|
April 13, 2009
Where are the layers of mainstream media fact checkers?
I realize that gun grabbers routinely misrepresent facts and figures, but the ongoing campaign by Mexican officials to make it look like US guns are flooding their country is getting ridiculous. In the latest, Mexico's US Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan repeats the claim that 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexico can be traced to the U.S.: Stopping the flow of money and weapons from the United States into Mexico is critical to dealing with the violent drug cartels creating havoc on the border, the Mexican ambassador to the U.S. said Sunday.First of all, Ambassador Sarukhan ought to be ashamed of himself for blatantly attempting to interfere in the internal affairs of another country. But what I'd really like to know is where are the Mexicans getting this "90 percent" figure, and why is it being accepted so uncritically? As it happens, two reporters from Fox News (William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott) took the time to thoroughly investigate the "90%" claim, and found that it wasn't merely exaggerated, but it was so wrong as to amount to a big lie: There's just one problem with the 90 percent "statistic" and it's a big one:(Via Clayton Cramer, who also links this excellent analysis.) In other words, what is built into the ATF's ability to perform tracing is a validly recorded serial American number -- something which is only placed on weapons manufactured or imported here. I know this from firsthand experience, as I own several foreign-made guns which, because they were imported into the United States, had new, American serial numbers stamped into them (in addition to the original manufacturers' serial numbers). Had they never been imported into the United States (but instead went directly to Mexico) they would not be traceable. Interestingly (and parenthetically), these are not American guns; they just have traceable American numbers. My Russian Makarov, for example, was made in Russia, but if someone were to go to the trouble of smuggling it into Mexico and it was later seized and traced, it would become another "gun traced to the US" -- only because it had once been imported and stamped here. I find that fascinating in itself. Why wouldn't it be just as logical to claim it was a "gun traced to Russia"? (I guess we should be glad that the Mexican Army does not buy its guns from the US, lest a much larger share of confiscated firearms be said to "originate" here.) What was not pointed out by CBS is the breakdown of the numbers of actual guns seized versus guns submitted for tracing. Only a small percentage could be traced to the US. A Look at the NumbersThat's quite a discrepancy, and I'll try to analyze it. 90 percent of the weapons seized there can be traced to the U.S. versus 83 percent of the weapons seized there cannot be traced to the U.S. Surely, the Mexican ambassador wouldn't be deliberately lying to the American people on "Face the Nation," would he? Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt. I'm thinking that what he meant to say was this: 90 percent of the weapons traced to the U.S. can be traced to the U.S. And it got all screwed up in translation. No, that can't be right, because not only do Mexican officials keep repeating the 90% figure, but it is being widely parroted by U.S. officials and reported as a fact by mainstream media. Might the hope be that lies can change into truth with age? (I guess such hope and change removes any need for the layers of fact-checkers...) posted by Eric on 04.13.09 at 10:28 AM
Comments
Hi Eric, Unfortunately, things aren't quite that crystal clear. Equally unfortunate is the fact that I cannot find the link to a more reliable news source with a longer explanation. The short version is that 90% of the traced weapons come from the US. Unfortunately, the converse position that all untraced weapons are either untraceable or come from some other source is not based in fact. That is the logical flaw in the reasoning that is going around these days. Until they trace every single firearm that is traceable, we won't know anything about where Mexican gangs are getting their guns. Of course, the whole argument would be moot if we just legalized drugs in the first place. Regards, Dann · April 13, 2009 01:32 PM Dann, that's not much of a flaw. After all, why bother submitting a gun to US authorities for tracing if it's obviously not from the US? We don't need to know where it came from to be reasonably sure it didn't come from here. The Mexicans may be corrupt but they're not entirely stupid. Larry · April 14, 2009 12:11 AM Larry, And thus the unfortunate nature of my inability to find the news source to provide as a reference. A couple of the people cited for that story stated that the number of guns that "obviously" came from the US was far greater than the number turned over to BATF for source tracking. I presume the presence of US serial numbers as a common indicator. In either case, I think it is a more defensible position to point out the wide margin between "guns seized" and "guns traced" and force policy makers to close that margin with a specific data on the seized weapons than it is to assume that all non-traced weapons came from somewhere other than the US. The latter position is vulnerable to the potential of more weapons being traced back to the US that would in turn undermine that position. The former gives us the strength of demanding enough data to discover how many weapons are coming out of the American civilian gun market and how many [i.e. M-16, M-4, etc.] are being supplied outside of the civilian gun market. Our detractors think private ownership of semi-automatic weapons is the source of the problem. Being able to prove that the problem lies elsewhere is valuable, IMO. Regards, Dann · April 14, 2009 09:40 AM |
|
June 2009
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
June 2009
May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
It's An Absolute Disgrace
The Seeds Of Stupidity Remember D-Day Newton's Cradle Taxes Send Jobs Offshore The law is the law! A teaching moment? You Can't Do It At Random In debt to Islam? For Western thought? David Carradine Is Dead
Links
Site Credits
|
|
What gets me the most is the way they use that figure.
In a story about Mexican drug gangs, they'll note that they are "as well armed as the military with automatic weapons, grenade and rocket launchers and bullet proof vests" and then they'll go with the 90% canard.
So as they talk about weapons that are not readily available in the US, they claim that most of them come from the US.
They're lying, amoral bastids, pure and simple. What's good to them is "good", so any lie told in service to a higher good is perfectly okay.