Documents Suggest Bush Administration Used 'Fast And Furious' Tactics

[DanTex]

The Justice Department sent nearly 500 pages of documents to Republican lawmakers Thursday that suggest the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives may have used questionable tactics and lost track of American-made weapons in a gun trafficking investigation on the Mexican border as early as 2006.
...
A senior Obama administration Justice Department official who briefed reporters on the documents said the papers show law enforcement officers in the Bush years could have filed criminal conspiracy and false statements charges against lower level figures in the gun trafficking operation, but they decided to watch and wait until they could move higher up the chain of command.

"We want the... manufacturing and distribution pieces also – we want it all," an ATF official wrote in March 2006.

The case ultimately languished in the U.S. Attorney's office in Arizona until the Obama administration sent help from Washington D.C. and indictments were handed down in May and October 2010. Six people have been convicted in connection with Wide Receiver, the senior Justice Department official said.
...

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/05/144761413/documents-suggest-bush-administration-used-fast-and-furious-tactics

I wonder if this is going to stop the NRA crazies from their loony anti-Obama conspiracy theories. Wait, no, actually I don't wonder that at all.

[iverglas]

1. stop the Obama conspiracy theorists?

Well, at least we might not be hearing quite so much hoked up indignation from them hereabouts ... since their numbers were decreased by at least three that I know of a little while back.

You know, of course, that the Bush administration was just looking for ways to drum up domestic support for firearms control by letting guns flow across the border and get used to commit murder and mayhem against insignificant foreigners.

Juts ask the Mayors Against Illlegal Guns. They're just a bunch of Republicans, after all.

[gejohnston]

2. You need to come by more often

that is really old news.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x390072

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/harveywasserman.com/bcnews.go.com/Blotter/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=5024227&mesg_id=5024409

[DanTex]

3. Actually this story is about a new set of documents released Thursday.

As in Thursday, January 5, 2012.

[gejohnston]

4. the blog post

did not mention anything new.

[Kennah]

5. Dubya was an elitist, and elitists won't want arms in the hands of the serfs

Obama never hid his anti-gun views before his Presidency. He hasn't pursued legislation because he knows it's a losing proposition.

He gets slammed by some on the left for healthcare reform, but the simply math of 219 and 60 clearly show that he tried to get everything he could possibly get in healthcare reform and single payer just would not pass.

I find it impossible to deny Obama is an incredibly smart man and a very savvy politician.

I don't know why it's difficult to grasp that Obama hasn't pursued any gun legislation for political reasons--not because he's changed his mind.

[Hoyt]

6. Not worth the fight with gun owning Tbaggers at this point. I get that.

But, the right situation will come along. People don't want a bunch of folks walking around with guns like in the old days.

I'd like to think that gun owners would "self-regulate," but all I see here is promotion of more guns in public. Kind of like environmental polluters.

[ileus]

9. Why do you keep insisting only people on the right support the 2A?

[Hoyt]

10. They are the majority and most callous.

[ellisonz]

65. Also...

It has nothing to do with supporting or opposing the 2A - it's a debate over what "well regulated Militia" means.

[Kennah]

87. There isn't any debate. WRM means a tolerable expertness in military movements.

Don't take my word for it. Read Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper #29.

[spin]

7. This info has been reported before...

Watch this CNN video from Nov 1. 2011...

&feature=related

As possibly one of the "NRA crazies" you mention, let me point out that I personally do not care what administration these foolish operations occurred on. I also do not blame Obama or Bush the Junior.

However I feel a fair and unbiased nonpolitical investigation is warranted as allowing these weapons to "walk" into Mexico has resulted in numerous deaths that we rarely hear of.

While the estimates of the number of Mexican citizens that have died because of these weapons varies widely, there is no doubt that they were used to commit crime including numerous murders.

It really shouldn't matter what your political affiliation is, every American citizen should be outraged that these programs were allowed to happen. The efforts of the agencies of our government should be directed at stopping the illegal smuggling of firearms to other nations, not facilitating the flow.

It is also quite likely that some of these weapons will end up on American streets and result in tragic deaths in our nation. However to me, the death of an innocent Mexican citizen is just as serious as the death of an American citizen.

[Hoyt]

11. Guns "walk" out of stores every day that will be used for a crime or unnecessary shooting.

And all you guys want is more of them in public.

[spin]

14. I have absolutely no problem with the ATF or any law enforcement agency...

working to stop the illegal straw purchase and smuggling of firearms.

I would like to see the NICS background check system improved to make it more nimble and efficient and I also would like to see a requirement that it be used for all private sales.

I feel the penalties for the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling of such weapons should be increased and anyone convicted of such activity should also be treated as an accessory to any crime committed with the weapons they purchased or smuggled.

What many like you want is to limit or restrict the number and types of firearms that HONEST, RESPONSIBLE and SANE people can purchase or own. This would do little or nothing the address the real problem which is DISHONEST people who engage in criminal activity for profit.

I have never advocated that everyone purchase a firearm and get a concealed carry permit. That is an individual decision that requires a lot of serious thought and the realization that owning and carrying a firearm requires a tremendous amount of responsibility.

Your statement:

"And all you guys want is more of them in public."

suggests that I have an agenda. I would point out that it is you that has the agenda to stop honest licensed citizens from carrying firearms in public. If there was an actual problem with this practice, I would agree with you. However the fact remains that while a very few of those who do carry in public act irresponsibly with their weapons, the absolutely overwhelming do not and in fact do on occasion use their weapons in a legitimate fashion for legitimate self defense or to stop crimes in progress.

I feel that the criminal element in our society would agree with you that honest citizens should never be armed in public.

[Hoyt]

15. Yes, I'd like to see a lot less guns pumped into society for a lot of reasons.

[spin]

17. In my opinion the best way to reduce the number of firearms in our society...

is to take firearms away from criminals and fight the activities of drug gangs.

This would require not only better law enforcement and improving existing laws but would also involve the legalization of some drugs in order to reduce the profit motive in smuggling. We also need to provide better jobs that pay wages that people can live on and the education necessary to preform such jobs.

If we live in a more peaceful society there will be far less interest in buying firearms for self defense and fewer people will see a need to get a license to carry a firearm.

We have made considerable headway in reducing violent crime in our nation.

Crime in the United States

***snip***

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

I grew up in the 50s and in general the only people who owned firearms were hunters, collectors and target shooters. I feel that we can eventually reduce firearm ownership to those groups if we work to continue our proactive policing and improve our economic situation by creating jobs and providing education.

It would also help if some politicians in our party would stop their support of draconian gun laws which gives the right wing the propaganda they need to scare people into buying firearms.

[ellisonz]

66. "the only people who owned firearms were hunters, collectors and target shooters."

No one owned for self-defense? What do you think they would make of many of the more "advanced" firearms and accessories available in today's market ?

[spin]

72. Of course I grew up in a rural area in Ohio...

with very low crime.

However just about every home had a shotgun inside. Perhaps that is why the area had such low crime.

The only handguns I ever seen were souvenirs from WWII with the exception of the tiny LadySmith revolver my mother owned. My father had removed the firing pin from the weapon knowing that I would eventually find it and play with it.

I would imagine that the people in those days would not have been all that impressed with the firearms we have today. They would have considered their appearance to be a turnoff as they would have said that they looked like plastic toys.

The more modern firearms really didn't gain the popularity they enjoy today until the enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban. I remember one time in the 70s when I bought a stainless steel revolver with rubber grips, a co-worker said that in his opinion handguns should be only blued steel or nickel plated and should have wooden grips. Rifles such as the AR-15 had a poor reputation as they were considered inaccurate at long ranges, underpowered and far too expensive.

It always amazes me just how foolish it was for those who favor strong gun control to push for the Assault Weapons Ban. It backfired!

[ellisonz]

75. Well if your parents generation thought that "they looked like plastic toys"...

...what possible reason could there be for allowing everyone that wants a toy with no real purpose other than to kill in large numbers and fight the police?

I think that had not George W. Bush won re-election and allowed the AWB to expire we would be having very different discussions.

[oneshooter]

76. The stocks on the origional m-16's were made

by Mattel Toys plastics division.

Hence the name "Mattel Toys"

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[X_Digger]

77. Each generation despises the next's gun..

My great grandfather liked his pump action shotgun, but didn't like my father's remington 870. My father doesn't like my mossberg with collapsible stock.

Here's a clue, though. Popularity does not dictate what is and isn't 'allowed'.

[div class='excerpt']with no real purpose other than to kill in large numbers and fight the police?

Riiiiight. Like the new remington?



Derp.

[div class='excerpt']I think that had not George W. Bush won re-election and allowed the AWB to expire we would be having very different discussions.

