You Know It's Bad When...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course you do.

Of course, with substantive rebuttals like this one, it's only a matter of time before my mind is changed.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Of course, with substantive rebuttals like this one, it's only a matter of time before my mind is changed.

Comments like "Since the power of the Mexican cartels is derived almost directly from American strategy and tactics in the so-called 'War on Drugs'" are little more than cynical and assinine demagoguery. You're immune to rebuttal ...

The birth of all Mexican drug cartels are traced to former Mexican Judicial Federal Police agent Miguel Ángel Félix Gallardo ('The Godfather'), who in the 1980s controlled all illegal drug trade in Mexico and the corridors across the Mexico-USA border.[53] He started off by smuggling marijuana and opium into the U.S.A., and was the first Mexican drug capo to link up with Colombia's cocaine cartels in the 1980s. Through his connections, Félix Gallardo became the point man for the Medellin cartel, which was run by Pablo Escobar.[54] This was easily accomplished because Félix Gallardo had already established an infrastructure that stood ready to serve the Colombia-based traffickers.

There were no cartels at that time in Mexico. Félix Gallardo was the lord of Mexican drug lords. He oversaw all operations; there was just him, his cronies, and the politicians who sold him protection.[55] Félix Gallardo kept a low profile and in 1987 he moved with his family to Guadalajara city. According to Peter Dale Scott, the Guadalajara Cartel, prospered largely because it enjoyed the protection of the DFS, under its chief Miguel Nassar Haro, a CIA asset."[56]

"The Godfather" then decided to divide up the trade he controlled as it would be more efficient and less likely to be brought down in one law enforcement swoop.[57] In a way, he was privatizing the Mexican drug business while sending it back underground, to be run by bosses who were less well known or not yet known by the DEA. Félix Gallardo "The Godfather" convened the nation's top drug narcos at a house in the resort of Acapulco where he designated the plazas or territories. The Tijuana route would go to the Arellano Felix brothers. The Ciudad Juárez route would go to the Carrillo Fuentes family. Miguel Caro Quintero would run the Sonora corridor. The control of the Matamoros, Tamaulipas corridor - then becoming the Gulf Cartel- would be left undisturbed to Juan García Abrego. Meanwhile, Joaquín Guzmán Loera and Ismael Zambada García would take over Pacific coast operations, becoming the Sinaloa Cartel. Guzmán and Zambada brought veteran Héctor Luis Palma Salazar back into the fold. Félix Gallardo still planned to oversee national operations, as he maintained important connections, but he would no longer control all details of the business.

Félix Gallardo was arrested on 8 April 1989. Other arrests, greed, and desire for more power stimulated conflicts between the newly formed and now independent cartels. [source]

 

[gnomon]

Who exactly is denigrating the U.S.?

Am I the only one not okay with a U.S. government agency knowingly abetting the transfer of illegal firearms into another country?

Should have brought it up in another thread because it seems to have derailed this one fast.

Back on topic. Yes, the situation in Mexico is bad. Very bad. I wish the news media would highlight more details on this issue because the sophistication and tactics of the drug cartels near our border present a danger to the U.S. as well.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Comments like "Since the power of the Mexican cartels is derived almost directly from American strategy and tactics in the so-called 'War on Drugs'" are little more than cynical and assinine demagoguery. You're immune to rebuttal ...

The "War on Drugs" has done little to curb actual drug use, but has kept prices for drugs artificially high in the United States. This creates major incentive for criminal organizations, especially the Mexican cartels who have easy access to the US market and control over much of the drug supply.

Meanwhile, American gun policies and reluctance to go after firearm manufacturers and distributors who engage in illegal practices have made it very easy for these cartels to arm themselves.

These sorts of tactics by the US have allowed the Mexican cartels to become as large and powerful as they have become.

 

[Revoltingest]

The "War on Drugs" has done little to curb actual drug use, but has kept prices for drugs artificially high in the United States. This creates major incentive for criminal organizations, especially the Mexican cartels who have easy access to the US market and control over much of the drug supply.

Meanwhile, American gun policies and reluctance to go after firearm manufacturers and distributors who engage in illegal practices have made it very easy for these cartels to arm themselves.

These sorts of tactics by the US have allowed the Mexican cartels to become as large and powerful as they have become.

What manufacturers are doing something illegal?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What manufacturers are doing something illegal?

I don't have specific names; this is an assumption on my part. IMO, a business can't have the sheer volume in sales that smuggling represents without knowing something about it. It's not just a matter of individual dealers being duped; IMO, the firearms manufacturers and distributors must be able to identify the increased demand in certain areas due to smugglers. Catering to this demand necessitates breaking the law.

 

[Mathematician]

Not all of Mexico's problems can be laid at the feet of the United States, but certainly the War on Drugs and the resulting criminal network in Latin America is one example. Even the US government recognized this in the 1970s.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't have specific names; this is an assumption on my part. IMO, a business can't have the sheer volume in sales that smuggling represents without knowing something about it. It's not just a matter of individual dealers being duped; IMO, the firearms manufacturers and distributors must be able to identify the increased demand in certain areas due to smugglers. Catering to this demand necessitates breaking the law.

That's a stretch.

 

[Kathryn]

You can't say that! You're criticizing another culture, & of course, we all know that is wrong.
It must be the guns. Right here, where I live, everyone I know (the males anyway) owns guns.
The bloody carnage is.....is....uh.....oh, there is no carnage. How can this be?!?!

Kathryn - thy name ist Hitler.

