Gun Smuggling

A friend on facebook recently posted a Washington Post article about guns smuggling into Mexico on his newsfeed. I started reading news reports of this type of smuggling from the US to Mexico in the spring of 2009, while I was in Guatemala (incidentally, the Guatemalans I knew found it amusing that finally there was some concrete evidence that contraband moves both ways across the border). I remember learning about the problem because of a New York Times article on the subject.

Basically, Mexican officials and ATF officials are finding that many, many guns used in violent crime in Mexico can be traced to US gun shops, particularly stores in Texas and other border states. ATF investigations have found that drug cartels pay "straw" buyers to purchase guns legally in the US and these guns eventually make it across the border into Mexico, often in the hands of those who bring drugs and people north. In areas of Texas, for example, one buyer could buy 10 or 15 guns in a short period of time without visiting the same store twice, due to the abundance of gun stores in cities like Houston or Brownsville. While store owners are obligated to report the purchase of multiple handguns by the same person in a short period of time, they are not obligated to report the purchase of multiple "long guns" (rifles, assault weapons, etc.). Weapons sales at gun shows and private sales of weapons don't even require the seller to record the name of the purchaser.

This particular article Washington Post article is interesting for many reasons, but I wanted to write about a few particular things.

There is a fascinating section in the report about the reaction of the National Rifle Association to claims that a large portion of guns used in acts of criminal violence (especially drug cartel violence) in Mexico come from the US.

The foundation [National Shooting Sports Foundation] and the National Rifle Association aggressively challenge statistics that show 80 to 90 percent of the weapons seized in Mexico are first sold in the United States, calling the numbers highly inflated. After being criticized by the gun lobby, ATF stopped releasing such statistics this year.

"To suggest that U.S. gun laws are somehow to blame for Mexican drug cartel violence is a sad fantasy" said Chris W. Cox, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

Cox said guns are coming to Mexico from other Central American countries and from former Mexican soldiers who have U.S. weapons and are now working for the cartels.

ATF disagreed, saying the biggest factors are the high number of dealers along the border and the convenient location.

Grimaldi, James V. and Sari Horwitz (2010) "As Mexico Drug Violence Run Rampant, U.S. Guns tied to Crime South of Border" Washington Post. December 13 

First, why do Mexican soldiers have US weapons? Does he mean guns are supplied to the Mexican military by the US? I don't that much about the Mexican case, so I am unsure if there is the same kind of problem of former soldiers keeping their weapons even thought they are no longer part of the military in Mexico as there is in Central America.

Second, while I wouldn't be surprised if there are some Central American weapons floating around Mexico, I am skeptical as to the extent of this problem, particularly along the northern border. Granted, there really isn't much stopping smuggling of drugs, people, or other kinds of contraband along the Guatemalan border with Mexico, but I wonder how much of this is guns. A cursory Google search turned up almost no information about gun smuggling in Central America.  A working paper from the Mexico Institute at the Wilson Center at the University San Diego suggests a few reasons why the NRA spokesman may be mistaken in his assertion that guns are coming primarily from Central America: (1) an assault rifle like an AK-47 is more expensive and lower quality in Central America, and (2) guns that do come from Central America often originate in the US--these are not guns left over from Central American civil wars, but weapons that are smuggled into Central America from the US on their way to Mexico. Hand grenades and rocket-propelled grenades, however, appear to be coming from Central America.

Also, they article recounts the dismissal of a case against a gun store owner accused of knowingly selling guns to straw buyers working for Mexican drug cartels. I am not a lawyer nor a judge, so I can't really speak to the judge's ruling (basically that the defendant's lawyers were able to show that the ATF's witnesses weren't credible and that the prosecution was "overcharging" the defendant, who could only be proven to have committed a misdemeanor). But the quotation the journalists include in the article is very interesting:

About guns going to Mexico from the United States, the judge said: "It is a terrible problem. They have to do something about it."

Grimaldi, James V. and Sari Horwitz (2010) "As Mexico Drug Violence Run Rampant, U.S. Guns tied to Crime South of Border" Washington Post. December 13 

Who are they? The Mexican authorities? The ATF? Does the judge think that the US legal system does not have a role in this drama? Is this something that the US should be pursuing? I would argue that this is something that we should be worried about. Yes, the Mexican authorities should also working on this problem (just as we should be working on the problem of drug trafficking), but this flow of weapons into Mexico from the US is not just a Mexican problem. What in the world does the average US citizen need with such open access to AK-47s? I've read the NRA's arguments as to why we should not have a ban on so-called "assault weapons," but I am not a hunter or a gun enthusiast and am still ignorant as to whether or not people really use these types of weapons to hunt or whether they are truly helpful as a measure of self-defense. A friend of mine in Guatemala once told me about why he stopped carrying a gun. Concealed handguns (legal and illegal) are pretty common in Guatemala, and I know more than a few people who carry guns for protection. My friend told me he stopped carrying his gun the day after he actually used it to defend himself--long story short, he was almost killed in a gun fight in the street with a thief who was robbing his neighbor (I didn't quite get him to tell me who started shooting first). He told me that carrying a gun made him more likely to use it, and by using it he put himself in more danger than he would have been otherwise. Obviously, this is just one story of many (there is a fascinating This American Life episode about gun control), but it resonates with me.