You want to explain how a president 'allows' congress to pass (or not) any particular piece of legislation (such as the AWB renewal)?



This should be interesting.

[ellisonz]

79. Leadership.

Bush said he was for it because he didn't want to risk votes, but didn't lift a finger to get it extended.

Also, what do the pictures have to do with the argument?

[X_Digger]

80. You're the fan of cartoons, figured you'd 'get' it better.

But let me get this straight. Because Shrub didn't push for renewal, it's his fault that it didn't pass?!? When it could have passed without his signature?!?

I wouldn't cross the street to piss on him if he were on fire, but your statement is asinine.

Separation of powers, it's what's for dinner.

No, what had more impact was the composition of the 108th congress, coupled with the dropping crime rates, and the increased popularity of the so-called 'banned' weapons. Talk about 'backlash'. LOL!

[div class='excerpt']Also, what do the pictures have to do with the argument?

You asserted that modern firearms have "no real purpose other than to kill in large numbers and fight the police? "

The remington rifles above directly dispute you assertion.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. Do you understand how laws are made in this country?

Not supporting Bush in any way, but exactly what was he supposed to do? Congress does not do the President's bidding, and they are not answerable to him.

[spin]

83. That wasn't my parents' generation...

it was mine. I was originally introduced to the M16 during basic training in the Air Force. I personally preferred the M1 carbine. I still have not purchased a black rifle but I am considering moving to a more rural area where one could be very useful for hunting feral hog. Wild hogs can be a nasty pest but they also are very tasty when properly prepared.

Like many people who dislike the evil looking black rifles but have little knowledge or experience in the shooting sports you make the mistake of assuming that they have "no real purpose other than to kill in large numbers and fight the police".

AR style rifles are used extensively in shooting competition and hunting and can be excellent home defense weapons in a rural environment.

F&S Picks the 25 Best AR-Style Rifles

An Intro to the AR-Style Rifle

Black guns often get a bum rap. They can look a bit menacing, and their configuration and controls are radically different than those found on traditional sporting firearms. But the hunter who automatically dismisses AR-style rifles as legitimate sporting guns would be doing himself a major disservice. Why? Because the AR is one of the most capable, adaptable, and appealing firearm platforms on the market today. And these characteristics are helping it gain traction in the civilian market in its semi-automatic-only form.

***snip***

Over the past 50 years manufacturers have taken advantage of the gun’s modularity to attach optics and accessories, add new operating systems, allow larger chamberings, and even create civilian-legal semi-automatic-only versions. These guns have proved capable and popular with shooters of all stripes, especially varmint hunters. And recent developments have expanded the platform to big-game hunters as well.


This is because the qualities that make AR rifles so successful as a military design also make them highly capable as hunting firearms. Many models boast sub-MOA accuracy right out of the box, with some variants featuring performance that rivals that of custom target rifles.
http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/gallery/hunting/2009/05/fs-picks-25-best-ar-style-rifles

I'm also sure that you understand that the sale of "assault weapons" actually increased during the AWB. In fact the AWB is just what made them so popular. This information has been posted in the Gungeon numerous times with statistics to back it up.

[E6-B]

88. Dalai Lama is a shooter.

The Dalai Lama: “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[ellisonz]

90. Not exactly...

And again, I've never denied the right to self-defense, just whether or not it really works like that most of the time...

Full quotation:

Students, in a question-and-answer period, asked some hard questions.

One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.

The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010515&slug=dalai15m0

I don't think you understand Buddhism very well: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2010/jun/21/dalai-lama-armed-forces-day-message

[DanTex]

12. Let me clarify.

By "NRA crazies" I mean people who propagate one of the two following memes:
1) F&F was hatched deliberately by the Obama administration to justify more gun control
2) The F&F guns account for a significant portion of the guns trafficked to Mexico from the US.
So, if you don't believe either of those two things, then I don't mean you. But if you look at gun blogs and other right-wing outlets, you'll find plenty of people saying this stuff.

I agree that people should be outraged.

The first thing to be outraged about is the fact that lax gun laws, particularly in border states, make it so easy for tens of thousands of guns to be trafficked to Mexico. The actual guns associated with F&F are a tiny drop in the bucket. Anyone who is honestly concerned about the lives of Mexican citizens will realize that lax gun laws, combined with the fact that the GOP and NRA insist on under-resourcing the ATF, are responsible for far more lives than any mistakes made during F&F.

The second thing to be outraged about is the fact that right-wingers like Darrell Issa are trying to turn this into a political witch hunt against Obama. The theory that F&F was done to "pump up the numbers" was hatched on fringe right-wing gun blogs, but it became mainstream through FOX and Republicans in congress have repeated it. I've even seen allegations along these lines repeated on this forum, though I think it was mainly right-wing trolls doing that who have since been TSed.

[spin]

16. No I don't believe that either the Bush or the Obama administration...

created Operation Wide Receiver or Operation Fast and Furious to justify more gun control nor do I feel that approximately 2500 firearms is a high percentage of the firearms smuggled into Mexico.

I expressed my views on the current gun laws dealing with the straw purchase and the smuggling of firearms in post 14.

I would like to see the NICS background check system improved to make it more nimble and efficient and I also would like to see a requirement that it be used for all private sales.

I feel the penalties for the straw purchase of firearms and the smuggling of such weapons should be increased and anyone convicted of such activity should also be treated as an accessory to any crime committed with the weapons they purchased or smuggled.

I also have tremendous respect for the law enforcement officers including those from the ATF who work on our streets to combat straw purchases and smuggling. I feel that they are dedicated individuals who are doing their best and that honest and responsible gun owners should support their efforts as crime committed by illegal firearms is a serious threat to shooting sports and the right to own and carry firearms for self defense.

But obviously somewhere up the chain of command in some of our law enforcement agencies some very poor decisions have been made and we need to investigate to find out the details and who was responsible implementing these policies.

You mention the many rumors and conspiracy theories that have emerged over Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious. A fair, unbiased and non political investigation needs to be made to determine the facts and the motivations of those who created these programs. Some of the conspiracy theories even suggest CIA involvement in these activities. I doubt that an investigation would uncover another Iran Contra Affair and instead would show simple incompetence as the cause and finally put all these rumors and conspiracy theories to rest.

One way to stop this witch hunt is for the Justice Department to simply cooperate in any investigation and stop appearing to be hiding something. Often the appearance of a cover up results in far more problems than the embarrassment that results from revealing the actual facts.

[DanTex]

18. And who do you think stands in the way of stronger penalties for straw purchasing?

During the F&F hearings, one of the points made the ATF agents is precisely that the laws against straw purchasing carry weak penalties and often difficult to prosecute. That's because, currently there is no law specifically against straw purchasing or gun trafficking. The only law violated is "lying and buying", which means putting false information on the form, which in practice is not very effective in terms of getting convictions and sentences.

In fact, part of the reason the ATF started using questionable methods as in F&F is precisely because it is so difficult to effectively stop gun trafficking using conventional strategies under current laws. And let there be no doubt that the GOP and the gun lobby are firmly opposed to any laws, such as an anti-trafficking statute, which would make the ATF's job easier.

That is why, to me, it is much more of an outrage for politicians to stand in the way of laws that could do something about the gun trafficking, as opposed to ATF agents doing what they think is necessary to try to fight gun trafficking with the resources and the laws available to them. At worst, the ATF agents involved can be accused of poor judgement.

Old strategies primarily targeted the straw purchasers who were paid to buy weapons for higher-level traffickers, but those cases could be difficult to make, especially in Arizona.

For one, there is nothing illegal about walking into an Arizona gun shop and buying an unlimited number of weapons, so long as the purchaser passes a federal background check. A crime occurs only when weapons are exported to Mexico or if individuals are acting as unlicensed dealers by buying and reselling large quantities of weapons.

Straw purchasers themselves are typically prosecuted for what's known as "lying and buying": making a false statement on the federal documentation they fill out when purchasing a gun by claiming they are the actual intended possessor when, in fact, the gun is for someone else. But even in those cases, courts have held that the evidence must show the gun was purchased on behalf of a "prohibited possessor" – a felon, for example.

All of these things can be tough to prove, and several cases had been tossed over lack of evidence. Most notable was one of the last big cases the Phoenix ATF investigated before Fast and Furious – the widely publicized probe of gun shop owner George Iknadosian, who was accused of knowingly selling hundreds of guns to straw buyers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/30/atf-fast-and-furious-gun-trafficking_n_914064.html

[spin]

19. As I said, I support stronger enforcement of the existing laws against the straw purchase

and smuggling of firearms and the imposition of far more severe penalties for such activities.

But the fact that the necessary legislation is bottled up in Congress is no excuse for agencies of our government to bypass existing law and allow illegal straw purchases and smuggling to occur without any means of preventing the weapons involved from being used to commit bloodshed.

