4 ms·

Sniper rifles flowing to Mexican cartels show a decade of U.S. failure

mitchelldeacon9 6y ago
According to a recent book, the United States sells more weapons to Mexico than any other country in the world. Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera (2017) "Los Zetas Inc: Criminal Corporations, Energy, and Civil War in Mexico", p. 228. https://www.amazon.com/Los-Zetas-Inc-Criminal-Corporations/dp/1477312757/ref=sr_1_2?crid=30ERQC7TX2DO1&dchild=1&keywords=los+zetas+inc&qid=1605832678&s=books&sprefix=los+zetas+inc%2Cstripbooks%2C190&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Los-Zetas-Inc-Criminal-Corporations/d...
coolspot 6y ago
https://archive.is/QRasx https://archive.is/QRasx
mchusma 6y ago
Mexico should really be complaining about the war on drugs more than the weapons. Cut off the economic fuel for these groups.
coolspot 6y ago
This article focuses on illegal US->MX trafficking of .50 cal rifles, somehow missing that the problem is not .50 cal guns and not even guns in general. The problem is weak southern border security, regardless of what items go through it illegaly - guns, drugs or people.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bryanlarsen 6y ago
  > The problem is weak southern border security If that's the problem, why does the US not have the same problem at the Canadian border, which is completely undefended in some places?
karaterobot 6y ago
This article makes it seem like .50 rifles are the main reason the cartels are more powerful than the government in some areas of Mexico. Those things cost well over $10,000 apiece, and over $4 per round to fire. No expert, but I don't think that's how you take on an army. I wish the article had focused more on the overall arms trafficking problem (which is about lots of cheap guns, not a few expensive ones) and the overall government instability problem, and (what the hell) the war on drugs that fuels it. Instead, it has a bunch of pictures of scary looking guns, and feels sensationalized and focused on the wrong thing entirely.
- floren 6y ago
  > Instead, it has a bunch of pictures of scary looking guns, and feels sensationalized and focused on the wrong thing entirely. Not particularly different from, well, all news coverage of guns.
- m3kw9 6y ago
  50 cal sniper rifles allows them to perform asymmetric warfare at another level
echelon 6y ago
If the US legalized drug possession and taxed their sales, the cartels would disappear overnight and we could use the additional tax revenue to fund healthcare. We'd create an economic boom from the farming of hemp to new drug manufacturing companies. As other countries loosen up, we might even have an export economy. Stability in Mexico could make our neighbor a more attractive manufacturing and trade partner. The old generation that believed in drug wars is dying or dead. It's time to change US policy. I don't even use drugs and I think our position is stupid.
- zeckalpha 6y ago
  They would pivot from drugs to some other market. Cartels are startups, too.
  - echelon 6y ago
    Would they still have guns and murder people when their activities are no longer illegal? I have trouble thinking they would bother funding an army. There's no need.
    - burnthrow 6y ago
      Yes, significant parts of Mexico are essentially a failed state. Violence is used to gain control. Extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking, etc. are big business, hopefully none of those are legalized.
      - echelon 6y ago
        That's disappointing, but makes sense. Without drug revenue, can they sustain their power? Isn't that their primary income source? If that revenue stream ends, could the police finally flush them out?
        joveian 6y ago
        I'd guess it should have a significant impact and hopefully would make enough difference to slowly erode their power, but I think they already have fairly significant non-drug income and could likely increase that in various ways. In addition to what others mention, they engage in illegal mining, logging, and poaching and likely have substantial export income (this may be new in the past couple of decades and it is obviously hard to tell how extensive it is and how connected the people engaging in those activities are to the cartels involved in the drug trade). They kidnap for labor as well as extortion and can make use of slave labor as long as they control territory. Even if drugs are legalized they will likely keep a small part of that market based on price, convenience, and in some cases violence towards current customers who try to switch to legal supply. It at least seems like the earlier the US legalizes drugs the better chance that it will have a large impact on the cartels. Most of the reporting I've seen attributes this wider focus to the splintering of cartels due to the recent Mexican drug war that started after Vincente Fox was elected to be the first non-PRI president in almost a century. While that didn't end collusion it did end the stable relationships the PRI had with particular cartels (research has looked at this on the state level and found that the level of volence correlates with when a state elected non-PRI government). Calderon greatly expanded this conflict and either started or expanded the policy of going after the heads of the cartels in the hopes that arresting or killing them would cause the cartels to collapse. Instead, it caused them to splinter with different groups both incresingly violent in competition with each other as well as looking for new sources of income. It seems like AMLO is trying to return to the old PRI model of unofficially recognizing particular cartels as controlling particular areas (or nearly officially in the Sinaloa Cartel case), but so far it doesn't seem to have changed much.
hiyer 6y ago
An idea - you could treat guns the way you do drugs. Possession of one or two guns can be considered self-defence or sport. Possession of more than that would be a crime. Most smugglers wouldn't bother if they can only purchase/carry one gun at a time across the border.

