Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Crime

Mexico Proves Strict Gun Laws Won’t Prevent Massacres

Aug. 23, 2012 11:28am

Sylvia Longmire is a former Air Force officer and Special Agent, and former senior border security analyst for the State of California. She is currently a […]

Sylvia Longmire is a former Air Force officer and Special Agent, and former senior border security analyst for the State of California. She is currently a consultant and analyst, correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine, and author of Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico's Drug Wars."

[ x ]

DrugWarAnalyst@gmail.com

Author's Website

More than 53,000 people have been murdered in Mexico in the last six years—most of them by a variety of pistols, rifles, and assault weapons owned by Mexican drug cartels. While the exact number of firearms in circulation in Mexico eludes everyone, we know tens of thousands are seized every year by Mexican authorities.

These facts and figures might lead one to believe that it’s easy for cartels to buy or otherwise acquire guns in Mexico. In fact, Mexico has some of the strictest gun control laws on the entire planet—as well as one of the planet’s highest annual death tolls as a result of gun violence.

After the tragic July 20^th shooting at an Aurora, Colorado movie theater during a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises,” no time was wasted by individuals on both sides of the gun control debate in the U.S., in airing their views on the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control in preventing another public massacre. The same exact thing happened after the shooting of US Representative Gabrielle Giffords—as well as 18 innocent bystanders—in Tucson, Arizona in January 2011.

It’s hard to argue against the fact that it’s relatively easy to purchase a wide variety of firearms in several U.S. states. The night James Holmes killed 12 people and injured 58 others in Aurora, he was carrying an assault rifle, a shotgun, and two handguns—all of which he purchased legally, as he had no criminal history, and no evidence (on paper, anyway) of being mentally ill. He also purchased hundreds of rounds of ammunition and ballistic protective gear online, also legally.

So the question becomes, would stricter gun controls, or at least an outright ban on assault- or military-style weapons, have prevented this? One place we can look to for an answer is Mexico.

Contrary to popular belief, Mexico’s constitution has its own version of our Second Amendment. However, few private citizens own firearms. Federal laws have severely restricted the ability to own and carry weapons to soldiers, police, trained bodyguards, and a few others who can make it through the miles-long gauntlet of the application process. If a Mexican citizen can survive the background checks, the mountains of paperwork, the half-dozen required personal recommendations, and the expense, they are limited to buying guns with low stopping power.

There is also only one gun shop in Mexico where they can legally purchase firearms, and it’s in Mexico City—not exactly a close drive for many Mexicans.

Cartels rely heavily on heavy-duty firepower to protect themselves from rivals, prevent encroachment on their territory, do battle with police and the military, and protect drug and cash shipments. As long as the drug war rages, there will be a high demand for firearms in Mexico. As such, Mexican cartels turn to countries where they can cheaply and easily obtain weapons on the black market. These days, those countries include the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and countries in South America and Asia.

Here is where the temptation appears to use strict gun control in the U.S. as a way to also mitigate violence in Mexico. This is a very naïve approach, which assumes that violence in Mexico relies almost completely on the availability of firearms in the U.S.. While we do know that a considerable amount of firearms seized and successfully traced in Mexico were sold in the US, we don’t know—and will never know—what proportion of all guns in Mexico those account for. That approach also assumes that Mexican cartels have few other sources for weapons.

Even if the US government were to make the extremely unlikely (and unconstitutional) decision to ban all firearms in the U.S., the drug war in Mexico, and the related gun violence, would continue unabated.

We should also not be basing our gun laws on the security needs of another country. While the Mexican government would be thrilled at any new gun control initiatives here, and stricter U.S gun laws may have a mild, short-term deterrent effect in Mexico (and this is questionable), that’s not why they should be debated. Finding the right balance between public security and our constitutional rights should always come first in that debate.

Bad, sick people—whether they are psychopathic drug traffickers in Mexico or mentally unstable social misfits in the U.S.—will always want to kill others. Criminals sometimes acquire guns legally because no amount of checking or legal controls would be able to determine their intent. Many times, like in Mexico, they acquire them illegally just as easily with no regard for gun laws in their country.

Ultimately, the violence in Mexico will be reduced not because of the extremely limited domestic availability of guns, but because of the strengthening of government and social institutions, and the reduction of widespread corruption. Massacres like the one in Colorado can likewise be prevented not because of the enactment of strict gun control measures, but a willingness to examine our society, reach out to potentially troubled friends and family members, and act on our gut instinct when its telling us something—or someone—isn’t quite right.

