US/Mexico Politics: Project Gunrunner / Operation Fast And Furious

[Vaarok]

I'm curious what everyone thinks of this, or if you've even heard of it.

Admittedly I'm part of the US gun culture, and thus I remember about a year ago there was a strange push by some parts of the government to try to claim US gun-ownership as responsible for the then-rapidly-escalating Mexican drug war, whereas most of you probably did not hear, or if you did, didn't pay it much mind.

The media ran with it at the time, claiming most weapons used were of US origin, and trying to use dubious statistics to back it up. Naturally, things like Mexican army soldiers deserting with their weapons (such as Los Zetas) and Chinese arms sales through Guatemala were more likely, but the insistence on US gun laws and US arms crossing the border seemed strange and contrived.

Now, a year and change later, it has come to surface, though only passingly been reported on by the mainstream media, that the US BATFE had been intentionally both allowing straw-purchasers to obtain weapons to smuggle, and even going so far as to give guns to smugglers who then transported them across the border.

Obviously, this not only now looks like they were trying to intentionally create the statistics as they announced them, but should also cause some horror that the government agents were spending US tax dollars giving away said hardware AND letting it fall into use by people who would (and did!) use it both domestically and abroad with no clear plan as to how it would function as an actual sting operation.

Following the death of a border patrol agent, a whistleblower brought the whole thing to light, and now there's congressional inquiries and subpoenas being thrown around, to the point it looks like an entire branch of the US government might be dismantled/absorbed as a result of the fallout, and even the US Attorney General has been involved- both as a subpoena'ed witness, and then over possible perjury in his testimony.

Naturally, as I said, I'm politically a Right To Keep And Bear Arms styled spectator, but I'm curious how other viewpoints regard this debacle. As I see it the US government did something at least as controversial as Iran Contra, horrendously irresponsibly, for almost no justification, and with tremendous and obvious consequences. It should be a scandal exceeding watergate, yet it seems to me like it's getting very little attention and eliciting none of the uproar it should. After all, at Watergate nobody died.

[Langy]

Obviously, this not only now looks like they were trying to intentionally create the statistics as they announced them, but should also cause some horror that the government agents were spending US tax dollars giving away said hardware AND letting it fall into use by people who would (and did!) use it both domestically and abroad with no clear plan as to how it would function as an actual sting operation.

This is the bit that sounds like an incredibly lame conspiracy theory to me. Rather than something that insanely stupid, I think it's more likely that the BATFE was trying to do something else entirely with their Project Gunrunner/Fast and Furious stuff - possibly what they actually claim, which was to act as a big sting operation. It wasn't about just increasing the statistics - I wouldn't be surprised if their 'Gun Statistics' section had no knowledge about Project Gunrunner/OF&F, and the people behind Gunrunner/OF&F didn't care a damn bit about inflating the statistics.

Yes, it may have had the side-effect of inflating the statistics, but I'd be very surprised if that was at all intentional.

[roflmao]

One of those good-in-theory-ideas that massively massively missed the mark. I seriously doubt there is some conspiracy going on, it's probably just incompetence.


sidenote: Oh and the Zetas: They are screwing my hometown big time.

[General Nuke Em]

There was never a sting. The ATF simply bought guns and gave them to cartel members and watched as they disappeared south of the border.

[Langy]

There was never a sting. The ATF simply bought guns and gave them to cartel members and watched as they disappeared south of the border.

That first article is trying really hard to slant everything in one direction and jump to conclusions without any evidence at all.

The letter the article talks about doesn't, in any way, prove that this wasn't a sting operation against the cartels, which is what the 'sting operation' claim is all about. Nor is there any evidence, aside from the article's bland assertion, that the operation was just about manipulating weapon statistics.

The second one is better, and doesn't in any way say that it wasn't a sting operation.

[Nanaki]

Project Gunrunner started off as a sting operation, but somewhere along the way the folks behind it started being ordered to not arrest the smugglers and let them walk across with the guns by someone very high up. Combined with not notifying the Mexican authorities and not making any attempt to follow the guns, it really does seem like someone very high up in the chain of command was purposefully letting guns fall into the hands of criminal cartels. I was originally thinking it was gross incompetance on the part of the ATF, but reading up on the story I think it is much more than that. While I think people covered the 'They want to build up a case against gun ownership' line fairly adiquately, I do not think it is the only motivation. You have to remember that a large part of the reasons why the Zetas and other cartels operate with impunity is that government officials are either bribed or killed, I think another angle that could be explored is that whomever gave those orders was given a lot of money by the Cartels.