 

[freethinker44]

I don't have specific names; this is an assumption on my part. IMO, a business can't have the sheer volume in sales that smuggling represents without knowing something about it. It's not just a matter of individual dealers being duped; IMO, the firearms manufacturers and distributors must be able to identify the increased demand in certain areas due to smugglers. Catering to this demand necessitates breaking the law.

This assumption would be good, IF the smugglers were buying them legally. But they aren't so in areas where there is drug cartels there is little to no demand for weapons because no criminal in their right mind would commit a crime with a weapon they bought and registered.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This assumption would be good, IF the smugglers were buying them legally.

In many cases, they are:

The federal Brady
Law requires a background check as a prerequisite to any retail sale through a
federally licensed dealer. However, once a gun has been sold at retail, it may be
resold in the “secondary market” — that is, not through a federally licensed dealer
— any number of times using any one of a variety of channels. Vehicles for these
secondary market transfers include classified advertising in newspapers and
newsletters, Internet exchanges, and informal sales between individuals at “flea
markets” or “gun shows.” None of these secondary market channels require the
federal Brady background check, so long as the sale is conducted intrastate and
there is no state background check requirement. Most states do not regulate such
sales – although a few, like California, do regulate all firearms transfers. About 40
percent of all gun transfers are made through this secondary market, according to a
1994 national survey.10
The consequences of this weak system are apparent in the fact that domestic gun
trafficking is widespread and resistant to such law enforcement efforts as exist.
Street gangs and other criminal organizations have demonstrated conclusively over
the last 25 years that weak U.S. gun control laws do not prevent their acquiring as
many of the increasingly lethal products of the gun industry as they desire. In spite
of episodic efforts by ATF, organized interstate smuggling pipelines continue to
move guns from states with virtually nonexistent gun regulations to the few
primarily urban centers that have tried to stem the flow of guns.11 “States that
have high crime gun export rates – i.e., states that are top sources of guns
recovered in crimes across state lines – tend to have comparatively weak gun
laws.”12 Local criminals engage in brisk gun traffic in every part of the country,​

with little effective law enforcement interference.

http://www.vpc.org/diaztestify.pdf

But they aren't so in areas where there is drug cartels there is little to no demand for weapons because no criminal in their right mind would commit a crime with a weapon they bought and registered.

They aren't committing crimes with weapons they bought; they're committing crimes with weapons that other people bought, imported, and sold to him.

The border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico, with a total of 12,706 licensed firearms dealers at gun shops and pawnbrokers, are thought to be among the big sources. Mr. Thomas said Florida was also emerging as a major provider of weapons sent by air and sea.

Typically, the weapons are smuggled in small shipments, hidden in secret compartments in car doors or washing machines, stashed in stolen automobiles, sent as checked luggage on commercial flights — or, most commonly, carried over the border in a car trunk or a suitcase.

Mexican officials call that last kind of smuggling "ant traffic." The ants, they say, can be members of sophisticated criminal organizations or migrants making a little extra cash. "When there are thousands of people crossing the border each day, there are only a certain number that can be stopped and searched," said Nicolas Suárez Valenzuela, intelligence coordinator for the Federal Preventive Police. "And usually, it's a very small number."

"There is always some new way of smuggling guns into the country," he added. "We have found guns in boxes of powdered milk. We have found guns in marmalade."

U.S. Guns Smuggled Into Mexico Aid Drug War

 

[freethinker44]

They aren't committing crimes with weapons they bought; they're committing crimes with weapons that other people bought, imported, and sold to him.

Right, so there is no record of them buying guns for the gun manufacturers to target their sales to. So why blame gun manufacturers for the crimes people commit with their guns that they got illegaly.

In a related side note, decapitations have become popular for drug cartels these days, should we force people to have background checks to buy any kind of knife as well? At what point are we going to draw the line and realize that guns and knives and any other murder weapon is just a tool? I could just as easily kill someone with a spoon as I could with a gun, does that mean we should make laws limiting the sales of spoon? Background check before you eat a bowl of cereal maybe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, so there is no record of them buying guns for the gun manufacturers to target their sales to. So why blame gun manufacturers for the crimes people commit with their guns that they got illegaly.

Why blame cigarette manufacturers for the health effects of the cigarettes that people buy legally?

In a related side note, decapitations have become popular for drug cartels these days, should we force people to have background checks to buy any kind of knife as well? At what point are we going to draw the line and realize that guns and knives and any other murder weapon is just a tool?

In the case of handgun or military-style assault weapons, firearms can be especially effective "murder tools". Therein lies the problem with them.

I could just as easily kill someone with a spoon as I could with a gun, does that mean we should make laws limiting the sales of spoon? Background check before you eat a bowl of cereal maybe?

You're either very good with a good with a spoon or very bad with a gun, then.

Or... just maybe... you're exaggerating just a tad.

 

[freethinker44]

You're either very good with a good with a spoon or very bad with a gun, then.

Or... just maybe... you're exaggerating just a tad.

The point is, if you want to kill someone, not having a gun isn't going to stop you.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The point is, if you want to kill someone, not having a gun isn't going to stop you.

If you're bound and determined to kill some specific person, then there will always be some way to do it, gun or not. But without guns, killing that person becomes a lot more difficult, which can be enough to prevent the killing in certain situations.

It's like a car alarm: there's nothing you can do to make a car completely unstealable. However, there's quite a bit you can do to make the average thief decide it's not worth the effort to steal it.

Also, not having a gun dramatically reduces your chances of killing an innocent bystander.