"Iron River" of guns into Mexico is actually a trickle

[ericire12]

http://www.examiner.com/x-2944-Denver-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m4d2-Iron-River-of-guns-to-Mexico-actually-just-a-trickle

Al Gore tells us "Facts are stubborn things."  How true.  The assertion that 90% of the guns confiscated in Mexico come from the US has been debunked, yet the anti-gun crowd has scarcely missed a beat.   The guns are traced by serial numbers given to the BATF by the Mexican government.   It seems that only a small fraction of the guns confiscated have serial numbers since international arms manufacturers don't bother with such niceties.  Of them, a fair number come from the US.  The true automatic weapons and heavier weapons didn't come from the US gun market.  They came from the Mexican military or international arms trade.  Tom Diaz is a senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center.  He shrugged off the error and said  "Let's do what we can with what we know. We know that one hell of a lot of firearms come from the United States because our gun market is wide open."  In other words, even though their main reason just got kicked out from under them, they still want to close down gun purchases in this country. They still want to re-enact the "Assault Weapons" ban that lapsed in 2004.  The fact that law abiding citizens can buy guns legally in the US just seems to bug the heck out of these folks. Let's see if any of the gun control sites revise their reports from the last two months in light of the recent revelations.

In my last post, I suggested that Mexico might consider making gun ownership legal in their country like it is in the United States.  How would this affect the country?  The murder rate in Mexico as a whole is about 10.2 murders per 100,000 people, based on data from the Mexican government for 2007.  That compares to 5.6 murders per 100,000 people in the US as a whole for the same year, according to the FBI.  To me, this says that a country with something like 6,000 legal guns for 110 million people would benefit from some up close and personal protection. I know that comparisons across socio-economic and cultural variables is sloppy science, but we are comparing a body of 110 million people under one set of rules, and 300 million under another set of rules.  That will average out a lot of other variables.  Personal guns have a huge bearing on murder as has been proven by research by John Lott over more than 13 years of data in the US. The only reason I can see for reluctance to adopt this policy change in the Mexican government is that any government wants to feel secure, and an armed citizenry makes governments feel less secure. Happy citizens defend their government because they see its value.  Unhappy citizens who are unarmed, can't do much but vote for the designated candidate and hope for the best.  There is no way for the unarmed population to make any changes if democracy fails.  Armed revolt is the ultimate failing grade for a government. Does anybody out there have an example of a government, once established, choosing to arm its previously un-armed citizens?  I think not.