbers of guns traced to specific states. But not all guns traced to the U.S. can be traced to specific states. The Fox numbers are "a subset" of the actual total traced to U.S. sources, one official said.
From the April 20 Washington Times editorial:
It is completely untrue that 90 percent of guns recovered in Mexico are from America. The Mexican government separates guns it confiscates that were made in the United States and sends them here to be traced. U.S. weapons are easy to identify because of clear markings.
Of the ones sent here to be traced, 90 percent turn out to be from America, but most guns recovered in Mexico are not sent here so are not included in the count. Fox News reported that 17 percent is a more accurate number.
How high does the percentage have to go before the right-wing considers it too high?
I'm no right-winger but I encourage the Mexican authorities to aggressively pursue and prosecute gun smugglers from the US.
which is another good reason why we need an actual enforceable physical barrier on the borders between Mexico and the US. How anyone can be concerned about the flow of guns into Mexico and be against such a barrier is mind-boggling.
It still ignores the forces of supply and demand. Whatever barriers you spend billions putting up along 2,000 miles of border, there will still be an endless supply of weapons in US gun shops, the quantity of which you can buy at one time is limited only by the amount of money in your pocket. The smugglers will find a way.
Any bulk purchases are reported immediately to authorities, so they know who purchased them and how much.
Even at gun shows from private sellers?
Yes. Legal guns cannot be purchased 'over the counter'. All legal guns have serial numbers that are cataloged and tracked by the US government. The idea that 'Joe the plumber' can buy guns as easily as aspirin is a myth that the left wing loves to promote and support. The fact is that the US has stringent gun purchasing laws on the books and (if you'll check the FACTS) you'll find that all those guns siezed in Mexico were purchased or gotten illegally. Why is it so hard for left wingers to understand that it's the illegal purchasing of guns is the problem, not the legal purchasing of guns?
WTF? Do you mean "under thge counter". Cause that first sentence doesn't make sense.
And it's not "under the counter" I'm referring to. In some states (Virginia is one) private individuals selling their guns are not required to gather any info. on the purchaser. It's a perfectly legal loophole.
You asked about "bulk" purchases. What does that have to do with an individual?
What I meant by 'over the counter' is that you can't walk in and buy a gun the moment you put the cash down. There is a waiting period. So, why don't you talk about whether those Mexican guns were bought legally or illegally? Does that make a difference to you? Or are you one of those who feel constitutional rights are worthless?
Wrong again. If an individual owns twenty firearms and sells them all to the same person, there is no requirement to report that to the government.
Oh? Bring some proof of your contention. Does that include fully-automatic weapons (like the ones being sent to Mexico)?
From the NRA sparky...
A person who is not engaged in the business of selling firearms, but who occasionally sells firearms under limited circumstances including "for the enhancement of a personal collection," is not required to obtain the federal license required of gun dealers, or to complete a background check.
http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/fables.html#FABLE%20XV:
Right back at ya, sparky. How does that affect automatic weapons? Are these weapons being confiscated, in Mexico, automatic or semi-automatic? So, again, answer how that rule affects individuals selling automatic weapons.
You are the one hung up on "automatic" weapons. My original query with dex's post was about reporting requirements of bulk purchases to the government. I am referring to that loophole. Nothing about auto vs semi auto from me. And just to reiterate, guns (in any amount) can be purchased legally without any tracking of those guns or background checks on the purchaser.
I'm hung up on 'automatic' weapons because this thread is about weapons found on Mexicans. WHAT are those weapons? Why get hung up on 6-shooters if they are arming themselves with automatic weapons? Besides, any gun taken into Mexico or US from another country is illegal. So, obviously, it is criminals doing the transactions, not the guy looking to buy bulk weapons to enhance his personal collection (I don't know why you're hung up on legal gun purchases). So, saying those people are the ones doing this is a bit disingenuous. So, just to reiterate, any gun taken into Mexico from the US is being done by a criminal and we all know what criminals think about LAWS.
Try reading for comprehension - my original comment referred to an erroneous statement that all gun purchases are tracked. That is just not the case. I never said anything about criminal purchases or automatic weapons. So try moving the goal posts with your strawman with someone else.
it's alot easier to drive right through or run across the border with guns if there isn't an actual physical barrier to slow you down.
Slow you down? So it takes 4 weeks instead of 2 to get your gun delivered from the U.S.? You must support gun/immigrant smugglers because (I think it was) you argued in the past that the border fence is working because it costs more to hire a smuggler. So you're pro-higher profits for smugglers?
"You must support gun/immigrant smugglers because (I think it was) you argued in the past that the border fence is working because it costs more to hire a smuggler"
It was not me.
"So you're pro-higher profits for smugglers?"
you're a moron.
you're a moron.
Thanks. I guess you've won the debate. You can take your ball and go home now.
You won the debate because he called you a 'moron' after you called him 'pro-higher profits for smugglers' when all he said was he supports protecting our borders? I agree with jamesB ... you are.
Actually, going to Mexico from the US isn't that hard. Smuggling guns into Mexico from the US isn't that hard, regardless of what kind of fence/border might be there. What happens is, stuff flowing out of the US, we don't so much care about that.
A border fence would also run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Talk about a waste of taxpayer money.