To the upper or mid level management involved these operations may have looked like a great idea. Unfortunately it appears that some felt that the end justified the means and failed to realize that the results could be hundreds of dead Mexicans and Americans.

I doubt that you actually believe that the fact that innocent people died can be justified because it was merely simple "poor judgement" on the part of the ATF.

But I could be wrong. I was having a conversation about the Fast and Furious Operation with my ex. I mentioned, "You rarely hear that as many as 200 hundred Mexicans have been killed because of the weapons that walked."

She replied, "I don't give a crap about Mexicans."

[DanTex]

21. Yes, the calculation would have been that the ends justified the means.

If they were able to catch some of the bigger fish, they would have been able to, on net, reduce the number of guns trafficked to Mexico, and thus actually save lives. Of course it was risky, and it appears that the risk didn't pay off, although we don't have all the info. But unless you think there were some kind of bad intentions, I don't see how this is anything more than, at worst, a poor decision. After all, if they hadn't tried these kinds of operations, and instead they had just arrested low-level straw purchasers, huge numbers of guns would still have gotten into Mexico.

The thing that's peculiar is that pro-gunners are all upset about the guns involved in F&F, but the tens of thousands of other guns don't seem to bother them so much. Is the life of someone who died because of a gun not associated with F&F worth less than someone who was killed with an F&F gun?

The fact that some ATF agents may have shown poor judgement in planning and executing a sting operation is no excuse for the gun lobby and the GOP to continue to oppose laws that would save lives of Mexicans and Americans.

[spin]

30. I would call your appraisal rather cold hearted...

Oddly enough it reminds me of a story from Vietnam...

Ben Tre

One of the most famous quotes of the Vietnam War was a statement attributed to an unnamed U.S. officer by AP correspondent Peter Arnett. Writing about the provincial capital, Bến Tre, on 7 February 1968, Arnett cited an unidentified U.S. military official as follows: "'It became necessary to destroy the town to save it', a United States major said today. He was talking about the decision by allied commanders to bomb and shell the town regardless of civilian casualties, to rout the Vietcong."[1] The quote became distorted in subsequent publications, eventually becoming the more familiar, "We had to destroy the village in order to save it."[2] The accuracy of the original quote, and its source, have often been called into question.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Tren

[DanTex]

37. That's entirely different.

It's not like the ATF agents were shooting innocent civilians. Absolutely nothing like that.

As a simple example, suppose you knew about two shipments of illegal guns. One at 5pm was 100 guns. Another one at 6pm with 200 guns. And you only have the manpower to stop one of the shipments. What do you do?

I say you stop the second shipment, because there are more guns in it. Of course, you could accuse me of being "cold-hearted" because that means just letting the first shipment at 5pm go in order to save the manpower for the larger 6pm shipment. And if some of the guns from the first shipment show up at crime scenes, I'm sure Darrell Issa would use that to go on a witch hunt. But, in the end, stopping the second shipment is a more effective strategy that will ultimately save more lives.

Again, the true cold-heartedness is on the part of gun lobby and the members of congress who refuse to pass laws that would actually reduce the flow of guns to Mexican criminals. The expiration of the AWB, for example, cost more lives than F&F ever did.

[gejohnston]

39. what is even more cold hearted

is the total silence and dishonesty of the anti gun lobby.
It has been proven time and again by legitimate news sources, the GAO that most of the guns are not going from US gun shops. The AWB was absurd theater dreamed up by VPC etc. based entirely on lies.

[DanTex]

40. LOL "most guns are not going from US"

In reality there is no real evidence of significant quantities of guns coming anywhere other than from the US, certainly not "most" as you claim. There's some anecdotal evidence of some weapons from other sources, and you'll see a few news reports about that, but all the quantifiable evidence points to the fact that the majority of weapons come from the US.

Also, despite what the NRA has convinced you to believe about the AWB, the statistics tell a different story. At least two studies (that I'm aware of) have looked at the link between the expiration of the AWB and the increased violence in Mexico, and both have concluded that it was a significant contributor.

Just a warning, though. These studies are scientific in nature and involve rigorous analysis of empirical data and statistics, things which I know are viewed with suspicion inside the NRA bubble. Proceed at your own risk!

http://www.nber.org/public_html/confer/2011/SI2011/CRI/Dube_Dube_Garcia_Ponce.pdf
http://nd.edu/~lchicoin/Chicoine_AWB_Mexico.pdf

[X_Digger]

41. There is no functional difference between guns produced during the AWB and after.

Notice that this gun only has one evil 'feature' and therefore isn't an 'assault weapon' by the '94 definition-



Now, feel free to try to explain why that gun is so much less dangerous than this one..



And perhaps you didn't actually know, but there were more AR-15's sold *during* the ban than the ten years previous.



Again, I'm reminded of that xkcd comic..

[DanTex]

44. Try actually reading the papers.

It's easy to say "correlation does not imply causation" and use that to ignore all of the evidence, and in fact that's one of the main methods that pro-gunners, creationists, global warming deniers and other anti-intellectual groups use to keep their heads in the sand. But there's actually a lot more to data analysis then throwing around clever-sounding catchphrases, and while it might be difficult to really appreciate what's going in studies like these without a scientific education, I'd still suggest that you try.

Both of the studies looked at the differences in crime in border regions where the AWB expired, and used California, which has a state level AWB, as a control. As such, it is very unlikely that causality issues have anything to do with this. The expiration of the AWB was as close as you can get to a natural experiment, and there's virtually no chance or reverse causality or confounding here, because events in Mexico had basically zero effect on the timing of the expiration.

[X_Digger]

46. If there is no functional difference between gun A and gun B, and no difference in availability..

Last edited Sun Jan 8, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Then the starting premise is flawed.

Let me ask again- do you believe that there is a functional difference between the guns in my previous post?

Do you believe that availability of either pre-ban (grandfathered) or post-ban (less 'features') guns was affected by the ban?

If you can't answer 'Yes' to *both* those questions, then it doesn't matter how many studies you apply to the question.


Let me give you an example.

Let's say congress banned 'sports cars', with the definition being certain model cars or those that have two of the following- LED ground lighting, >120 watts of bass, an oversized 'wing' on the back, or a body kit.

Manufacturers respond by changing model names and / or features. The same cars, with different names, or slightly altered features are available to consumers. Same top speed, same handling, same horsepower.

Would you give any credence to a study that claimed that 'sports cars' were unavailable for purchase during the ban as it's core premise?

And just to clarify, yes I've read the link.. here's the statement of premise that I'm talking about-

[div class='excerpt']In order to link the expiration of the AWB in the United States with the drug violence in Mexico, I need to establish three facts. First, the expiration of the ban increased the production of assault weapons in the U.S.

Only if you use the artificial definition of 'assault weapon' -- which is functionally no different than pre-ban or post-ban. It's illogical, and since this is one of the three premises at the core of the study- the whole thing is suspect.

edited to add more:

Additionally, neither study takes into account Vicente Fox's crack down in 2004 in Coahuila and Nuevo Leon, nor Calderon's general crackdown starting in mid-2006.

eta3: Well, to be fair, Chicoine does for the Calderon 2006 crack-down, but not the 2004 Fox one.

[DanTex]

49. Believe me, I've heard all the arguments against AWB.

Certainly there were flaws and holes with the AWB, but that doesn't imply that it was necessarily useless. For example, even though pre-existing high-capacity mags were still available, the ban on new ones pushed their price up, so there's one example of how an imperfect law can still have an effect. So it's not like you've proven definitively from theoretical principles that there's no possible way AWB could have had any effect.

Instead, what you have is a theory. And your theory makes predictions. One of the predictions is that, because the term "assault weapon" is artificial and defined by functionally irrelevant cosmetic details, and so on, because of all this, the AWB could not possibly make any difference to crime rates in Mexico.

That prediction appears to be incorrect -- despite the flaws of AWB, and the fact that you can't imagine how it could make a difference, the evidence suggests that it did. As the first of the papers pointed out, not only did gun homicides increase differentially in border areas where AWB expired, but "gun seizures also increased differentially, and solely for the gun category that includes assault weapons."

And, when a theory makes false predictions, what rational people do is either revise or give up on the theory.

[X_Digger]

51. Lol, no.. Evidence suggests there's a correlation for the time studied

Of course the time studied didn't cover pre-1994, either. The Sina Loa Cartel wars of the early 90's would have blown this correlation straight to hell.

I like how you didn't even touch the point I was making.

Lets say that tomorrow, the AWB is re-initiated.

Manufacturers go back to shaving off bayonet mounts and pinning stocks.

Next year, nobody in mexico is killed with an 'assault weapon' (as defined in the '94 bill.)