It does smell funny that before this scandal was blown wide open, Obama was starting to push a 'US guns are arming Mexican criminals' narrative, and then he quietly dropped that narrative after he lost control of the House in 2010 and the scandal broke.

[Nurizeko]

Worst conspiracy ever. Why would Americans (who by their nature care very little for events beyond their border) care about their gun laws effecting criminality in another country?

While crime is hardly a minor issue for the US people could easily argue as they have always done, that the US isn't aflame with everyone firing wildly with their legal guns into everyone else.


This is more likely either incompetence or corruption. Both serious problems, but both a far cry from conspiracy.

[Wargrim]

What has gun export control to do with domestic gun control laws anyway?

[General Nuke Em]

The narrative was supposed to be "straw purchasers are exporting these dangerous semi-automatic rifles (completely inferior to the fully automatic weapons the cartels are already getting from defecting Mexican army/police and other sources) from evil straw purchasers (people the ATF set up to be straw purchasers) from gun stores that have no morals and let this happen (after reporting it to the ATF and getting their arms twisted into allowing the straw purchases to happen). Therefore we need to ban these semi-automatic rifles and make it harder to purchase guns in the US."

[LoCo]

Seems like it would be a lot of money, time and effort wasted on a conspiracy that is not only ridiculous but down right stupid. That's such a round about way of doing shit that it makes it all pointless. Further, why would the American people give two shits for Mexico or its people? Half of the US practically hates Mexicans.

This seems to me to be nothing more than pro-gun people looking for any reason at all, no matter how stupid or small, to play the victim. That's a much more believable conspiracy.

[Mac_Bug]

so if 90% of guns the Mexicans give to America are made in the USA, what about the other 10%?

and how many guns are used in crimes in Mexico? What is the number we are looking at to substantiate the 90% figure?

if we know there is a weapon smuggling gang in the us of a, how do they get weapons without the Feds? why would they want shitty weapons when they can get better ones from Guatemala?

[Langy]

so if 90% of guns the Mexicans give to America are made in the USA, what about the other 10%?

I think the statistic was 90% of the guns Mexicans use in crime are made in the USA. The other 10% come from elsewhere. And, taken strictly, I think that figure might be more-or-less correct - but it completely ignores the fact that a lot of those guns come from the Mexican army and were legally sold to Mexico and a few other things. Can't remember the exact information I read at this moment.

and how many guns are used in crimes in Mexico? What is the number we are looking at to substantiate the 90% figure?

A hell of a lot, as far as I can tell. Remember that Mexico is basically in the middle of a civil war at the moment between the government and the drug gangs.

if we know there is a weapon smuggling gang in the us of a, how do they get weapons without the Feds? why would they want shitty weapons when they can get better ones from Guatemala?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here.

[PetarB]

I'm glad I don't live in 'gun culture'. I remember reading a thread on another forum obviously started by a US citizen wondering if it was polite for him to let the home he's visiting know he was 'carrying'. It was the first time I felt I should post 'I don't even...' but I didn't, I just got out of that thread fast.

[Methuselath]

So, can Mexico invade the US now? Obviously the ATF have been busy arming the Mexican 'terrorists', so I guess it would be fair isn't it?

Also not keen on the conspiracy idea, seems like a stupid cock-up by clueless officials.

[Mac_Bug]

Thanks for your um, very uninformed answers Langy, fortunately I read the thread myself and read all the links provided, perhaps you care to do so yourself before answering questions regarding specifics with 'a hell of a lot'.

I find it interesting that we're talking about a conspiracy theory to increase US made weapons used for crimes in Mexico in order to justify the 90% figure when no one actually mentions what the numbers actually are - how many guns are actually used in crimes in Mexico? What percentage of that is actually seized by the Mexican authorities? How many of those are actually turned over to the US government? How many guns did the ATF or whoever else actually manage to sell to the Cartels, and what percentage would this be compared to all those numbers I asked before?

for all I know what they managed to export, as some here have already implied, is a drop in the bucket, so how do we reach the conclusion that they're trying to boost bogus statistics in order to justify gun bans?