According to a recent book, the United States sells more weapons to Mexico than any other country in the world. Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera (2017) "Los Zetas Inc: Criminal Corporations, Energy, and Civil War in Mexico", p. 228. https://www.amazon.com/Los-Zetas-Inc-Criminal-Corporations/dp/1477312757/ref=sr_1_2?crid=30ERQC7TX2DO1&dchild=1&keywords=los+zetas+inc&qid=1605832678&s=books&sprefix=los+zetas+inc%2Cstripbooks%2C190&sr=1-2 https://www.amazon.com/Los-Zetas-Inc-Criminal-Corporations/d...

coolspot 6y ago

https://archive.is/QRasx https://archive.is/QRasx

mchusma 6y ago

Mexico should really be complaining about the war on drugs more than the weapons. Cut off the economic fuel for these groups.

coolspot 6y ago

This article focuses on illegal US->MX trafficking of .50 cal rifles, somehow missing that the problem is not .50 cal guns and not even guns in general. The problem is weak southern border security, regardless of what items go through it illegaly - guns, drugs or people.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bryanlarsen 6y ago
> The problem is weak southern border security If that's the problem, why does the US not have the same problem at the Canadian border, which is completely undefended in some places?

karaterobot 6y ago

This article makes it seem like .50 rifles are the main reason the cartels are more powerful than the government in some areas of Mexico. Those things cost well over $10,000 apiece, and over $4 per round to fire. No expert, but I don't think that's how you take on an army. I wish the article had focused more on the overall arms trafficking problem (which is about lots of cheap guns, not a few expensive ones) and the overall government instability problem, and (what the hell) the war on drugs that fuels it. Instead, it has a bunch of pictures of scary looking guns, and feels sensationalized and focused on the wrong thing entirely.

floren 6y ago
> Instead, it has a bunch of pictures of scary looking guns, and feels sensationalized and focused on the wrong thing entirely. Not particularly different from, well, all news coverage of guns.
m3kw9 6y ago
50 cal sniper rifles allows them to perform asymmetric warfare at another level

echelon 6y ago

If the US legalized drug possession and taxed their sales, the cartels would disappear overnight and we could use the additional tax revenue to fund healthcare. We'd create an economic boom from the farming of hemp to new drug manufacturing companies. As other countries loosen up, we might even have an export economy. Stability in Mexico could make our neighbor a more attractive manufacturing and trade partner. The old generation that believed in drug wars is dying or dead. It's time to change US policy. I don't even use drugs and I think our position is stupid.

zeckalpha 6y ago
They would pivot from drugs to some other market. Cartels are startups, too.
- echelon 6y ago
  Would they still have guns and murder people when their activities are no longer illegal? I have trouble thinking they would bother funding an army. There's no need.
  - burnthrow 6y ago
    Yes, significant parts of Mexico are essentially a failed state. Violence is used to gain control. Extortion, kidnapping, human trafficking, etc. are big business, hopefully none of those are legalized.
    - echelon 6y ago
      That's disappointing, but makes sense. Without drug revenue, can they sustain their power? Isn't that their primary income source? If that revenue stream ends, could the police finally flush them out?
      - joveian 6y ago
        I'd guess it should have a significant impact and hopefully would make enough difference to slowly erode their power, but I think they already have fairly significant non-drug income and could likely increase that in various ways. In addition to what others mention, they engage in illegal mining, logging, and poaching and likely have substantial export income (this may be new in the past couple of decades and it is obviously hard to tell how extensive it is and how connected the people engaging in those activities are to the cartels involved in the drug trade). They kidnap for labor as well as extortion and can make use of slave labor as long as they control territory. Even if drugs are legalized they will likely keep a small part of that market based on price, convenience, and in some cases violence towards current customers who try to switch to legal supply. It at least seems like the earlier the US legalizes drugs the better chance that it will have a large impact on the cartels. Most of the reporting I've seen attributes this wider focus to the splintering of cartels due to the recent Mexican drug war that started after Vincente Fox was elected to be the first non-PRI president in almost a century. While that didn't end collusion it did end the stable relationships the PRI had with particular cartels (research has looked at this on the state level and found that the level of volence correlates with when a state elected non-PRI government). Calderon greatly expanded this conflict and either started or expanded the policy of going after the heads of the cartels in the hopes that arresting or killing them would cause the cartels to collapse. Instead, it caused them to splinter with different groups both incresingly violent in competition with each other as well as looking for new sources of income. It seems like AMLO is trying to return to the old PRI model of unofficially recognizing particular cartels as controlling particular areas (or nearly officially in the Sinaloa Cartel case), but so far it doesn't seem to have changed much.

hiyer 6y ago

An idea - you could treat guns the way you do drugs. Possession of one or two guns can be considered self-defence or sport. Possession of more than that would be a crime. Most smugglers wouldn't bother if they can only purchase/carry one gun at a time across the border.