Sylvia Longmire is a former senior border security analyst for the State of California. She is currently a consultant, correspondent for Homeland Security Today magazine, and author of Cartel: The Coming Invasion of Mexico’s Drug Wars.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (34)

Josh2007
Posted on August 25, 2012 at 5:37pm
James Holmes was not carrying an assault weapon. I’d expect Ms. Longmire, “a former Air Force officer and Special Agent” to know the difference. I’m tired of seeing this MSM mis-information regurgitation on the Blaze.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- amazingphotos
  Posted on August 25, 2012 at 5:49pm
  Amen Brother!
  
  None of my AR’s has ever assaulted anybody but they are all capable of DEFENSE. Thanks to the unconstitutional NFA of 1934, none of them has a “happy switch” but I rarely found that useful during three tours in RVN.
  
  Report this comment
amazingphotos
Posted on August 25, 2012 at 2:58pm
. . . . SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The answer is NOT more unconstitutional laws. ALL laws restricting the ownership and carrying of firearms need to be declared unconstitutional and void. The NFA of 1934 did serious damage to the Founders’ intent that CITIZENS should be at least as well armed as their government as a protection against tyranny. The GCA of 1968 was also a blow against free commerce between buyers and sellers. The one thing in common concerning the mass shootings at Ft. Hood, the Colorado theater, and the Sikh temple is that the victims were not armed. The murderers in these events, like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao preferred helpless victims. Murderers – either individuals or governments will always be armed. The LACK of firearms in righteous hands is deadly.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bobbylee
Posted on August 25, 2012 at 2:41pm
Banning guns is a good idea. The problem is –it’s too late! Gun ownership has been common for centuries now. Gun control is 100 years too late!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- amazingphotos
  Posted on August 25, 2012 at 3:43pm
  Banning firearms is a terrible idea! Witness Mexico today as well as Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s USSR, or Mao’s China. Only by being armed can citizens have a chance to resist criminals or tyrants.
  
  Report this comment
- handsmcml
  Posted on August 25, 2012 at 4:29pm
  Gun control laws are at least 240 years late. King George should have band the private ownership of guns when the colonies started to complain. We would all be better of as loyal citizens of Great Britain. LOL
  
  Report this comment
- amazingphotos
  Posted on August 25, 2012 at 5:22pm
  Most of America still has armed CITIZENS. Great Britain has unarmed SUBJECTS.
  CITIZENS retain sovereignty. SUBJECTS are slaves of their government.
  
  Report this comment
Prepography
Posted on August 25, 2012 at 11:00am
Ice-T points out that you don’t want to be the only one without a gun…

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
mcmeador
Posted on August 25, 2012 at 8:54am
While I agree that strict gun laws don’t accomplish anything, I’m not sure I would agree that Mexico is really a good example of this. Sure, the gun laws aren’t stopping the cartels from getting guns, but it’s probably safe to say most of the governments in Mexico are corrupt or afraid and don’t even try to enforce the laws that are on the books against the cartels anyway. You could argue that this isn’t so much a failure of the laws, but a failure of those responsible to enforce them.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
pahrumper
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 9:18pm
Remember, a milk toast 12 ga pump shot gun loaded with 6, 3″ shells all using “00″ buck shoots 15, 30 cal projectles each at killing velocity. that is to say 15 times 6, 30 cal projectles on one loaded shotgun. Even in Obamas world that is 90 shots. does that make the milk toast shotgun an Assault weapon now???

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
david3755
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 8:42pm
You don’t have to go to Mexico to see that gun control does not work. Look at New York and Chicago. THen pull out a history book and look at what Stalin, hitler and Mao did with gun control.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
carbonated
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 5:09pm
Compare Chicago with Switzerland. Gun argument over: gun owners win.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
starider
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:51pm
Trying to distinguish the difference between a carbine and an assault rifle is pointless because people don’t really care about function. It’s how they LOOK that’s important to them. Most people think the AR in the AR-15 stands for Assault Rifle, fact is the AR origin is Armalite Rifle, the mfg. of the first one back in the 50′s. The original being an AR-10 (.308/ 7.62×51) cal. it’s little brother the AR-15 (.223/ 5.45) cal. came later. That’s getting into the weeds a bit, the main difference between Assault or not is wheather the weapon is fully auto or not, operative word is NOT. Without special permit fully auto weapons have been outlawed since the 30′s. Therefore Assault Rifles are not available to the general public legally. I have an AR-10 and an AR-15 neither one is an Assault rifle but they LOOK scary, and would make any liberal wet their panties in fear just seeing one. NOW the question. Why do I NEED those type weapons? I NEED them to protect OUR Constitution from the type of politicians and appointees that currently reside in the White House, DHS, DOJ, TSA, ect. Once we lose our right to keep weapons capable of resisting a tyrannical government we will have a tyrannical government. Why do I believe this? HISTORY !!!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- rangerp
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:59pm
  good comments
  