[Langy]

Thanks for your um, very uninformed answers Langy, fortunately I read the thread myself and read all the links provided, perhaps you care to do so yourself before answering questions regarding specifics with 'a hell of a lot'.

I did read the articles linked, and the rest of the thread. I just don't care to re-read it to answer your post in detail, nor do I see any reason why you'd care about specifics.

Also:

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/04/counting-mexicos-guns/

This one gives figures of 29,000 guns recovered over the past two years in Mexico, though they ATF doesn't trace all of them. The 90% claim was that 90% of the guns the ATF was given to trace came from the US, but the ATF isn't given 100% of the guns recovered in Mexican crimes to trace. Instead, they're given about 40% of those guns - it's unclear why they're given those guns, though. It may be that they're simply given a statistically representative sample, or they're given weapons the Mexicans believe came from the US. In any case, 90% of that 40% (about 36%) of all guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the US. If it's a statistically representative sample, then it's not naive to assume that 90% of all Mexican crime guns are from the US, but it's not clear at all that that's the case.

So, yes, 'a hell of a lot' seems perfectly accurate. It's not clear how many guns are imported to Mexico every year, but Gunrunner has imported about 2,500 firearms over the past five years. That's about 500 per year, which is quite a lot. Still, this would create a maximum difference of about 3% (going from 90% to 87%) in the gun statistics, if every single one of those 2500 guns was used in a crime, recovered, and sent to the ATF for analysis in 2007 and 2008. The real influence is almost certainly much smaller.

for all I know what they managed to export, as some here have already implied, is a drop in the bucket, so how do we reach the conclusion that they're trying to boost bogus statistics in order to justify gun bans?

I have absolutely no idea.

[Nanaki]

Worst conspiracy ever. Why would Americans (who by their nature care very little for events beyond their border) care about their gun laws effecting criminality in another country?

While crime is hardly a minor issue for the US people could easily argue as they have always done, that the US isn't aflame with everyone firing wildly with their legal guns into everyone else.

This is more likely either incompetence or corruption. Both serious problems, but both a far cry from conspiracy.

I thought it was incompetance as well until I started reading up on the story. When someone high up in the chain of command starts ordering people in a successful antismuggling program to stop doing their job, incompetance/stupidity can be ruled out. Corruption is a possibility, the Mexican cartels work by bribing the hell outta the local Mexican government, and it is benign enough activity that they might attempt to do the same here. However, what sets the 'Conspiracy Theory' alarm bells off is that Obama started pushing for gun control at the exact same time that this was happening. I do not think it is impossible to suggest that Obama, or someone else high in the chain of command, was intending to stage a few false flag incidents in order to gin up support for gun control.

Another reason why I am leaning towards 'Consipracy Theory' is the bizzare events as of late, rumors abound that Eric Holder was on the verge of being served a subpeona and/or warrent over this when suddenly the Obama administration breaks out the 'Iran wanted to hire Mexican cartels to kill the Saudi Ambassador' plot. I do believe that the two events are connected.

[Mac_Bug]

that doesn't even make any sense. your own link says there were 29k weapons seized and only 17 percent of that was trace to the us of a, to fulfill your conspiracy and bolster the stats the us government would have to make sure that 83% of that 29k is only 10%... in other words the us government would have to export 300k firearms a year to Mexico...
where is your conspiracy now? 4 guns?

also that article has Obama visiting Mexico, maybe that's a big conspiracy to you but I would guess that drug related violence is probably on his agenda. He called for marking guns so they don't end up in countries that have banned it, so I suppose that's kind of like gun control?

please define gun control, and then outline why you oppose it

[LoCo]

Nanaki: How, exactly, does this 'gin up support' for gun control?

I mean... seriously. How many Americans are going to get all upset about the problems in Mexico? How many of these Americans were upset about the problems in Mexico a year ago? Hell, a month ago. Americans simply don't care. They have voted with their apathy.

Never mind that guns in Mexico, irrespective of where they came from, have absolutely nothing to do with gun control in the USA. The two countries have their own governments, laws and policies. So an American gun turns up in a Mexican's hands. So what? What exactly does that have to do with Billy-Bob sitting on his steps with his five guns?