Hooray, it worked, right?!?

No dear, it didn't.

Because it doesn't matter whether or not a gun has a bayonet mount- dead is dead. What, you think a putative criminal gang member is going to care about the lack of a collapsible stock?!?

But hey, someone could write up a study showing an actual correlation! (And then you'd pile on more appeals to authority.)

The central premise is flawed. If you're counting the incidence of an artificially defined criteria that has no bearing on the lethality of the weapon, you will get artificially skewed results.

It's not rocket science.

[DanTex]

52. Actually the studies show a net increase in gun violence.

Not just a shift in violence from one kind of gun to another. If you were right, that the AWB was purely cosmetic and had no effects, then its expiration would not have resulted in a net increase in violence in border regions right where the ban expired. Instead there would have been an increase in "assault weapons" violence, a corresponding decrease in "pseudo-assault weapons violence", but no net increase.

But that didn't happen. There was a net increase. A differential net increase, compared with border regions where AWB did not expire. And the results were statistically significant, as found by two independent teams of researchers.

Look, your theory is a fine theory, but its predictions simply didn't happen. There reaches a point when it's time to stop looking for catchphrases and excuses, and simply accept the evidence and revise your theory.

[X_Digger]

56. A net increase in violence, regardless of whether or not guns had bayonet mounts.

[div class='excerpt']If you were right, that the AWB was purely cosmetic and had no effects, then its expiration would not have resulted in a net increase in violence in border regions right where the ban expired.

Do you see the hole in your logic? If it had no effect, then it had no effect. Violence might go up, violence might go down. You're still trying to tie them together, even when you attempt to imagine my position as true.

Lets go back to my 'sports car' ban analogy.

Let's say that all the hullabaloo over cars got a lot of people interested in them. Lots of people ditch their SUVs and buy (grandfathered) 'sports cars' as well as ban-compliant 'pseudo-sports cars'. They become popular, in both configurations.

(We can see this in AR-15 sales from the DOJ study on the AWB effectiveness.)


Now, after the 'sports car' ban expires, their popularity remains the same. (A net increase since before the 'ban'.) But hey, there's a new street racing league started, and participation is widespread.

You would be laughed out on your ass if you asserted that by banning 'sports cars' again you could decrease the popularity of street racing.

You really need to read up on what happened with DTO's from 1980-now in Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and Columbia. There are a bunch of variables that a two-dimensional view of this issue miss. Google Juan García Ábrego, Golfos, or Jorge Eduardo Sánchez.

[DanTex]

58. Boy, this is going slowly.

OK, I'll try one more time.

You have a theory. Your theory is that the AWB can't possibly make any difference, for all the reasons we've all heard over and over. I can see how enamored you are with your theory, but that doesn't mean you get to just assume that your theory is correct.

What you need to do is test your theory's predictions against what actually happens in the real world. You don't just get to assume AWB had no effect. You have to look at evidence to see if it had no effect. If you just assumed every one of your theories was correct without looking at the evidence, then you'd end up with a lot of false theories.

And in this case your theory makes false predictions. Your theory would predict that the AWB expiration wouldn't have any effect on crime rates in Mexico, which means we wouldn't see statistically significant differential increases in gun homicides in border regions near where AWB expired versus where it didn't.

Get it? Your theory is wrong. It makes false predictions. The expiration of the AWB did result in a differential increase in murder rates, which was statistically significant as confirmed by two independent studies. So now is the time for you to revise your theory and try and come up with a new one.

[X_Digger]

59. You keep assuming your own premise..

[div class='excerpt']Your theory would predict that the AWB expiration wouldn't have any effect on crime rates in Mexico, which means we wouldn't see statistically significant differential increases in gun homicides in border regions near where AWB expired versus where it didn't.

It just flew over your head again, didn't it? Two things can correlate without being causal. My theory doesn't predict anything. Two causally unconnected things can trend together, opposite one another, or randomly. Unconnected things are just that- unconnected.

There are many valid reasons why homicide rates might fluctuate near some border regions and not others. Here's one- geography. BC & BC Sur aren't a contested part of the major drug routes. There aren't two (or more, depending on whether you separate the CDG and Zetas) cartels vying for control of the area. Nor has Guillermo Galván Galván (sec nat defense) and the army made a major push in the area. If you weren't so apparently oblivious to drug trafficking history in Mexico, you might even be able to figure out other reasons (hint: google PAN + PRD + mexico + Baja California Sur).

[DanTex]

60. Do you understand what statistical significance means?

Yes, it's possible that the correlations are just accidental, but they were found to be statistically significant by two independent teams of researchers, even after various robustness checks. I know this might seem like voodoo to you, but actually, people have developed ways to figure out whether a correlation is likely to just have occurred by accident. The first paper, for example, found a geographical correlation specifically tied to border crossings where AWB had expired, an effect that only held up in a relatively narrow strip near the border. Yes, of course it's always possible that the whole thing is a huge fluke, but the likelihood of such a pattern, combined with the fact that there was in increase in guns trafficked of specifically the kind that were prohibited under AWB, all timed to occur just when the AWB expired, the odds of that become very low.

It's always fun to say "correlation is not causation", but if there is a non-causal correlation, there has to be some reason for it. As I mentioned, since the timing of the AWB expiration was set in advance, it's very unlikely that there would be any kind of reversed or confounded causation. This is known as a "natural experiment". The only real possibility is coincidence, but that's what statistical significance tests are for.

[X_Digger]

61. I would ask you the same thing..

Statistically significant doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. That is a measure of the robustness of the correlation. If one of your controls that you don't factor in (such as concurrent political upheaval, focused military action in an area, geopolitical status, etc) is the actual causal agent for either trend (assuming there even is one)-- your statistical significance will be high, without linking the two correlative elements.

The classic example that my stats prof proferred was this- a horse's front legs correlate in speed to his back legs. But to say that one drives the other is ignoring the head.

[div class='excerpt']but if there is a non-causal correlation, there has to be some reason for it

Oh wow.. I have to repeat that one again, just for posterity. You really don't get it, do you?

[div class='excerpt']but if there is a non-causal correlation, there has to be some reason for it.

aka, If you wish really hard, you can turn correlation into causation.. [font color="red"]well no, not really.[/font]

No, there doesn't have to be some reason. Here's another example-
Mexican Lemons Prevent Highway Death
http://scienceblogs.com/commonknowledge/2009/04/mexican_lemons_prevent_highway.php


Look at that R^2 value! 97% of the variance is explained by the model!

eta: If you actually are interested in why the murder rate skyrocketed, start reading the english versions of mexican newspaper archives, where available, or run em through google translate. There are also a couple of books on the subject that I can recommend, if you're actually serious about learning.

[DanTex]

62. Sigh. I really find myself doubting that you actually had a stats professor...

What you described with your horse-legs example is called "confounding". The head, which drives both sets of legs, is a "confounding variable". And yes, for the nth time, confounding is one of the ways that you can get a non-causal correlation. However, in order to have confounding in this situation, there would have to be some other variable(s) driving both the expiration of the AWB and the pattern of crime in Mexico. However (again) since the AWB expiration was a "natural experiment", then there is basically no plausible way for this kind of confounding to take place. It's not like, for example, the geography of gang activity could have caused the AWB ban to expire at that particular time and in those particular places, as well as causing the patterns of crime increase. The expiration of the AWB was, for practical purposes, exogenous.

Which once again means we are left with coincidence as the only explanation other than a causal link. Coincidence would mean that the fact that the patterns and the timing of the increase in violence match very well with what one would predict using a model where the AWB had an effect, this would have to all be a fluke. Yes, there could be something else driving the changes in crime, but this other thing would have to, just by coincidence, exhibit the same timing and geographical patterns that would arise if it were due to the AWB. And this is where statistical significance comes into play. The likelihood of this kind of fluke is low.

Anyway, I think this discussion has run it's course. Apparently a non-cartoon-based discussion of correlation, causality, confounding, and statistical significance is a little bit beyond your grasp, but, believe me, there's more to it than "correlation is not causation". Maybe it would be helpful for you to think about these things in a realm that's not as ideologically charged as guns, in order to just master the concepts.

[X_Digger]

63. Yes, I know what confounding factors are, thanks.

I hesitated on even mentioning the horse example for that very reason. I only found the bookmark for the lemon article as I was finishing up the post.

Coincidence that the timing matches? Yes. Again, statistical significance doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. How well does the variance between the series 'fit'. And we're not even really looking at two series here- for the AWB, it's one data point, over time (pre- and post- expiration).

As the lemon example demonstrates, statistical significance does not mean causality. It's just a measure of the strength of the correlation. And that's two true series, no transformation regression needed for something like inflation.

