FactCheck: How Many Mexican Guns Come From U.S.? | Newsweek Politics

President Obama says 90 percent of Mexico's recovered crime guns come from the U.S. That's not what the statistics show.

By D'Angelo Gore | factcheck.org

Apr 20, 2009 | Updated: 5:32 p.m. ET Apr 20, 2009

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

SPONSORED BY

Summary
There's no dispute that thousands of handguns, military-style rifles and other firearms are purchased in the U.S. and end up in the hands of Mexican criminals each year. It's relatively easy to buy such guns legally in Texas and other border states and to smuggle them across.

But is it true, as President Obama said, that "[m]ore than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States?" Government statistics don't actually support that claim.

The figure represents only the percentage of crime guns that have been submitted by Mexican officials and traced by U.S. officials. We can find no hard data on the total number of guns actually "recovered in Mexico," but U.S. and Mexican officials both say that Mexico recovers more guns than it submits for tracing. Therefore, the percentage of guns "recovered" that are traced to U.S. sources necessarily is less than 90 percent. Where do the others come from? U.S. officials can't say.

Fox News has put the percentage of guns that have been traced to U.S. sources 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 that have been traced to U.S. sources is more than double what Fox News has reported.

Correction, April 22: We originally concluded that Obama's 90 percent figure was "not true" and based on a "badly biased" sample of recovered guns. We are retracting both those characterizations, and we apologize to our readers for this error. We have rewritten the article throughout to correct this.

Our error was to think we had confirmed that Mexican officials submit for tracing only those guns they believe likely to have come from the U.S. Law enforcement officials say they don't know if that's the case.

Analysis
In recent weeks, efforts by the United States and Mexico to stop the illegal transfer of guns and drugs along their shared border have been on the front burner. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano traveled to Mexico earlier this month to meet with their Mexican counterparts to discuss what can be done. And this week President Barack Obama traveled down south to continue talks between the two nations.

During a joint press conference with President Felipe Calderón of Mexico, Obama said of the raging violence by Mexican drug gangs:

Obama, April 16: A demand for these drugs in the United States is what is helping to keep these cartels in business. This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

I AM GOING TO TELL YOU A STORY ABOUT A PERSON THAT WAS IN IRAQ,HE WAS A BRITISH COP WHO WAS THERE TO TEACH THE IRAQI POLICE RECRUITS,WHEN HE SAW THE ARTICLE ABOUT ALL THE GUNS GOING WERE COMING FROM THE USA ,HE TOLD US THAT THEY ARE DOING THE SAME AS THE IRAQI RECRUITS.THE USA WOULD GIVE THEM UNIFORMS,POLICE CARS AND GUNS AND AMMUNITION.A FEW DAYS LATER THE CAR WOULD BE STRIPPED OF ALL POLICE MARKINGS,AND WAS NOW A TAXI CAB. WHAT ABOUT THE GUNS AND UNIFORMS WHERE DID THEY GO,HIS ANSWER WAS THEY SOLD THEM TO THE REBELS. SO ANYBODY WITH A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION KNOWS THAT THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT SINCE SPAIN INVADED THE COUNTRY IN THE FIFTEEN AND SIXTHTEEN CENTURY,IF THE PROBLEM IS TOO BIG BLAME THE USA WE ARE GULLIBLE.

About Your Article, Even Thomas:
Paul???s (Krugman???s) views are believed more correct, than NOT. His ???meta analysis??? of the systemic risk missed, claims it came from the ???shadow banking system??? and this too is correct, although it???s merely another, albeit significant part of the problem. What he's also perhaps missing is the historical context. This means the macro model of wealth creation, has changed. He disagrees.

In parallel, to the over leveraged shadow banking failings, is the fact that we???ve the additional problem of a long wave convergence, of a fundamental ???paradigm shift??? in macro wealth creation methods, as is as well occurring, with the timing of the financial crisis. This historic shift, Hassim Nicholas Taleb and Roubini agree is a ???black swan.??? Perhaps.

And that this historic transformation is now being recognized, is not yet proven, to be the one, that shifts us, from the old division of labor methods, to the NEW ???Integration of Labor(sm)??? new economic paradigm methods. And for this reason some argue, that Paul is looking backward, perhaps a bit more than he should be; instead of looking more into today and forward to tomorrow, and its needs. This notwithstanding, still his focus on sustainable growth is also correct so he should be capable to recognize that the new paradigm ensures these highly desirable G-20 and global result(s).

Does Paul, Larry and other really comprehend this? I do NOT know, as beyond this, where they are holding on the subject, of the new economic paradigm???s strategic development value, I really do not know; just that their general concern(s) about long term sustainable growth is well founded, and soon they???ll all be poled on this matter officially, as it comes into the MSM public domain, as their opinion(s) will of course continue to be valued, although its importance in shaping thoughts, opinion and policy will of course have been significantly diluted. Why? For ???missing??? yet another ???black swan,??? that by many is seen as professionally unforgivable, in terms that account for our nations dismal politics, as his public???s continued recognition (at least, from my perspective) wanes.