Any gun control done in the USA is going to have little to no impact on what guns make it into Mexico. If the USA bans assault rifles, the people smuggling weapons are suddenly going to stop selling assault rifles to the Mexicans? That's not only absurd, it's plain stupid. USA laws only govern what happens in the USA. Criminals don't follow the law. Mexican gun smugglers not only don't need to follow USA law, but they wouldn't even if they did. American gun smugglers are already not following the law in the USA.

So... how exactly is any of this promoting gun control in the USA?

Pro-gun people are getting just as good as the religious people at playing the victim.

[Langy]

that doesn't even make any sense. your own link says there were 29k weapons seized and only 17 percent of that was trace to the us of a, to fulfill your conspiracy and bolster the stats the us government would have to make sure that 83% of that 29k is only 10%... in other words the us government would have to export 300k firearms a year to Mexico...
where is your conspiracy now? 4 guns?

What? No.

Also: Read the fact-check article I linked to a few posts up. The 17% that was traced to the US was greater than 90% of those the ATF attempted to trace. The other 83% were never traced, and the reasons why are unknown, but according to the ATF it isn't because they were clearly not from the US (unlike what the Fox article the article you're talking about references asserted).

LoCo: Gun control in the US could, in fact, stem the tide of guns flowing into Mexico in several ways. One that I can think of right off the top of my head would be making it more difficult for people to legally buy guns and then (illegally) ship them to Mexico for sale there.

The legal gun market in the US is far, far larger than the illegal gun market. Making it so gun smugglers need to use the illegal market will reduce their supply considerably.

[LoCo]

Langy: By definition, gun smugglers use the illegal market.

Also... just how fucked up is the US gun market? People can legally buy enough guns to equip an army without rising a few eyebrows? I believe the only possible reaction to that is "Holy shit! You have GOT to be kidding me!"

[Langy]

Langy: By definition, gun smugglers use the illegal market.

No, they don't. Gun smugglers can go into a gun store and legally buy a bunch of firearms, then illegally transport them to Mexico and sell them. They use the legal market to buy their weapons, and then become the illegal market when they sell them. If they needed to illegally buy the firearms as well, they wouldn't have as large of a potential supply as they currently do.

[Nanaki]

Nanaki: How, exactly, does this 'gin up support' for gun control?

Assuming it was a conspiracy, it raises the specter of US gun companies arming Mexican cartels, which are then being used to kill US Citizens on the border. Remember how often the specter of the Mexican cartels are raised in the illegal immigration debate.

I mean... seriously. How many Americans are going to get all upset about the problems in Mexico? How many of these Americans were upset about the problems in Mexico a year ago? Hell, a month ago. Americans simply don't care. They have voted with their apathy.

Given enough graphic imagry, an apathetic population can be made to support a particular position. Folks were fairly apathetic towards Iraq until 'evidence' was brought forward that Iraq was supported by Al Qaeda and that Saddam Hussein was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon. The idea of the US Government running a conspiracy to act against the will of its people does sound rediculous until you realize that the US Government has indeed done it before numerous times under numerous administrations.

Never mind that guns in Mexico, irrespective of where they came from, have absolutely nothing to do with gun control in the USA. The two countries have their own governments, laws and policies. So an American gun turns up in a Mexican's hands. So what? What exactly does that have to do with Billy-Bob sitting on his steps with his five guns?

Again, the logic goes that if its harder to buy guns in the US, then the smugglers would not be able to export them south of the border. Obama explicitly mentioned that he would have loved to reinstate the Assault Weapons ban, but that pesky domestic opposition was stopping him. Yes, logically the violence in mexico has nothing to do with domestic sales, but politicians that want to enact gun control legislation will attempt to make the connection anyway.

So... how exactly is any of this promoting gun control in the USA?

I also mentioned that, if it was a conspiracy, it was a shoddy one that failed and blew up rather spectacularly. Just because a conspiracy has completely and utterly failed, however, does not mean that it was not attempted. The quote below more directly answers your question:

No, they don't. Gun smugglers can go into a gun store and legally buy a bunch of firearms, then illegally transport them to Mexico and sell them. They use the legal market to buy their weapons, and then become the illegal market when they sell them. If they needed to illegally buy the firearms as well, they wouldn't have as large of a potential supply as they currently do.

Bingo.