I've already given you more likely exogenous (to either study) reasons as to the increase in murders in Mexico, in some border states, from 2004 on, especially starting after Calderon took office in 2006. (Fox had bigger fish to fry for most of his tenure.)

But hey.. feel free to marginalize the actual politics and efforts in Mexico. Not everything that happens elsewhere is a butterfly effect of something that happens here. What is that, reverse US exceptionalism? Reverse jingoism?

I gotta post this one more time. It's just too delicious to not enjoy:

[div class='excerpt']but if there is a non-causal correlation, there has to be some reason for it

Somehow, Mexican lemons MUST cause less traffic fatalities. *snort*

[DanTex]

64. But of course you do...

If you bothered to read the papers, you would see that it's not "one data point" by any means. Also, statistical significance isn't about "How well does the variance between the series 'fit'" (whatever that means). Statistical significance is a measure of how likely certain observations are to have occurred by chance, in the absence of an effect that you may be postulating (i.e. under the so-called "null hypothesis&quot . As such, you can have a perfectly valid notion of statistical significance even if "we're not really looking at two series here". These are things that you would have learned in that statistics class you claim to have taken.

And obviously, statistical significance doesn't mean causality. However, if you find a statistically significant effect (as we have here), and you are able to rule out causal issues like reverse causality or confounding (as we have here), then you are basically left with two possibilities: either a coincidence or a causal correlation. And that's what we have here. Either the AWB expiration cause part of the increase in crime, or something highly unlikely occurred, in which the timing and patterns of the crime increase look very similar to what one would expect if the AWB had had an effect, but this actually happened for reasons unrelated to the AWB. That's all we can say, and that's all we could hope to say from any statistical analysis.

Similarly, if you flip a coin 20 times in a row and get 20 heads, you can't say for sure that you have a biased coin. What you can say, though, is that you would be very unlikely to have observed what you just observed if the coin were not biased. Of course, every now and then something like this will happen by accident (e.g. your lemons thing), but as a general rule, statistically significant results are usually not coincidence.

[X_Digger]

70. You need to go back to stats class.

Statistical significance is only as good as the covariates you control for. You can have a sigma of 1 in 1,000,000, an r-squared value of .99999999 - and if you haven't adjusted for the thing that controls one series- it's meaningless. You could say with perfect certainty that the result is statistically significant, and you could even produce a linear regression model that perfectly predicts the value of one dependent variable based on the measured value for the other- and still not be correct in your inferrence of causality.

Oh, for the record.. yes the series for AWB is basically binary-

[div class='excerpt']Post-AWB is equal to one for the years after the AWB expired, 2005-2008, and is equal to zero for the years from 1995-2004.

Did you not even look at the math and how it's calculated?!?

[DanTex]

71. Your basic confusion is that you are mixing up confounding with coincidence.

This is a pretty common error, so I'll briefly explain what's going on. An observed correlation between A and B can be non-causal in basically three ways.
1) Reverse causation: B causes A.
2) Confounding: C causes both A and B.
3) Coincidence: A and B are unrelated, and the observed correlation is due to chance.
Yes, there are a few technicalities I am omitting, but this is basically it in a nutshell. Now, most of the time, "causality issues" refers to (1) or (2). (3) is sort of a different beast. And, while you need to use domain knowledge and/or control variables to deal with (1) and (2), they way you deal with the possibility of coincidence is basically just through statistical significance tests -- you can never 100% rule out coincidence, but you can say that coincidence is very unlikely.

Now, it is true that, as you say, "statistical significance is only as good as the covariates you control for." However, it is extremely important to distinguish between covariates that are potentially confounding, and covariates which are not. From a theoretical standpoint, it is absolutely necessary to control for all potentially confounding variables, and it is absolutely unnecessary to control for non-confounding variables (that is, variables that correlate with B but not with A).

And that's why I keep repeating that the AWB expiration was an exogenous event, which implies that there are no plausible sources of confounding or reverse causality. The "correlation/causation" issues go away, save for the possibility that the observed effect is a coincidence. This idea that "significance is only as good as the covariates you control for" becomes an empty platitude, because there are no potential confounders. Any variable you might want to control for is going to be unrelated to the time and location of the AWB expiration, and thus it doesn't mitigate the statistical significance results. Since such a variable couldn't possibly "know about" the AWB expiration, and so the only way such a variable would produce a pattern of crime that so closely matches what the AWB model predicts would be purely by coincidence. And the statistical significance results tell us just how unlikely this kind of coincidence would be.

Of course, it can still be a useful to control for auxiliary variables that cannot be confounding, but the reason for doing so has nothing to do with confounding or causality, it has to do reducing the amount of unexplained noise. If you look at the first paper, for example, you will find that they control for a fairly broad set of variables, despite the fact that the AWB is a natural experiment. The authors correctly point out that many of these variables are actually over-controlling, since things like increased drug activity, for example, might easily be caused by increased gun availability, and still the statistical significance of the model holds up.

[X_Digger]

73. Actually it is important to control for non-confounding covariates if they affect A or B

Not just confounding ones that affect both. That's especially true when one of your series is simply a stake in the ground at a certain time (0 or 1 for pre- and post- expiration). And it's not just noise reduction, it may be the causative agent. But to assume that you've identified all possible covariates that affect the Mexican homicide rate without getting into the dynamics of cartel politics? Utter hubris.

You did notice that Chicoine distills cartel activity into a state down to another binary, correct?

[div class='excerpt']The variable cartel is equal to one for the eight states which have been identified as the cartel states, equal to
zero for the other 24 states.

Internecine struggles between DTOs that *directly* affect murder rates-- are suspiciously silent in both studies. Chicoine gives it a nod, but that's it. I agree that it's hard to quantify, but ignoring it is inexcusable.

[DanTex]

78. In some cases important, but not a requirement for drawing valid statistical conclusions.

Noise, in this context, means variation in B that is unrelated to A. If a variable D is known to be independent of A, then, in principle, this variable only produces noise, period. It's true that D may be a "causative agent", but that doesn't mean it's not noise -- "causative" and "noise" are not mutually exclusive here. And, in particular, the existence of such an uncontrolled-for non-confounding variable D does not mitigate the statistical significance of an observed correlation between A and B, the way the an uncontrolled-for confounding variable would, because the only way D could contribute to the observed correlation is by coincidence. I hope this is clear and we can at least agree on this.

As I mentioned in my last post, potential confounders are very different than non-confounding covariates, and it is certainly not necessary to identify "all possible covariates" to draw valid conclusions. In practice, you are correct that it is still a good idea to control for such variables if possible, but the reasons have nothing to do with causality. They have to do with improving the fit, checking the model for robustness, etc., things that have much more to do with (3) above than the causality issues (1) or (2).

BTW, the use of a binary variable is not remotely the same thing as "one data point", as you claimed above. For example, in a clinical trial, a binary variable is used to distinguish people who receive a real treatment versus a placebo, but that number of data points is equal to the number of people participating in the study.

If you look at the first paper in particular, you will actually find that the robustness checks are pretty good. They change the specification in a few ways, and still get significant results, and they also control for a bunch of auxiliary variables that are likely to relate to crime rates: "The results are robust to controls for drug trafficking, policing, unauthorized immigration, and economic conditions in U.S. border ports, as well as drug eradication, trends by income and education, and military and legal enforcement efforts in Mexican municipios." Moreover, as I've mentioned, some of these checks amount to over-controlling, and yet the results still remain significant.

At the end of the day, what you are really claiming is that the results of these papers are due to coincidence. It has nothing to do with correlation versus causation. What you are suggesting is that other factors that have nothing to do with AWB (e.g. struggles between DTSs), produced a pattern in the increase in violence, which, by sheer coincidence, happens to closely match, in timing and location, the predictions of a model in which AWB did have an effect. It's just that saying "correlation is not causation" is much more catchy and intellectual-sounding than just saying "it's a coincidence".

Anyway, yes, coincidence is possible. We can't rule that out. All that studies like these can show is that, statistically speaking, this would be a rather unlikely coincidence.

[X_Digger]

82. Realistically, if you find a causative covariate, you modify your theory.

If your intent is to explore the cause for increased Mexican homicide rates, and your working theory is that the AWB expiration had something to do with it, the existence of a different, (assumedly) more valid causative covariate should result in changing your theory.

Now if you have an axe to grind, proving the conclusion you were aiming for is of paramount importance, data bedamned

[DanTex]

84. The intent was not to "explore the cause", but rather to test the hypothesis that AWB had an effect.

Exploratory studies are a different thing. In the hypothesis testing paradigm, basically, the only outcomes are that yes the AWB had a statistically significant effect or no it did not. And they both found that the answer is yes. That doesn't mean there aren't other important factors as well, but the existence of other factors doesn't negate the results of these studies.

