I found a fairly reliable-looking source for this data:

To obscure weapons amidst other legal merchandise and high traffick flows, guns are transported via personal or commercial vehicles through major ports of entry (rather than tunnels in the desert or across the Rio Grande by boat). In particular, firearms are generally trafficked along major U.S. highways and interstates and through border crossings into Mexico.

https://files.nyu.edu/od9/public/papers/Cross_border_spillover.pdf - see page 8.

-----

Regarding the gentleman from the Brady Campaign and what I quoted from him, I have found independent documentary confirmation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H09MY2-0011: and
http://atf.gov/press/releases/2012/05/050412-atf-atf-announces-multiple-sales-reporting-analysis.html

rickyp wrote:I think its interesting that you think it is futile to try and regulate gun ownership but that its possible to seal the 1969 mile border betwen mexico and the USA

Oh, creator of straw men, kindly find some other creature to form!

I did not say "it is futile to try and regulate gun ownership." Were the bills the GOP allegedly blocked merely "registration" bills?

On the other hand, we know the United States hasn't even tried to seal the border. So, how would we know unless we tried? Let's say there was a good, double or triple-width fence. Could weapons be carried across them?

No.

Let's further suppose we used air surveillance and other technology, could massive quantities of weapons be smuggled?

No.

Go ahead. Create another tower of straw.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Were the bills the GOP allegedly blocked merely "registration" bills?

I refer you humbly to the two documents to which I linked. They were NOT registration bills. The GOP voted to stop funding for a regulation that required dealers to simply report multiple sales of a certain type. Your "allegedly" concern will be answered if you click my links to the Congressional Record. If what you find there doesn't satisfy you, I suppose I can search out the specifics. Or maybe you could do a bit of research??

Purple wrote:I found a fairly reliable-looking source for this data:

To obscure weapons amidst other legal merchandise and high traffick flows, guns are transported via personal or commercial vehicles through major ports of entry (rather than tunnels in the desert or across the Rio Grande by boat). In particular, firearms are generally trafficked along major U.S. highways and interstates and through border crossings into Mexico.

https://files.nyu.edu/od9/public/papers/Cross_border_spillover.pdf - see page 8.

Of course they are! This is also how they transport narcotics.

Narcotics are illegal to manufacture, transport, possess, or use. So, why would placing additional restrictions on gun sales stop the movement of guns to Mexico?

-----

Regarding the gentleman from the Brady Campaign and what I quoted from him, I have found independent documentary confirmation.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r112:H09MY2-0011: and
http://atf.gov/press/releases/2012/05/050412-atf-atf-announces-multiple-sales-reporting-analysis.html

From your first source:

The numbers prove the MSR is already an invaluable tool in fighting gun trafficking along the southwest border. There were more than 3,000 reports accounting for the purchase of 7,300 rifles between Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. These reports resulted in more than 120 criminal investigations; and, subsequently, 25 cases involving 100 defendants have been recommended for prosecution. The ATF also reported a decline in large volume rifle purchases, indicating that traffickers are altering their criminal activity due to the new reporting requirement.

25 cases out of 3000 reports, that's less than 1%. What we don't know is what the conviction rate is on the 25 "recommended" cases is. I doubt it's 100%. So, what I'm saying is backed up by the figures you cite--more restrictions are not having a significant impact.

This article says it's not 70, 80, or 90% of the guns used wrongly in Mexico that originate in the US, but 12%. The relevant link in the article says this:

The truth is that less than 12 percent of the guns Mexico seized in 2008, for example, have been verified as coming from the U.S. In 2008, approximately 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals
in Mexico. Of these 30,000, only 7,200 (24 percent) were submitted to the ATF for tracing. This is because only these firearms were likely to have come from the U.S., a determination made by the presence of a U.S. mandated serial number and the firearm’s make and model– requirements under federal law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Of the 7,200 firearms submitted for tracing, only about 4,000 (13 percent) could be traced by the ATF
of which roughly 3,480 (12 percent)came from the U.S. Although 3,480 is approximately 90 percent of the firearms successfully traced, it is hardly the mythical 90 percent of the total firearms recovered.

The ATF limits the sample in order to inflate the percentage.

Look, if you believe registration and limits on Americans being able to own weapons is going to stop weapons from going to Mexico, you've got another thing coming.

However, bottom line: F and F should never have happened. Whatever the motivation for it, it was guaranteed to fail. There was no mechanism for tracking the weapons. It was a poorly designed program and is not the same as "wide receiver."