Paradoxically, Paul has also justly complained that the stimulus, is NOT big enough (and in the above context, again he???s absolutely correct, for the wrong reasons) although, herein AGAIN this is seen as further proof that he???s looking for solutions in the wrong direction and place(s). Since as the author of Humanomics(sm) NEW economic paradigm, and not being a professionally trained economist, thank Good, nonetheless it???s recognized that ???supply side??? macro economics, is the ONLY macro source, of the solution. I???m a didactic scientist and not an economist. And so where does this leave us?

Shalom,

Yehoshua Ya???acov

Member Comments

- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: AMMO17 @ 07/30/2009 9:19:25 AM

I AM GOING TO TELL YOU A STORY ABOUT A PERSON THAT WAS IN IRAQ,HE WAS A BRITISH COP WHO WAS THERE TO TEACH THE IRAQI POLICE RECRUITS,WHEN HE SAW THE ARTICLE ABOUT ALL THE GUNS GOING WERE COMING FROM THE USA ,HE TOLD US THAT THEY ARE DOING THE SAME AS THE IRAQI RECRUITS.THE USA WOULD GIVE THEM UNIFORMS,POLICE CARS AND GUNS AND AMMUNITION.A FEW DAYS LATER THE CAR WOULD BE STRIPPED OF ALL POLICE MARKINGS,AND WAS NOW A TAXI CAB. WHAT ABOUT THE GUNS AND UNIFORMS WHERE DID THEY GO,HIS ANSWER WAS THEY SOLD THEM TO THE REBELS. SO ANYBODY WITH A HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATION KNOWS THAT THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT IS CORRUPT AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CORRUPT SINCE SPAIN INVADED THE COUNTRY IN THE FIFTEEN AND SIXTHTEEN CENTURY,IF THE PROBLEM IS TOO BIG BLAME THE USA WE ARE GULLIBLE.
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: gabotech @ 06/27/2009 2:50:19 PM

Yes they are all wrong, it is not 90 percent, the real amount is 89.99999 percent. Now it turns out that all these guns are comming from Guatemala and Belice, surely they produce a lot more guns in Central America than in the US. Please.....
- Reply
- Report Abuse
Posted By: yyba1 @ 04/23/2009 7:13:29 AM

About Your Article, Even Thomas:
Paul???s (Krugman???s) views are believed more correct, than NOT. His ???meta analysis??? of the systemic risk missed, claims it came from the ???shadow banking system??? and this too is correct, although it???s merely another, albeit significant part of the problem. What he's also perhaps missing is the historical context. This means the macro model of wealth creation, has changed. He disagrees.

In parallel, to the over leveraged shadow banking failings, is the fact that we???ve the additional problem of a long wave convergence, of a fundamental ???paradigm shift??? in macro wealth creation methods, as is as well occurring, with the timing of the financial crisis. This historic shift, Hassim Nicholas Taleb and Roubini agree is a ???black swan.??? Perhaps.

And that this historic transformation is now being recognized, is not yet proven, to be the one, that shifts us, from the old division of labor methods, to the NEW ???Integration of Labor(sm)??? new economic paradigm methods. And for this reason some argue, that Paul is looking backward, perhaps a bit more than he should be; instead of looking more into today and forward to tomorrow, and its needs. This notwithstanding, still his focus on sustainable growth is also correct so he should be capable to recognize that the new paradigm ensures these highly desirable G-20 and global result(s).

Does Paul, Larry and other really comprehend this? I do NOT know, as beyond this, where they are holding on the subject, of the new economic paradigm???s strategic development value, I really do not know; just that their general concern(s) about long term sustainable growth is well founded, and soon they???ll all be poled on this matter officially, as it comes into the MSM public domain, as their opinion(s) will of course continue to be valued, although its importance in shaping thoughts, opinion and policy will of course have been significantly diluted. Why? For ???missing??? yet another ???black swan,??? that by many is seen as professionally unforgivable, in terms that account for our nations dismal politics, as his public???s continued recognition (at least, from my perspective) wanes.

Paradoxically, Paul has also justly complained that the stimulus, is NOT big enough (and in the above context, again he???s absolutely correct, for the wrong reasons) although, herein AGAIN this is seen as further proof that he???s looking for solutions in the wrong direction and place(s). Since as the author of Humanomics(sm) NEW economic paradigm, and not being a professionally trained economist, thank Good, nonetheless it???s recognized that ???supply side??? macro economics, is the ONLY macro source, of the solution. I???m a didactic scientist and not an economist. And so where does this leave us?

Shalom,

Yehoshua Ya???acov