A Vanguard documentary is saying guns can be sold to criminals w/o ID, paperwork

[sarisataka]

78. Good reply

with interesting discussion points

...is that there is no evidence of guns coming from elsewhere in significant quantities. I agree that (obviously) we don't have trace data for every single weapon used in Mexican drug violence. What we do know is that of the guns that are recovered, submitted, and successfully traced, 90% come from the US civilian market, there is no evidence of comparably large numbers of guns coming from any other source.

Has anybody looked? The US is much easier to obtain data from than Guatemala, Honduras, Columbia, Indonesia... And if these are guns seized near the border it would make sense that the majority would show US origin.

The primary reasons why weapons don't get traced are clerical and bureaucratic (not, as pro-gunners like to pretend, that there were "no US markings" or that the weapons "obviously did not come from the US&quot . So the idea that all or most the untraced weapons come from dramatically different sources than the weapons that were traced is pure speculation.

I do not expect 100% tracing. Also US marking would be fairly meaningless as we are the #1 exporter so many 'US' guns could come through a third party. Also a significant portion of the US market is imported guns. I would not hold Germany accountable for guns sold through US dealers.

And that is why the "Central America" theory exists mainly on gun blogs and right-wing news outlets.
<snip>
Yes, technically it is possible that only 10% or so of the guns came from the US -- that every single gun that was either not recovered or not traced for whatever reason actually came from somewhere else. But not likely.

Agree, mostly, again. It is the imprecise language I mentioned that becomes very important. To an uninformed journalist, diplomat, average Joe/Jane... if it looks like an AK it is an AK. For another analogy- if it has four wheel and an engine it is a car- Ferrari or rusted out Yugo makes no difference. While both perform the same basic function, their is a huge gap in the possibilities.
The same with the guns. Civilian legal AK and variants are widely available in the US. They can kill quite well but are limited in their maximum potential. A real AK-47 is what is used the world over by professional and rag-tag armies. Easy to use, no training past point and shoot and nearly indestructible- it makes a distinctive sound when fired at you(couldn't resist:dunce It is a bullet hose and far more deadly than its cousin. You cannot determine which you are facing without a close inspection- unless you are having 10 bullets head your way every second.

according to your fruit stand example, the endpoints would by 9% and 99% (not 9% and 90%).

mea culpa

Back to Guatemala... I just read an article that the Zetas have formed an alliance with a local drug gang consisting of members who formed in US prisons and then deported. It appears they have de facto of northern Guatemala. Being that the Zetas themselves started as renegade Mexican military, the Central American Pipeline is not a complete pipe dream.

I will agree that the US is more than 10% of the total but the often tossed off 90% I believe to be equally misleading. It is not taking into account the true military weapons and it may be a 'tainted' sample but is presented as the true percentage of all cartel weapons. We do agree, I believe, that is not the case; we disagree as to what the middle number may be.

F&F is different and I dislike wearing the hat but what was the purpose of such a ridiculous operation? I could buy incompetence, having worked in the government a long time, but to say 'We have no idea who authorized this' is ludicrous. Where was the information going if no one authorized it and no one was aware it was going on... That level speaks to me of coverup.

There is a very political bend to the congressional investigation but it is on both sides. Everyone up to Holder basically says "We broke many laws, supplied the cartels and indirectly killed at least one federal agent. But don't worry about that... we need more laws and money"
If your financial adviser came and told you "I lost all of your money gambling on dog fighting but don't worry about that, you need to invest more" would you do it?
I understand at that level of LE you sometimes need to do 'shady' things but with clear accountability, limits and goals. I would strongly support a gun trafficking law but why would I trust enforcers who cannot keep track of know strawmen to adequately enforce that law? Show me you can use the tools you have and where they fall short, then ask me to give you more authority.