Purple wrote:I refer you humbly to the two documents to which I linked. They were NOT registration bills. The GOP voted to stop funding for a regulation that required dealers to simply report multiple sales of a certain type. Your "allegedly" concern will be answered if you click my links to the Congressional Record. If what you find there doesn't satisfy you, I suppose I can search out the specifics. Or maybe you could do a bit of research??

Again, how would that help? By your own statistics, that would stop less than 1% of the weapons crossing the border. 25 referred cases? That's going to have an impact?

Doctor Fate wrote:On the other hand, we know the United States hasn't even tried to seal the border. So, how would we know unless we tried? Let's say there was a good, double or triple-width fence. Could weapons be carried across them?

No.

Is that a joke? I suspect that ladders, wire-cutters, tunnels, and various other low tech would easily defeat a fence.

Let's further suppose we used air surveillance and other technology, could massive quantities of weapons be smuggled?

No.

In small batches, quite possibly.

Now in an age of fiscal prudence, how much are you prepared to spend to seal that border? The main cost will be in personnel.

Duplicate

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:On the other hand, we know the United States hasn't even tried to seal the border. So, how would we know unless we tried? Let's say there was a good, double or triple-width fence. Could weapons be carried across them?

No.

Is that a joke? I suspect that ladders, wire-cutters, tunnels, and various other low tech would easily defeat a fence.

Sigh.

Of course, this ignores the Border Patrol and what I've written below.

Let's further suppose we used air surveillance and other technology, could massive quantities of weapons be smuggled?

No.

In small batches, quite possibly.

Which would drive up costs, at the very least.

On the other hand, we could just have the government deliver a couple of thousand and then lie about it.

Now in an age of fiscal prudence, how much are you prepared to spend to seal that border? The main cost will be in personnel.

[/quote]

Quite a bit. Do you have any idea how much illegal aliens, drugs, etc. cost us? More than it would take to seal the border.

Care to put some actual numbers on your cost-benefit analysis?

I didn't include a change to Border Patrol because you didn't mention it, just fences and technolog. And what you'd written below started with 'Further', so I assumed you meant that it was nto included in your first question.

I would assume you'd include a greater payroll, but I'm still not sure you really appreciate the costs and logistics of deploying full 'sealing' 24/7 cover over a border that's nearly 2,000 miles long and goes through mountains and deserts.

And of course, there's the small matter of ensuring that no-one can simply take a boat and go around the border in the Gulf or Pacific. And that you can secure completely private aviation that goes over the border.

You both are ignoring this (from the top of the page): To obscure weapons amidst other legal merchandise and high traffic flows, guns are transported via personal or commercial vehicles through major ports of entry (rather than tunnels in the desert or across the Rio Grande by boat). In particular, firearms are generally trafficked along major U.S. highways and interstates and through border crossings into Mexico.

To stop gun-running, either the US or the Mexicans would have to search every vehicle crossing south (and apparently legally) with a fine-tooth comb. It's not going to happen.

Doctor Fate wrote:This article says it's not 70, 80, or 90% of the guns used wrongly in Mexico that originate in the US, but 12%. The relevant link in the article says this:

The truth is that less than 12 percent of the guns Mexico seized in 2008, for example, have been verified as coming from the U.S. In 2008, approximately 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals
in Mexico. Of these 30,000, only 7,200 (24 percent) were submitted to the ATF for tracing. This is because only these firearms were likely to have come from the U.S., a determination made by the presence of a U.S. mandated serial number and the firearm’s make and model– requirements under federal law as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Of the 7,200 firearms submitted for tracing, only about 4,000 (13 percent) could be traced by the ATF
of which roughly 3,480 (12 percent)came from the U.S. Although 3,480 is approximately 90 percent of the firearms successfully traced, it is hardly the mythical 90 percent of the total firearms recovered.

This is the information I was referring to when I said Purple's ATF report had been debunked. Unfortunately, at the time I posted it I was reading the website from my iPod Touch which makes it almost impossible to do actual internet search. I was coming back to review the orginal post to look for the sources I was talking about when I saw DF's post above. (Thanks to DF for finding it).

If this doesn't respond specifically and still requires a retraction, let me know.

danivon wrote:Care to put some actual numbers on your cost-benefit analysis?

I didn't include a change to Border Patrol because you didn't mention it, just fences and technolog. And what you'd written below started with 'Further', so I assumed you meant that it was nto included in your first question.