Also... just how fucked up is the US gun market? People can legally buy enough guns to equip an army without rising a few eyebrows? I believe the only possible reaction to that is "Holy shit! You have GOT to be kidding me!"

Except that an army requires a lot more than just guns, and the US Government heavily restricts or out-right bans the sales of all types of heavy weaponry. Heck, even fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted, which makes it rediculous when a Mexican official complains that the US is responsible for all the automatic weapons that the cartels are carrying.

[Mac_Bug]

I don't get it, so you're saying this whole setup doesn't even work, yet somehow it must point to something that it would spectacularly fail to achieve, and hence it would reinforce your point about it being a conspiracy theory instead of working against it.

Is there any evidence that you can think of that will deter you from drawing a link, however tenous, between the facts and your imaginary conspiracy?

also do you believe that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy? also 911?

[Langy]

Except that an army requires a lot more than just guns, and the US Government heavily restricts or out-right bans the sales of all types of heavy weaponry. Heck, even fully automatic firearms are heavily restricted, which makes it rediculous when a Mexican official complains that the US is responsible for all the automatic weapons that the cartels are carrying.

Eh, a lot of those automatic weapons probably did originate in the US. They were just sold directly to the Mexican Army, and from there were distributed to the cartels, rather than going straight to the cartels. Not really our fault if your army isn't able to keep its own weapons secure, though.

[LoCo]

See, now here is one of my problems with the whole conspiracy thing going on here:

Assuming it was a conspiracy, it raises the specter of US gun companies arming Mexican cartels, which are then being used to kill US Citizens on the border. Remember how often the specter of the Mexican cartels are raised in the illegal immigration debate.

This conspiracy would seem to support pro-gun advocates rather than supporting gun control advocates.

I mean... if the Mexicans are packing heat and running at the border with frothing mouths... that's a pretty good reason to keep the US citizens in triggers and lead.

The only way this can possibly be connected to 'gun control' is if by 'gun control' you mean 'stopping gun smugglers'. But hey, that's already a crime in both the US and Mexico. So you would then be saying that this is a conspiracy about the government trying to gather support to make illegal activities... illegal? Gosh darn those trixy governments! Trying to get the country to do what it has been doing all along! NEFARIOUS!

[Nanaki]

I don't get it, so you're saying this whole setup doesn't even work, yet somehow it must point to something that it would spectacularly fail to achieve, and hence it would reinforce your point about it being a conspiracy theory instead of working against it.

Is there any evidence that you can think of that will deter you from drawing a link, however tenous, between the facts and your imaginary conspiracy?

It did not work because of a whistleblower, not because of any inherant problem in the conspiracy itself. The possiblity that it was corruption is just as frightening, though, considering it would mean that the Zetas have somehow managed to pay off the upper echelons of the US Government.

also do you believe that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy? also 911?

Straw man much?

Eh, a lot of those automatic weapons probably did originate in the US. They were just sold directly to the Mexican Army, and from there were distributed to the cartels, rather than going straight to the cartels. Not really our fault if your army isn't able to keep its own weapons secure, though.

This is a real possibility, but then it makes Obama's official response, giving the Mexican army even more firepower, to be a completely stupid decision in retrospect.

This conspiracy would seem to support pro-gun advocates rather than supporting gun control advocates.

Pro-gun control advocates use criminals wielding weapons as a reason to ban guns.
Anti-gun control advocates use criminals wielding weapons as a reason to not ban guns.

[LoCo]

Nanaki: Nope.

I'm pro gun control and I can concede the point to pro-gun people. Criminals are going to have guns whether guns are illegal or not.

So... where is the pro gun control conspiracy?

[Mac_Bug]

I already spent the time crunching the numbers. Your conspiracy DOES NOT WORK regardless of the whistle blower. there is no way that the US government could remotely bolster the stats to match the 90% claim (if you believe Fox news that it's false), and criminals would have guns regardless of where they get it from (this is in fact a central tenet of anti gun control)

[Langy]

I already spent the time crunching the numbers. Your conspiracy DOES NOT WORK regardless of the whistle blower. there is no way that the US government could remotely bolster the stats to match the 90% claim (if you believe Fox news that it's false), and criminals would have guns regardless of where they get it from (this is in fact a central tenet of anti gun control)

First, Fox News used incorrect reasoning in obtaining their 17% figure (which is more properly an absolute lower bound, not an absolute upper bound). I already addressed this point (and you ignored it, twice).