As for the claim that they have an "axe to grind", well, there's no evidence for that, but just like the objection that "it's a coincidence", all we can say is that it's highly unlikely but not impossible.

[X_Digger]

85. Both found statistically significant correlation..

.. without taking into account what many who are familiar with the DTOs of the area would consider a causative covariant.

Congratulations. You've got a perfectly accurate, but invalid answer.

[DanTex]

86. Actually, I think by now you understand perfectly well why that "causative covariant"...

...thing you keep bringing up is nonsense. Yes, it's a bit subtle, but I explained it pretty clearly and in some detail, so I really don't think you're genuinely confused anymore. By now you're just repeating things you know are nonsense, just to preserve your ideological biases and avoid having to adapt your beliefs to the statistical evidence.

Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, but I'm generous like that.

[ellisonz]

67. It should be pointed out...

...that there are other ways of doing sociological analysis than a purely statistical approach. For example, if you were to ask the average Mexican police commander what changed between 1990 and 2010 in terms of the drug war. I think the answer you would get is a flood of high quality weapons to the cartels making enforcement much more difficult. Furthermore, as the cartels were able to buy more and better guns in the US they were able to seize more weapons from the Mexican government and create more corruption.

Drugs = Money = Guns = Money = Drugs = Guns - how else do you protect market share?

Furthermore, with the continuing perseverance of cocaine production and demand, which produces high profits in contrast to marijuana, and the emergence of the methamphetamine market, the result is higher capitalization for the cartels and more profit that doesn't have to be re-invested into further acquisition of cocaine.

Timeline of the Drug War: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/drugs/cron/

[gejohnston]

48. Read those before

the first one was done by a private entity for pay. I always look at the sources first. The reason being it is a good indicator of where they got their numbers. A lot of citations to the usual Joyce crowd and John Lott, newspaper articles. It is an analysis data given to them. Their information is incomplete and lead to questionable conclusion. Garbage in, garbage out even with the perfect statistical model. They need to provide better evidence to show a link.
While I have read propaganda groups claim that the US sourced guns are from gun stores in the southwest, but I have yet to see any official report claiming that. They could not get ATF data for the same reason MAIG (but lie about it, unless they got it from NYPD) can not, it is available only to law enforcement. I found it odd they would get state gun law information from Brady instead of looking up state laws or contacting the state governments.
Rigorous analysis using Hemenway and company as sources. We discussed this before.
The first time you mentioned this study, I emailed the writers to clarify the first paragraph on page nine. Never received a reply. What does machine guns, automatic rifles, RPGs have to do with the AWB?

the second study is a variation on the same theme.

Never asked is
why a $50 billion industry would buy semi automatics at inflated prices when it would be easier and cheaper to buy full autos from the same places they are getting grenades (Korea), rocket launchers, and heavy machine guns?
the same industry builds their own submarines and armored vehicles, why not small arms?

You are the scientifically literate one outside of the NRA bubble, can you explain how valid these are in terms even this hick could understand?

So why am I skeptical of economists taking grants from Joyce or API while doing studies and gun control and climate change? Blame Thom Hartmann. I don't know how true it is (nobody is perfect), but I have not found anything to refute it. He has mentioned it a couple of times.

"The problem with Game Theory is that it doesn’t work. Rand had our entire foreign policy WRT the USSR and nukes running on game theory, and it led to us having over 11,000 unnecessary nuclear weapons. Decades after the US govt adopted it as “official,” they tested it more and discovered that the ONLY people who behave the way game theory predicts are psychopaths (sociopaths, really) and economists. No kidding."
http://firedoglake.com/2009/09/06/fdl-book-salon-welcomes-thom-hartmann-threshold-the-crisis-of-western-culture/

[spin]

57. The bottom line...

ATF gun probe: Behind the fall of Operation Fast and Furious
Motives, allegiances add to saga intrigue
January 08, 2012

***snip***

But as Fast and Furious progressed in 2009-10, obvious and crucial flaws emerged: Hundreds of high-powered rifles vanished into Mexico because investigators had no way to follow the guns -- or to develop criminal cases against those who wound up with them.

Within weeks, firearms began turning up at Mexican crime scenes, often next to corpses.

Some ATF agents tried to warn that people in Mexico were getting killed and that a public-relations disaster was inevitable. A few lawyers in the Justice Department also became alarmed, pressing for the flow of firearms to stop.

Their complaints were dismissed or ignored. More guns went south....emphasis added

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/11/12/20111112atf-gun-probe-operation-fast-and-furious-fall.html#ixzz1ivAyPnd3

So while you are correct when you state that...

"It's not like the ATF agents were shooting innocent civilians. Absolutely nothing like that."

...the fact remains that some in the management in the ATF allowed the program to continue despite the fact that Mexicans were being killed by the weapons that were allowed to "walk".

It should have been obvious at that point that the program was seriously flawed and should have ended at that point.

So while those who conceived the program literally didn't pull the triggers of the firearms that led to Mexicans dying, their failure to stop the program resulted in further deaths. As there was no new effort or ability to insure that the weapons would be interdicted before they ended up in the hands of murderers, someone up the chain of management should be held responsible for their failure to stop the operations.

But perhaps there is more to the story then we currently know. Is there a possibility of other government agencies being involved in the programs and if so why?

As Americans I feel we should support a nonpolitical and unbiased investigation into these programs which occurred under both the Bush administration and the Obama administration.

[beevul]

35. If you're going to characterize what has some of us upset, do it honestly.

"The thing that's peculiar is that pro-gunners are all upset about the guns involved in F&F, but the tens of thousands of other guns don't seem to bother them so much. Is the life of someone who died because of a gun not associated with F&F worth less than someone who was killed with an F&F gun?"

What were all upset about, is government being responsible for doing that which they they claim to be combatting, then turning around and asking for further regulation on top of it - among other things.

"The fact that some ATF agents may have shown poor judgement in planning and executing a sting operation is no excuse for the gun lobby and the GOP to continue to oppose laws that would save lives of Mexicans and Americans."

What an utterly dishonest way to characterize it. "Some ATF agents". As if you haven't seen this before:

It has been brought to my attention that there may be a schism developing amongst the group. Whether you care or not people of high rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we [Phoenix Group VII] are doing what they envision the Southwest border groups doing. It may sound cheesy but we are “The tip of the ATF spear” when it comes to Southwest Border Firearms Trafficking. We need to resolve our issues at this meeting. I’ll be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumors or other adolescent behavior. I don’t know what all the issues are but we are all adults, we are all professionals and we have the exciting opportunity to use the biggest tool in our law enforcement toolbox. If you don’t think this is fun you’re in the wrong line of work – period! This is the pinnacle of domestic U.S. Law enforcement techniques. After this the tool box is empty. Maybe the Maricopa County Jail is hiring detention officers and you can get paid $30,000 (instead of $100,000) to serve lunch to inmates all day. We need to get over this bump in the road once and for all and get on with the mission at hand. This can be the most fun you have with ATF, the only one limiting the amount of fun we have is you.

David Voth, Group Supervisor, Phoenix Group VII

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/Grassley_2011_03_page14.pdf

"Whether you care or not people of high rank and authority at HQ are paying close attention to this case and they also believe we are doing what they envision the Southwest border groups doing."

In your world, does " people of high rank and authority at HQ" translate into "some atf agents"?


The question at this point is:

Why are you here spreading misinformation about this case that you almost certainly know is untrue, and characterizing events in a completely misrepresentative way?

Why?

[E6-B]

91. There was no intention to catch anyone.

How do you catch someone once the guns are out of sight?

There was never any intention to catch anyone.

[burf]

45. You posted:

During the F&F hearings, one of the points made the ATF agents is precisely that the laws against straw purchasing carry weak penalties and often difficult to prosecute

Could you be more specific on who this agent was? Evidently he/she and their acting director disagree.

Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Kenneth Melson penned a letter to NSSF President Steve Sanetti expressing the Bureau's sincere gratitude to NSSF for its "noteworthy contributions and key involvement in the Don't Lie for the Other Guy program." Acting Director Melson went on to state that "the recent expansion of the program to focus on educating prospective straw purchasers through a variety of public medium, such as billboards, is crucial to the success of this program" and that the campaign "is an important tool for ATF as we pursue our mission of preventing terrorism, reducing violent crime, and protecting the public."

http://www.dontlie.org/quotes.cfm

But then again, "don't lie for the other guy" is a NSSF program, so it has to be inherently evil. The program obviously is not gonna work especially when the ATF is notified suspicious buyers are in a gun shop attempting to buy, and the clerks are told to go ahead with the transaction.