  Report this comment
- nolibsperiod
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 8:33pm
  Great post. Never mention anything about the owners of the other gazillion weapons that did’nt kill anyone in the United States. I live in three states and California is the worse as far as gun control. I have to leave my AK’s with friends when I travel to that state. I have a problem with folks who like to grow dope on my ranch and they have automatic weapons. I have the advantage because I shoot straighter.
  
  Report this comment
progressiveslayer
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:48pm
Mexico stands as a shining example,prohibition of firearms doesn’t equate to zero firearms deaths,try to explain that to your typical brain dead obamazombie.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 1TrueOne55
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:03pm
  Even closer to Home, Obama’s US home, Chicago. It has the strictest gun laws of any city yet they have the highest death rate from firearms in the country. You must ask yourself why why why?
  
  When our Federal Gov’t refuses to enforce the law on the books and even breaks that law to catch criminals it makes you wonder what the agenda (21) is. And then with the U.N. Treaty on Small Arms a thinly veiled attempt to stop what the B.A.T.F. did in Mexico with Fast and Furious you must wonder with the timing was it connected??? Is the Holder D.O.J. working with the WH to destroy the very Constitution that gives them the freedom to live.
  
  Report this comment
- progressiveslayer
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:41pm
  The constitution’s been under assault for a century but this regime is in overdrive to destroy our economy,and I also believe all so called ‘gun laws’ passed since the second amendment are unconstitutional.
  
  Report this comment
Mr. H.
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:46pm
The point is: laws restricting legal gun ownership do not restrict gun possession. The same goes for ammunition.

The fact is: while many of us own and use guns for hobbies, sport, and personal protection, most liberals know little on nothing about them.

I carry, and I know a lot of others that also carry. Most of us carry 9 mm, 40 cal or 45 cal semi-auto. I carry frangible ammo for personal protection so I do not get ricochets or trough and through. Everybody else I know carries hollow point, which is less likely to go through.

We, as a group are well trained, responsible people. I have, as others have, stopped criminals simply by drawing a weapon. The bad guys run when you have the drop on them. Most of us will not shoot unless we know there is something big and inanimate behind our target just in case it is a through and through round. For me, collateral damage is not acceptable where people are involved.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Kimber_45
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:44pm
Laws only tie the hands of the ‘sheeple’! They do nothing for those with the intent.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ultor-de-deus-exercitus
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:43pm
Ever wonder why libs forever talk as if the United States is a democracy and not as though it is the republic that in reality it is?
In “Democide, & Famine Through Democratic Freedom,” Rudolph Rummel has posited some interesting facts and theory’s. Rummel coined the term “democide” which means “the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide, and mass murder”. The statistical data he has compiled empirically establishes the number one killer of human beings, other than natural causes, to be governments.
He estimates that there have been 262 million victims of democide in the last century and that six times as many people have died at the hands of people working for governments than have died in battles.
In none of these country’s were individuals allowed to have the protections we enjoy in our second ammendment.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ChongRRMC
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:42pm
My rifle has NEVER assaulted anyone. And in the same breath….if ALL guns kill, mine must be REALLY defective.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- ultor-de-deus-exercitus
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:46pm
  good stuff
  
  Report this comment
blacktape242
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:37pm
well DUH! strict gun laws just put guns in the hands of criminals and law enforcement…. no thanks!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
19RANDY59
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:34pm
The creation of any law will naturally create more outlaws. Example, without speed laws, there would be no speeders. Yes folks, that’s how far we are from being the Constitutional Republic we are suppose to be. If there is no injured party, there is no crime. Yes, I know all you liars, I mean lawyers will disagree, because that would really cut into your wallet, now, wouldn’t it? I know, the truth really hurts. Example, my divorce liar, (shoot, did it again) lawyer said continuously, that my ex was the craziest woman he’d ever seen. I wonder what his opinion would have been if she’d been paying his bill? I don’t have to wonder. He was also representing my friends ex. Therefore my friend was crazy. GET IT !!! A lawyers opinion is a direct result of the origin of the dollars. The only reason we need lawyers, is because we have lawyers!!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Hallmar82
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:29pm
“…he was carrying an assault rifle…” Argh!!!