Second, while yes, criminals will tend to commit crimes and thus might get illegal weapons, a central tenet of the pro gun control crowd is that restricting legal ownership of guns also makes it more difficult for criminals to get their guns. When evaluating whether the conspiracy is real (which was done by pro-gun-control people, obviously), you have to use pro-gun-control thinking.

Your conclusion that the conspiracy idea is stupid and totally overreaching is still entirely valid, though.

[Nanaki]

I'm pro gun control and I can concede the point to pro-gun people. Criminals are going to have guns whether guns are illegal or not.

Many pro gun control people do not concede this point, though, and you have to look at it through their eyes.

Your conclusion that the conspiracy idea is stupid and totally overreaching is still entirely valid, though.

...and you are saying that the Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador using the Zetas drug cartel is any less of a stupid conspiracy?

[Langy]

I have some serious doubts that Iran actually sanctioned that plot. A person in Iran's government 'going rogue' and doing it, maybe. But it seems pretty stupid for them to do this.

But still, yes, the supposed Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador (even taken straight-up) is, in fact, less of a stupid conspiracy than the one claimed to exist in this thread. It's still a stupid conspiracy, but it's not as stupid. This one is far beyond it in stupidity.

[Starfisher]

Something in the original article which caught my eye:

In the past six years, more than 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted from the army, with many taking their standard-issue Belgian-made M-16s with them.

150,000 deserters?!

That's roughly how many troops we had in Iraq at the height of the surge. Googling around seems to corroborate that number, though the beginning and end dates for the "six years" are a bit protean.

Also, this whole debate over whether or not the "sting" could skew statistics is a bit moot given that we're talking about politics: both sides can and will ignore reality and invent statistics as necessary to make their point. Actually sending weapons to Mexico is unnecessary since the vast majority of the voting public has no way of knowing who is telling the truth. This smacks more of stupidity and incompetence than conspiracy; the entire ATF would have to be in on it, which isn't likely. It's much more likely that someone had a bright idea, poorly planning ensued, the execution got mangled, and now we're left scratching our heads wondering what the hell.

[Nanaki]

This smacks more of stupidity and incompetence than conspiracy; the entire ATF would have to be in on it, which isn't likely. It's much more likely that someone had a bright idea, poorly planning ensued, the execution got mangled, and now we're left scratching our heads wondering what the hell.

Actually read up on what happened. They started a program in about 2006, it end up being very successful at intercepting smugglers, sometime around 2009-2010 someone high up in the ATF orders the ATF to stop arresting the smugglers and lets them walk across the border while having no plans to actually intercept those shipments (Operation Fast and Furious). The entire ATF protests but they willingly oblige until an ATF agent is killed. Then someone blows the whistle.

That is not incompetance. Someone high up was very intentionally screwing things up.

[Starfisher]

The "entire ATF" did not protest (some agents did, but obviously the entire organization did not) and there is no evidence to suggest that there were "no plans" beyond simply allowing guns to wander into Mexico. If you're going to quote the wiki and tell me to do research, then you should have the courtesy to do so yourself: More wiki goodness

1) This started under Bush. From 2006 until 2009 no arrests were made.
2) Obama shows up and people start actually getting arrested.
3) Exact same thing that started in 2006 starts again, only bigger.
4) ATF agent gets killed by weapon from the program.

If an ATF agent had been killed in 2008 everyone would be freaking out and saying the same shit: why aren't we arresting anyone?!?! We're just giving them guns?!?!? And there's no way in fucking hell anyone could sustain an argument that the Bush Administration wanted to make an argument against gun control. So the simplest explanation here is that they were gearing up for yet another bizarrely slow and inefficient sting operation.

Invoking conspiracy to somehow further gun control in the US is bizarro. People lie about Mexico in US politics all the time and are rarely if ever called on it substantially. Obama doesn't need some trivial number of guns going to Mexico to make a false claim, he could do that just fine without actually doing anything. Good old fact check. No one has any damn clue about how many guns are going over the border and the number released in this debacle wasn't going to be enough to move the needle on a measurement no one could take accurately anyway.

[Nanaki]

I stand corrected, incompetance it is.