I'm not suggesting we need more Border Patrol agents. Having just been to Los Angeles, you could take half of the TSA agents sitting around doing nothing and put them on the border--you would not even need a fence because those wannabe mall cops would be standing shoulder to shoulder.

I don't really care what the cost is. Here's what is undeniable: lives would be saved and we would not have the massive flow of illegal immigrants we've experienced for the last 5 decades.

I would assume you'd include a greater payroll, but I'm still not sure you really appreciate the costs and logistics of deploying full 'sealing' 24/7 cover over a border that's nearly 2,000 miles long and goes through mountains and deserts.

I'm not really sure you appreciate the costs involved with illegal immigrants. How many Americans die or are injured by uninsured illegal immigrant drivers? Those who are driving under the influence? Those who are selling drugs? Running with gangs?

While conservatives may overestimate the costs, I promise you liberals underestimate them.

And of course, there's the small matter of ensuring that no-one can simply take a boat and go around the border in the Gulf or Pacific. And that you can secure completely private aviation that goes over the border.

This is ridiculous, of course. Can you imagine having to get a boat for every vehicle currently smuggling people and contraband across the border? It would take the 5th Fleet.

Purple wrote:You both are ignoring this (from the top of the page): To obscure weapons amidst other legal merchandise and high traffic flows, guns are transported via personal or commercial vehicles through major ports of entry (rather than tunnels in the desert or across the Rio Grande by boat). In particular, firearms are generally trafficked along major U.S. highways and interstates and through border crossings into Mexico.

No, I didn't ignore that. In fact, I said something like, "No kidding. This is also how they move narcotics."

To stop gun-running, either the US or the Mexicans would have to search every vehicle crossing south (and apparently legally) with a fine-tooth comb. It's not going to happen.

Right. Like there's no way they could possibly search every person getting on an aircraft in the US every day.

Wait. They're already doing that!

It would not be so difficult as you pretend. They're not going to pack a Prius full of guns because that's not going to get the job done. With competent investigators, good technology, dogs and the like, I think you could do far better than with our current open border situation.

Purple wrote:You both are ignoring this (from the top of the page):

I wasn't ignoring it, I was responding to the naive idea that a big fence and 'technology' could seal a border.

And the point about crossing points is pretty important. Yes, Doc, they do search everyone at an airport. Well, everyone getting on to commercial flights. Not so much private flights, and not at all airfields. But there's also the point that people are already having to get to an airport with a limited amount of stuff some time before the flight goes, so the security checks don't add an awful lot to the time or have any impact beyond the airport.

That's not the same as a series of gates on a highway.

The border will always have holes. You can spend lots of money trying to close them up, but the law of diminishing returns applies, and an obsession with the land border ignores the two large bodies of water either side. Any smuggler with brains will figure an easy way to beat heavy presence on the boundary, but the impact on legitimate road freight trade would be pretty high. Not to mention the tax bill.

archduke

This is the information I was referring to when I said Purple's ATF report had been debunked

Debunked is a hell of an over statement. The data still has merit...As I said before regarding the information:
You'll note that it makes a few invalid assumptions. The first is the assumption that if a gun has not been submitted for tracing that the gun came from other sources. The problem with this is that the facility to trace guns was limited, and not all Mexican enforcement participated in the program. There is no way of knowing what percentage of the weapons not submitted were US origin or not.
And yet, the claim is "other sources:" Simply false. .
Then the study isolate the 7,200 submitted for tracing... Again the erroneous assumption is that if a gun can't be traced, and 3,200 couldn't, that the origin is then defnitely NOT the US. Not true. All we know is they can't be successfully traced.
They are right when they say that of those that are successfully traced 90% came from the US.

The claim then that 90% of guns found at Mexican crimes scenes is correct only if one assumes that the 4,000 traced guns are a legitimate sample that would represent a genuine random sample.
I think critics that say no, have ground to stand on that it doesn't. It is likely that if authorities know the source of guns are South American armed forces, or Mexican armed forces, they are not likely to submit for tracing....
However the study also doesn't invalidate the claim that the US is the main source for guns used in Mexican drug cartels.

Here is the article I was thinking about. It references a GAO report that says "some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008." Further the article goes into significant detail about the variety of sources cartel guns come from.

Purple wrote:Your credibility with me (and though I can't speak for others I shouldn't think it too difficult for them to agree) is badly damaged. A simple but unequivocal retraction will begin the repairs.

So does that reestablish my credibility?