The penalty for straw purchasing is up to ten years in federal prison. Hardly a slap on the wrist, but effective only if the law is enforced.

[DanTex]

50. Up to 10 years, but there's no minimum, and in practice...

...as the huffpo article pointed out, the "lying and buying" law is pretty ineffective in terms of prosecuting straw purchasers.

Here's some testimony:
[div class="excerpt"/]In one instance, Forcelli argued in favor of tougher gun laws:
REP. CAROLYN MALONEY (D): District court judges view these [straw purchase] prosecutions as mere paper violations. Have you heard this criticism before?
FORCELLI: I have and I agree with it. I think that perhaps a mandatory minimum one year sentence might deter an individual from buying a gun. Some people view this as no more consequential than doing 65 in a 55.

In another, Forcelli admitted that his agency simply doesn’t have the resources it needs to be effective:
REP. GERALD CONNELLY (D-VA): Do you really have the resources you need to do your job?
FORCELLI: It’s amazing, sir, that you ask me that… [...] I have less than 100 agents assigned to the entire State of Arizona, that’s 114,006 square miles. So do we have the resources, no we don’t. We desperately need them.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/06/16/246938/darrell-issa-atf-gunrunner/

[burf]

53. Sounds as though somebody ought to talk to the guy the ATF works for about getting prosecutors

to start doing their jobs.

As far as the lack of resources, didn't the ATF get $10 million in stimulus money for gun enforcement in the southwest? Why yes, from the El Paso Times 02/14/2009

The stimulus bill approved by Congress provides $10 million for the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Bureau to stop guns flowing from the U.S. to Mexico

snip

The ATF funds are part of $40 million in the bill for competitive grants to local law enforcement along the southern border and in high intensity drug trafficking areas to fight drug-related crime.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/newupdated/ci_11706020

That brings up another question. If the situation in Arizona is so dire, why did they send the agents hired with the $10 million dollars to everywhere other than Arizona?

Recovery Act funding provided Project Gunrunner with $10 million to hire special agents, industry operations investigators and others to staff new offices in McAllen, Texas; El Centro, Calif.; and Las Cruces, N.M. (including a satellite office in Roswell, N.M.,) to target the gun traffickers that enable weapons to make their way to violent criminals.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/August/10-opa-925.html

Something doesn't pass the smell test on this one.

[DanTex]

54. Prosecutors don't get to decide on sentences.

In all areas, not just guns, laws need to be written in such a way that they can be effectively prosecuted. That's why the whole "it's already illegal" line is so dumb. And I think that if we were talking about, say, wall street reform, and I kept on insisting that "fraud is already illegal", you'd agree that it was pretty dumb.

The point is that the gun lobby, like the wall street lobby, works to ensure that whatever regulations and laws are in place are toothless and difficult to enforce. They also work to ensure that the regulatory agencies don't have the resources or the will to effectively enforce the regulations. And in both cases, they've been pretty successful.

[burf]

55. No, prosecutors do not get to decide sentences,

but their bosses, District or US Attorneys decide which cases to prosecute and work with law enforcement on making sure the charges will result in conviction. Who is failing in that part of the operation? But I must agree with your comparison of the ATF and the SEC, both were asleep at the switch. Whether by incompetence or by design is open for debate. In the instance of the SEC, we were told it had to do with hookers, blow, and porn. What's the ATFs excuse?

So, its the old standby of the "gun lobby" that is responsible? Then how do you explain the quote up post by the (former) acting director of the ATF? Let me get this straight, the NSSF, part of the dreaded "gun lobby" was instrumental in the "don't lie for the other guy" (straw purchase) program, that is lauded by the acting ATF chief, is responsible for the ATF and US Attorneys not doing their jobs by them not getting convictions of those breaking the law.

[ellisonz]

68. I think it should be noted...

The firearms industry is making record profits. What are they doing to help solve these problems?

[E6-B]

92. They are doin just as much as any other industry.

[gejohnston]

20. I don't know about anyone claiming number two

but the "tens of thousands" is not based on ATF reports that I know of and defies logic. Why but semi autos at inflated prices when you can get full autos, rocket launchers, etc. from abroad and southern border.
Issa is not after Obama, he is after the ATF. If the DEA was doing something this stupid, Issa would not give a shit.

As for Holder; his inaction after the Massey mine cave-in, BP disaster, and massive Wall Street fraud made me "anti-Holder" way before any of this came out.

[ellisonz]

69. You don't know Darrell Issa...

That man doesn't have a body in his bone that isn't political to the core. Don't defend the bastard.

[gejohnston]

74. not defending him

simply making a statement of fact. If it were the DEA, Issa and Grassley would not give a shit.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. Let me be clear.

I am offended quite equally by any administration that fails in its responsibility to "...insure domestic tranquility..." by allowing, facilitating or failing to adequately prohibit weapons from criminal hands to the limit of the rights and freedoms of peaceful Americans.

The fact that the Bush Administration did it is not an excuse making it fine for everyone. Getting lost in an argument over it was/wasn't motivated by ideals of gun-control is beside the point. It will always be fodder for those who are more political than reasonable.

[SteveW]

42. Hey, I'm with you on exposing GWB's "End Run" corruption...

And as a poster of the BATF's abuses, I acknowledged and posted these operations as they arose. You are upset by the GOPers use of this issue:

"The second thing to be outraged about is the fact that right-wingers like Darrell Issa are trying to turn this into a political witch hunt against Obama."

What frustrates you and me is the whole issue of BATF's crap operations is that the media doesn't want to belabor the damaging impact these "operations" have on their self-proclaimed ideology of gun-control/prohibition; hence the weak coverage. This is further compounded by President Obama's unwillingness to confront the GOP about most anything, let alone the "gun-control issue." Therefore, the GOP can run wild with this all day without much chance of opposition. (As repugnant as it seems, if you were in the Republican Far Right's shoes, wouldn't you just love to smash-mouth an unresisting opponent?)

As far as "pumping up the numbers," that doesn't seem to be the point. The point is that BATF (and most likely other federal agencies) didn't seem to care about dumping a few thousand more guns into the W.O.D. mix.

I certainly have not been TSed, and this ol' lefty has posted a bunch of the BATF stories, and will continue to do so.

[E6-B]

89. Somebody lied

Somebody lied. 300 Mexican citizens and a Federal Officer died. Plus one helicopter shot down. More are going to die.

[aikoaiko]

8. There's gun walking and then there's gun walking with posturing.

It didn't bother me that the Obama's ATF had a failed sting with their gun walking or that Bush or anyone else did too.

What bothered me is that the current administration used guns traveling over to Mexico to argue for a new AWB or new FFL regulations. I don't think it was a conspiracy, but it is fucked up to contribute to the problem and then claim the necessity of new gun control laws. I don't recall the previous administration making that mistake.

[DanTex]

13. The real outrage is the GOPers trying to exploit this for political gain.

I find it odd that basically zero pro-gunners, even on this Democratic board, seem to have a problem with the fact that Issa & co are using this to go on a witch hunt and suggesting that this was a conspiracy by the Obama administration to justify more gun control. Those are some pretty crazy and twisted allegations -- very clearly, Issa is exploiting the deaths of innocent people as a vehicle for false insinuations and political gain.

On the other hand, the case for new regulations or a new AWB has nothing to do with F&F. The number of guns flowing to Mexico is huge, and the F&F guns are a tiny fraction. That is one of the major flaws of the "pumping up the numbers" theory. The numbers don't need to be pumped up.

I don't see why a failed sting operation by the ATF should prevent people from correctly pointing out lax gun laws in border states and the expiration of AWB have contributed to the escalation of violence in Mexico.

On top of that, at worst, F&F involved poor judgement on the part of ATF agents who were actually doing what they thought would be the best thing to fight the flow of illegal guns. It was a case of letting small fish go to try and get people higher on the chain. This is in contrast to the NRA and the GOP, who are intentionally standing in the way of regulations that would save the lives of Mexicans and also of Americans in border regions.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. Isn't it a bit...

...disingenuous to accuse politicians of acting for political gain? (With a straight face...)

[Remmah2]

22. It's wrong no matter who did it.

Our elected officials are supposed to work for us. Hell, they're part of the 1% peeing down hill all the time.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. Bingo. We have a winner.

[spin]

33. Well at a minimum they are bought and owned by the 1%...

It also looks difficult for the 99% to regain control of our government. We might be witnessing the end of the Founding Father's dreams.

edited for typo

[beevul]

24. "Wide receiver" actually attempted to track and interdict the guns.

Fast and furious did not.


Apples and oranges.

[DanTex]

25. Actually, these documents suggest that both operations used similar tactics...

...letting some of the small fish go in order to get at the big players.

But don't let the facts stop you from sticking up for the Bush ATF and insisting that the Obama ATF is uniquely evil.