[the_living_god]

Edit: You know what, fuck it, nevermind about the rest of that stuff, here's my main point, mainly addressed at Langy.

It's long past the point where instituting gun control would work in America.

Gun culture and the "The Right To Bear Arms" is so ingrained in their culture and national identity that to try and institute a massive, strict ban on guns (remember that guns are widely available across the entire US, millions of them owned by otherwise law abiding citizens) would have about as much success as harsh drug prohibition has (ie none). Gun control works in countries like Australia (my home) partly because that gun culture never really existed (we never had a revolution where arming the people was essential to victory), there was never anywhere near the amount of guns in my country to begin with and it was never in our constitution that we could bear arms + there is a much lower demand for guns overall. I totally agree that ideally citizens wouldn't have guns and that guns are dangerous as fuck, but in the US I just don't think it could work.

Besides, the cartels would get their guns and munitions from somewhere else if their supply was blocked off - or they would start stabbing people instead of shooting them.

IMO it sounds more like gross incompetence than an outright conspiracy - but then i've barely read anything about it.

[Langy]

I never claimed that gun control in the US would work, or that they could ever successfully ban firearms or anything. Nor did I suggest that they even should do that sort of thing. I also don't agree with you that citizens shouldn't have guns or that they're necessarily 'dangerous as fuck' - I'm pro-second-amendment. I was simply letting people know what the pro-gun-control people's position actually was.

[TDATL]

do you believe that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy? also 911?

Both of these events were the result of conspiracies. The conspiracies were organized by Japan and Al Qaeda respectively.

A case of corruption is one of the most common ways you get conspiracies. The corrupted parties will be doing all sorts of things to cover up their illicit actives. A drug cartel buying weapons from corrupt government channels would be a conspiracy.

[LoCo]

Langy: Why not let the pro-gun-control people state their position instead of giving it to them?

TDATL: There is a difference in the meaning of conspiracy that Mac_Bug used and the one that you are using. You know this.

[Langy]

Langy: Why not let the pro-gun-control people state their position instead of giving it to them?

TDATL: There is a difference in the meaning of conspiracy that Mac_Bug used and the one that you are using. You know this.

Because, being someone who understands their position but does not agree with it, I can effectively translate it to others who also do not agree with it, since those others didn't seem to understand the pro-gun control position at all even when the pro-gun control people tried to explain it.

In other words, you don't need to be an advocate of something in order to explain it. I can explain Scientology or murder without being either a Scientologist or a murderer.

[LoCo]

And yet I, as a pro gun-control person, have already dispelled what you said pro gun-control people think.

Yet your response to that is "That's not what other gun control advocates say!!!"

Seems like you are building your own opponents so that you can knock down their poor construction.

[Langy]

And yet I, as a pro gun-control person, have already dispelled what you said pro gun-control people think.

Yet your response to that is "That's not what other gun control advocates say!!!"

Seems like you are building your own opponents so that you can knock down their poor construction.

How was I knocking them down? I clearly stated that the idea this pro-gun-control conspiracy even existed was completely stupid. It doesn't exist. I was defending the pro-gun-control side.

And no, LoCo, you do not speak for every American who is pro-gun-control ever.

[Mac_Bug]

... and you do?

the reason people mention how criminals would get weapons anyway is because of the way PRO GUN CONTROL people react to the news that a border patrol agent was killed by ATF guns.

[Langy]

... and you do?

the reason people mention how criminals would get weapons anyway is because of the way PRO GUN CONTROL people react to the news that a border patrol agent was killed by ATF guns.

No, I don't, but I never claimed to be speaking for all of them. Only explaining some of their reasoning which would lead to them thinking that enacting gun control in the US could slow the flow of guns to Mexico - and note that I do agree it would slow it down, I just don't think it'd be enough to justify it.

[TDATL]

There is a difference in the meaning of conspiracy that Mac_Bug used and the one that you are using. You know this.

There is no difference in the meaning. The difference is in the identity of the assumed conspirators.

[LoCo]

TDATL: Yeah, okay. And what you are saying is propaganda.*

Based on the context of Mac_Bug's post he was talking about conspiracy relating to a government trying to hoodwink its own people. IE: The pro-gun control conspiracy proposed in this thread, the faked moon landing, 9/11 was done by the US government for some reason or other, etc.