I am sick and tired of people who should know better – and this author should know better – than to call an AR-15 an assault rifle. If it’s really an automatic weapon like the M16, then the county sheriff, as chief law enforcement officer, would have had to sign the Form 4 for a Title II weapons transfer after the ATF background check. I seriously doubt that! People who call AR-15s “assault” rifles could be called on it every time. Shame on you Blaze.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
canadianconservativemom
Posted on August 24, 2012 at 1:08pm
What about North? My family owns guns, my in-laws own guns. I think the main difference is the carry and conceal laws. We have the guns in our home and can use them to defend our family, but we don’t take them to the mall with us. I also have many hunters in my extended family. Shootings in Canada are quite rare. Especially these rampage shootings that seem common place in the US.

I don’t know what’s best, but I do know that it’s never a concern when I take my kids to a movie that we will get shot at. I may be a bit ignorant as well, I come from a smaller town in BC. I have lived in Toronto and Vancouver though. I just know that it’s so sad every time we see all these deaths of innocent people. God bless these families who have lost a loved one to these crazy people.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- 19RANDY59
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 3:12pm
  You may want to start carrying your gun to the Mall. You just might be the one who stops the next whacko from carrying out another massacre. Get your guns people, and carry them at all times.
  
  Report this comment
- NeoFan
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 4:16pm
  I don’t know exactly why Canada has less of these types of shootings but maybe it has to do with the fact that the population of Canada is less than that of California. So a country to country comparison may not be valid. I believe the US is a force for good in the world and I believe there are powers that would like that to change including the people presently in control of the US. This may explain why we have some of these shootings. I live in Utah and many people here do bring their guns to the mall and other places. We have many stories reported locally about good citizens that use their firearms to prevent and stop crimes. NONE and I mean NONE of these stories get reported in the National Media. In fact 2.5 million crimes are stopped or prevented by armed law abiding citizens annually and NONE of these 2.5 million incidents are reported by the National press in the US and Canada.
  
  Report this comment
KidCharlemagne
Posted on August 23, 2012 at 3:24pm
It’s interesting to note that both guns and drugs are illegal to possess in Mexico.

#1 Does Mexico have any shortage of guns?
#2 Does Mexico have any shortage of drugs?

Is this not the irony of all ironies? (LOL!)

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
korbin
Posted on August 23, 2012 at 1:15pm
Can she please define her word “assault rifle” please. Or shut the F U k up. I am so sick of hearing that. 99.% of Americans could not define the term, assault by its very nature is just that. You could use a piece of card board and cut a a person’s jugular is that now considered an “assault card board”??????????

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Melvin Spittle
  Posted on August 23, 2012 at 8:52pm
  I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and will assume you are having a bad day. Your focus on the minutia of term definition does not change the main point of her opinion, that being the ineffectiveness of gun control and the faulty logic it is based on. I hope you get better soon my friend. i too get a little close to the 2nd amendment debate and am frustrated by how the gun control lobby attempts to control the narrative through the development of an alarmist gun control vocabulary:
  
  1. Intentional muddling of the difference between semi & full automatic weapons by calling semi-autos machine guns or automatic assault rifles. The intent is to confuse and lump them into a single scary category of the evil black gun.
  
  2. Cop-killer bullets: You may posses armor piercing rifle bullets, but AP handgun bullets are somehow designed with cop killing in mind. Stupid logic.
  
  3. High capacity “Clips”: They are magazines. Where did clips come from?
  
  4. The evil silencer: Absolutely no reason why they are regulated. I suffer from severe hearing loss from combat ops because we cannot wear hearing protection and expect to hear enemy activity. The correct term is suppressor. They do not silence, but suppress noise to a level that is safe on the unprotected ear. You can still hear them from a great distance.
  
  5. Dum-Dum bullet: Old term for hollow points: Even the Geneva Convention banned these based on stupid logic.
  
  The list goes on. Great article though!
  
  Report this comment
- DimmuBorgir
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 12:27pm
  Melvin, I too have no hearing in my right ear.
  
  Left handed shooter, ejection port a couple inches from my ear and no hearing protection.
  
  Report this comment
- eCharleen
  Posted on August 24, 2012 at 12:48pm
  After the two girl were killed when a coal train derailed and its contents suffocated them, lawmakers are now considering outlawing “assault coal.”
  
  Report this comment

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.