In a probe of arms trafficking during the George W. Bush administration, a federal prosecutor said it was wrong that law enforcement agents had allowed hundreds of guns to go into Mexico and into the hands of drug dealers, according to documents the Justice Department turned over to Congress on Thursday.

The emailed comment by an assistant U.S. attorney in Arizona to a law enforcement colleague in December 2008 focused on the tactic used in Operation Wide Receiver, an investigation that began in early 2006. The newly disclosed internal Justice Department documents show Wide Receiver had many of the same problems that turned up more recently in a separate, later probe called Operation Fast and Furious, which is the focus of an inquiry by congressional Republicans.

The concerns about the earlier Wide Receiver probe that were expressed in the internal Justice Department documents deal with the law enforcement tactic of standing aside rather than arresting "straw" buyers of illicitly purchased weapons in the hopes that agents can follow the guns and straw buyers to major arms traffickers.

The tactic, known as, "letting guns walk," long has been prohibited by Justice Department policy. But federal agents under both the Bush and Obama administrations, nevertheless, turned to the tactic as a response to long-running criticism that traditional department policies have left arms-trafficking kingpins virtually untouched by prosecutors.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jI6cIRNMIvaaYURspHydiW1JDzjQ?docId=306fecdffb544d7d930e11a549851a63

[beevul]

26. And THESE don't.

Headlined "Meeting of the attorney general with Mexican Attorney General Medina Mora," the briefing paper informed Mukasey that the tactic had been tried unsuccessfully but that the ATF wanted to try again and wanted Mukasey to persuade Mexico's attorney general to provide a team of corruption-free Mexican agents who would assist in the effort. Perhaps implied but not fully detailed in this document was the reason for the failure _ that Mexican authorities south of the border fell down on the job, claiming they didn't see the vehicle carrying the guns that the ATF agents had alerted them to.

http://azstarnet.com/news/national/ap-exclusive-second-bush-era-gun-smuggling-probe/article_02a80836-5f2b-51ce-a67c-06a0833b0181.html

So there, under WR, we have:

ATF attempted to interdict the guns.

ATF attempted to track the guns.

ATF attempted to follow the suspected traffickers to learn who they were dealing with.

ATF informed Mexican authorities about the traffickers or the guns headed their way.

ATF informed their own agents in Mexico about the traffickers or the guns.

Whereas under fast and furious we have:

Soon the scandalous truth came out. It was so shocking that the atf agents couldn’t believe it. When it proved out, they were profoundly embarrassed about their country. They were deeply apologetic to their Mexican counterparts. They scrambled to distance themselves from what had happened. “I hope they understand that this was kept secret from most of the atf, including me and my colleagues in Mexico,” said Darren Gil, the atf attaché to Mexico.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/?q=8786.7541.0.0

Gil said when he first queried ATF officials in Phoenix, where the program was run, they told him the bare minimum. According to Gil, George Gillett Jr., then the acting special agent in charge, said, "We have an ongoing investigation…. Thanks for calling."

He also questioned ATF headquarters in Washington, Gil said, and was told, "They have it under control."

As he learned what had gone wrong, Gil said, he realized that ATF officials did not want Pascual to know about the operation, and that ATF feared the Mexican government would find out and lodge a formal complaint.

Gil recalled "screaming and yelling" with his Washington superiors. "It's inconceivable to me to even allow weapons to knowingly cross an international border," he said.

Gil and Canino said they later were advised that senior ATF leaders, including acting Director Kenneth Melson, as well as Department of Justice officials and the U.S. attorney's office in Phoenix, all had approved Fast and Furious. Melson said it was "providing some good intelligence" on gun smuggling.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/26/nation/la-na-fast-furious-cable-20110726


Heres Darren Gil in front of the whole world:


http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7360785n


"The supervisor of Operation Fast and Furious was “jovial, if not, not giddy but just delighted about” walked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico according to an ATF agent."

http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1341:report-four-atf-agents-working-on-controversial-operation-fast-and-furious-tell-their-story&catid=22:releasesstatements

Its just as I said:

Under fast and furious:

ATF made no attempt to interdict the guns.

ATF made no attempt to track the guns.

ATF made no attempt to follow the suspected traffickers to learn who they were dealing with.

ATF actually purchased some guns which they apparently transferred to traffickers.

ATF did not inform Mexican authorities about the traffickers or the guns headed their way.

ATF did not inform their own agents in Mexico about the traffickers or the guns.

So again:

In what sort of fantasy land are those two operations even remotely able to be characterized as "the same thing"?

Edited to add:

"But don't let the facts stop you from sticking up for the Bush ATF and insisting that the Obama ATF is uniquely evil."


Since I have neither been sticking up for the "bush atf" nor insisting the "obama atf" uniquely evil, would you care to retract that vile disgusting false insinuation?

And just FYI, more or less the very same crew was at ATF during both administrations, with few exceptions, so that doubly contradicts the insinuation.

[DanTex]

32. Ya know, you're citing the same AP article that I just cited...

Here, let me quote a little more of it for you

The Wide Receiver investigation that began in early 2006 proceeded and used the gun-walking tactic despite the concerns expressed by some of the law enforcement personnel involved in it.

"I am no longer comfortable allowing additional firearms to `walk,' without a more defined purpose," a supervisor for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives in Arizona wrote in a June 2007 email to a federal law enforcement official in Texas about Operation Wide Receiver.

"I think it is wrong for us to allow 100s of guns to go into Mexico to drug people knowing that is where they are going," Assistant U.S. Attorney Serra Tsethlikai wrote in a Dec. 19, 2008, email to another assistant U.S. attorney.

So you see, even though we don't know all the details about either operation, what we do know indicates that both apparently used similarly controversial "gunwalking" techniques. This is notwithstanding the conspiracy theories you've read on SipseyStreet or WorldNetDaily.

For some reason pro-gunners don't seem to be too upset about the "gunwalking" that occurred under Bush. In fact, some, like yourself, seem to be focused on whatever details you can point to that would make F&F look worse than WR, despite the fact that, in the end, both appear to be based on the same "ends justify the means" calculation where you let a few guns go now in order to catch the higher-ups and reduce the overall gun flow in the long run.

[gejohnston]

34. I think you are missing the larger point

similar is not the same. Those differences are very important.
In FF we know there was not a tracking mechanism and the Mexicans did not have a clue. That alone changed it from "this might work" to "that didn't work, so let's do something really fucking stupid." It is not about Obama, Bush, or Holder for that matter. Like I said before, if the DEA or ICE did something like this, it would not be on Issa's RADAR.
I have no idea what SipseyStreet or WorldNetDaily are saying (and I really don't care). On the other hand, I would half way believe it if they were accusing Bush. Bush's cabinet had at least a few people with the personality types to do something like that. Think about it, how many dead American, Brits, and Iraqis for oil profits? What's a few dead Mexicans and Border Patrol officers to someone like Cheney?

[gejohnston]

27. one thing escapes me

The ATF has no jurisdiction in Mexico. If both operations are the same but different names then:

Mexican authorities knew nothing about either one
Tracking mechanism was half-assed to nonexistent

We do know Mexican authorities know nothing about FF, and we know there was no tracking mechanism in place in FF. Perhaps more appropriate names would be Operation Dumb and Operation Dumber.

If the ATF followed the straw buyers to the "big fish" and busted everyone before the guns went across the border, it would have been a good plan.

[beevul]

29. The whole problem with that line of thinking...

"If the ATF followed the straw buyers to the "big fish" and busted everyone before the guns went across the border, it would have been a good plan."

(note, I'm not saying you engage in this, just pointing out a general truth here)

The whole problem with that line of thinking, which the F&F appologists seem not to know, or assume nobody else knows, is that the "big fish" exist, reside, and stay, outside of ATF jurisdiction, in Mexico.

So when they make the excuse that "we wanted to follow them to the "big fish", yet didn't alert Mexican authorities, or their very own people in Mexico, we know its a lie.

Then, the question becomes "why the lie?"

A closer look at dennis k burke may shed some light on that.

[gejohnston]

31. I was thinking

more in terms of several straw buyers working for one wholesaler on our side of the border.

[SteveW]

43. Good point on "big fish." The metaphor is used in that other prohibition: W.O.D. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

36. Yeah, it was called 'wide receiver'

Not nearly as fucked up as 'Fast and Furious' though. Not by a long shot.

You want to arrest Bush for it, that's cool with me though.

[burf]

47. When are the nearly 500 pages

going to made public? It sounds as though npr hasn't seen any of them, because their use of "suggested" and "may have used" in their story. No link posted either. Seems as though there's a bit of speculation on npr's story.

My guess is details will come out at Holders next appearance before Congress.