The conspiracy you are talking about is simply planning anything that could be harmful or illegal. IE: A terrorist plot, assassination plot, etc.

There is a difference in meaning. To say otherwise is to not only choose to be ignorant, but to do so with willful abandon.

* If you don't understand what I mean here then it's safe to say it would take way to long to explain it and would go a long way to explaining why you choose to ignore the difference in conspiracy between what you are talking about and what Mag_Bug was talking about.

PS: "There is no difference. The difference is..." ???

[TDATL]

PS: "There is no difference. The difference is..." ???

Wow, way to misquote the only sentence in the post above you. I said "There is no difference in the meaning. The difference is in the identity of the assumed conspirators."

An assassination plot most certainly is a conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn't mean "crazy ideas we dismiss as paranoid." A conspiracy is "the act of conspiring together." Conspire is another word for "plot" or "plan." Conspiring has the connotation though of the plotting or planing being done for nefarious or illicit purposes.

Propaganda is not at all what I am talking about. Propaganda can be used in a conspiracy though. Propaganda is effectively communication shaped to encourage a certain reaction. Advertisements are efficiently propaganda. If your propaganda is being used as part of a plot to cover up or further your illicit activities then it is a part of said conspiracy.

You are confusing "debunked conspiracy" with "conspiracy."

[LoCo]

As I said. You don't understand what I mean by that propaganda statement and it is going to take a lot of reading on your part to catch up. There are many different types of propaganda. Your pithy definition there is completely meaningless to anyone attempting to talk about propaganda. It is too broad, too generic. Look up Horizontal Propaganda, Vertical Propaganda, Irrational Propaganda, Rational Propaganda, Integration Propaganda, Agitation Propaganda, Political Propaganda, Sociological Propaganda, Pre-Propaganda, Total Propaganda, etc.

All those are just scratching the surface of what propaganda is.

Just as there are oh-so-many different types of propaganda, there are also different types of conspiracies. I brought it up to illustrate my point, but apparently you missed that in your righteous quest to never accept that you are wrong. Once again you and Mac_Bug are talking about different meanings of conspiracy. Lumping all types of conspiracy into:

An assassination plot most certainly is a conspiracy. Conspiracy doesn't mean "crazy ideas we dismiss as paranoid." A conspiracy is "the act of conspiring together." Conspire is another word for "plot" or "plan." Conspiring has the connotation though of the plotting or planing being done for nefarious or illicit purposes.

Is not only incorrect but it is intellectually dishonest. Stop allowing dictionaries to do your thinking for you. Dictionaries are guides, certainly not the be all and end all of a subject. I had assumed you knew that. My bad.

EDIT:

Langy: I haven't seen any gun-control people say that this is the reason for any of this. It still seems like the pro-gun people are saying that's what the gun-control people are thinking without actually providing any gun-control people who do think that.

Setting up their own opponents so that they can whine and cry and then knock them down.

I've yet to see anything that says otherwise.

[TDATL]

@LoCo: What is your objective? If your objective is simply to be confrontational and rude, then you have succeed. If your objective is to have an actual discussion or attempt to persuade me then you are failing. You are insulting me either directly or indirectly every other sentence and have been doing so since your first response to me (which was to a post I made to Mac_Bug.)

I stated that 9/11 and pearl harbor were the result of conspiracies (in response to Mac_Bug's insinuation that they weren't.) From there you have responded with no actual counter points. You have said "what you are saying is propaganda" and then paired that with in an insulting comment on how you won't even explain what you meant by that.

You have paired your position with insults from the start. How am I supposed to respond to a position that you won't even clarify? Why should I bother when all you seem to want to do is insult me for what I can only guess is my inability to read your mind from across the internet?

I won't try and claim that I haven't ever made a poorly thought out post (I have and the evidence of my retractions are here on the board.) But your last three posts to me have been of deteriorating clarity and increasing antagonism. Please take a moment and calm down a bit. If you have some personal issue with me or some particular problem with my stances please either discuss them with me or don't. These parting insults that allude to a stance you won't actually clarify are not conducive to a productive discussion.

edit: If you don't want to go to the trouble of explaining your point (I do understand how describing something you feel to be obvious can be tiring) you can simply say so without the insults. Doing so does kill most discussion value of your point, but you can do so and still be civil about it.