You mean going to Mexico legally or illegally? I'll bet if there was a border fence you wouldn't have such an easy time crossing into/out of Mexico legally. The one thing the fence will do is distinquish who is a criminal as opposed to someone who seeks to enter our country legally.
You're talking about a 2,000 mile fence. Exactly how feasible is the idea of a fence this long? The cost per mile would be in the millions. Once the fence is built where would we get the man power to secure the fence?
It's easy to throw around nonsense about building a fence, just like it's easy to scream about paying taxes and communists in the White House. The hard part comes when you have to make your case to someone who's not on the same page as you. And calling that person a moron, doesn't usually help your argument.
I once took a locksmith class. The first thing we were taught was that doors, windows, gates, locks and fences are used to keep honest people honest. Dishonest people are only delayed, not prohibited.
True enough.
A fence would only delay folks, only slightly. How about, let's enforce the laws on the books we have, and start punishing business owners who hire illegals? Take away the incentive for people to come here illegally, we can start to resolve the illegal alien issue.
It would have to be more than that. We're talking about a 2,000 mile long berlin wall kinda fence complete with underground sensors to detect digging, manned patrols and a Korean border type minefield. And that's just for the land portion, we still have the water routes to consider. Yeah, that "fence" would make that earmark cost look like a fart in the wind.
According to Homeland Security the fence is "designed to consistently slow, delay and be an obstacle to illegal cross-border activity"...and they detail the kinds of fencing employed in different areas.
They also report that the fence is complete across all of California, Arizona, and New Mexico...and a tiny percent has been built along the Texas border.
worrierking---You're talking about a 2,000 mile fence. Exactly how feasible is the idea of a fence this long? The cost per mile would be in the millions. Once the fence is built where would we get the man power to secure the fence?
The US military. It's obvious we won't need a military under Obama's world-love-fest administration. He's got nearly a hundred thousand getting ready to leave Iraq (at the request of radical left wingers). So, that adds up to 50 soldiers for every mile of fence. That should be enough to secure it, plus they would already be paid, so the cost would be minimal.
worrierking---The first thing we were taught was that doors, windows, gates, locks and fences are used to keep honest people honest. Dishonest people are only delayed, not prohibited.
Interesting, so you're saying that all the Mexicans in our country illegally are dishonest, also? Wouldn't that be even more of a reason to try to delay their entry into our country? Do we need more dishonest people? I think we already have enough politicians. Also, using that phrase you seem to like, gun laws keep honest gun owners honest. Dishonest gun owners will only be delayed in their purchases, not prohibited. Are you saying we should not have gun laws also? So, in your world, we'll have dishonest people travelling back and forth across the border purchasing illegal guns and killing the honest people who are cowering in fear because the government 'looks the other way'?
So you think the soldiers, already OVER-DEPLOYED, should now be dispatched to guard a fence? That's just one insane idea about this fence that will never get built and is a bad idea on many levels.
And quit trying to put words in other people's mouths. You have a ridiculous analogy, trying to jusify this fence building after WK pointed out it wouldn't keep illegals out anyway. Gun laws do more than delay--just one flaw in your reasoning.
No, they should be dispatched to guard a border. Do you have a problem with our borders being secure?
In the same breath, how anyone can be for a barrier and be against restrictions on guns is just as mind boggling.
Fox reporters must think that the best way to refute misinformation is with more misinformation.
Since it's ALL misinformation on this issue.
Do you really think Fox and their ilk would ever admit that our gun culture and not just our drug culture is part of the problem? Whatever the influx of guns is, Fox seems to exist to downplay this, just as they downplay global warming or anything else that makes a conservative corporate controlled American look bad.
I wonder when these guys every admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Saddams Iraq. How long did that take? I would bet the house on an arsenal of Mexican produced assalt weapons that Sean Hannity STILL insists that Saddam had WMD in some way, shape or form.
And the rest of the media tends to exadgerate the roll that American gun culture plays in the border violence.
Speaking as a gun owner, I know what weapons can and cannot be obtained in the US. And I can tell you this: the automatic weapons and hand grenades that are increasingly used in these attacks disdn't come from American gun stores or gun shows. The short-barreled rifles and submachine guns that are in many of the photographs of gun seziures in Mexico did not come from American gun owners.
Where did 83% of the guns recovered from crime scenes come from ? 83 is much bigger than 17. And maybe FOX mixed up April 17 with 17 % .
Let me get this straight... Obama is way more off than the Washington Times, Fox News, the NRA, etc etc, but this post is titled to slam the Washington Times?
I'm sure the "Obama advances the 90 percent myth" article is in the works.... sigh.
Lovely, FOX "news" counters a false statistic with another false statistic. Really great example of "in depth reporting."
A perfect example of why we should allow Texas to secede. The Mexicans will build their own fence to keep the Texoins OUT. And part of the deal with Texonia would be for them to build a fence to keep their people in...just like they want to do with the Mexicans.
We need to keep juliajayne & snoopy though...
Apply for citizenship, what more can I say. Or ask THEPRINCE, jj knows what that means for a favor.
If you read the article at factcheck.org it does mention that on top of the erroneous figures by both Obama and Fox, there really are NO hard numbers on exactly how many firearms were purchased in the U.S.. MM conveniently omitted that part of the article...I doubt many would place much credence in anything that authorities in Mexico have to say on the subject since they are hoping for a big wad of cash from the U.S. to help them combat the so-called flood of firearms from the states.....