If you are interested in arms trafficking in Mexico and Central America, here is a great source for articles on the subject.

Gangs in Chicago

NPR recently reported on new anti-gang policies in Chicago (listen/read here). The new policies approach gang violence in Chicago in two ways: by arraigning meetings between gang members on parole and community members and families of victims of gang violence, and by putting pressure on gangs that have at least one member suspected of violence. If one gang member is suspected of a violent crime, the police will arrest as many other members as possible on any other charge possible. The intent is to foster self-policing among gangs, a tactic reminiscent of punishing the whole class if one person cheats or making the entire soccer team run laps when one person mouths-off to the coach. Apparently, similar programs have been successfully implemented in Boston and Cincinnati.

When listening to the piece, I tried to think of how we would react to such a move if it had been done in Central America. Such a tactic would certainly be categorized as an "iron fist" approach to crime control, emphasizing punitive measures, punishment for wrongdoing. It is not exactly the same as rounding up young men solely based on their physical appearance (tattoos, etc.) or suspicion of gang membership, but it does lead to mass arrests. The first test of the new policy in Chicago led to the arrest of 60 gang members in the aftermath of a gang-related murder. My biggest questions have to do with where these petty charges come from and what happens to those arrested. Are the charges that weren't acted on earlier because they were too small? Are those arrested actually suspected, individually, of committing these petty crimes, or are they arrested solely for being members of a gang that commits these offenses? Are those getting arrested actually sentenced for these small crimes? During the Mano Dura and Super Mano Dura days in El Salvador, the majority of those arrested on suspicion of gang membership were released due to lack of evidence. Does this new policy in Chicago mean that the only evidence needed to arrest someone is membership in a gang, as long as they suspect someone in the gang to have committed a crime? What kind of evidence is needed to charge these gang members with these smaller crimes?

These new measures in Chicago take the opposite approach of zero-tolerance policies made famous in New York. Zero-tolerance tactics spring from the "broken window" theory, that by cleaning high-crime areas (e.g.fixing broken windows, cleaning up graffiti) and arresting people for small, petty crimes, we can prevent more serious, violent crimes from occurring. These new policies are attempting to reduce serious, violent crime by punishing small, petty crimes after a serious crime has already been committed. That is, punish gangs for petty offenses in retaliation for a more serious crime in the hope that it will prevent future violence. It abandons the link between petty crime and serious crime implicit in zero-tolerance policies and takes up the logic that gangs will stop members from committing serious crimes for fear that everyone might be picked up for something small. They aim for the same end result, but get there on different paths.

This is, of course, a controversial policy. NPR quotes the head of a faith-based group dedicated to rehabilitation and outreach for at-risk youth, who argues that using the stick without offering some sort of carrot (or if not a carrot at least some alternative) doesn't really take care of the problem. The governor of Illinois worries that because the new policies includes meetings between the gangs and the superintendent of police, it only gives more status, more legitimacy, to gangs. Interestingly, I read similar complaints in newspaper editorials and on internet forums in El Salvador after the public transportation strike in September this year. Street gangs held their own press conferences with local media outlets following the passage of new anti-gang legislation that made gangs illegal, and some criticized the media coverage of these press conferences for giving legitimacy and prestige to gangs. Could this lead to status seeking among gangs?

Finally, I am unsure about the impact of meeting with family members of victims of gang violence. I haven't read any literature on this type of intervention (although I am sure it exists and intend to look into the secondary literature). Does exposing gang members (parolees in this case) to the sorrow of victims and the frustrations of community members make gangs less likely to commit violence? Or is this more a public relations tactic targeted more at the community than at the gangs, a way for the city to show that they are not only relying on punitive measures?  

I would be interested to know what people more well-informed that I am about anti-gang policy in Central America think about these new tactics in Chicago.

Dissertating

It has been a chore to get myself to write again. Trying, attempting, straining to write my dissertation (or anything pertaining to my dissertation) is taking up all my brain power. It is gratifying to know that someone somewhere at the university thinks it is worthwhile to pay me so I can write and not have to hold down a full time job at the same time (no, I don't count being a TA as a full time job...although being a TA and writing more than counts). So I've been neglectful of this blog. Of course, it is also because I'm not traveling at the moment and do not have any fun adventures to write about. Those, I hope, will be coming again, in time.

My life right now consists of writing, fooling around with STATA, pretending I know what I'm doing, occasional visits to the gym, cooking, diving to and from campus, and sleeping. Oh, and a random novel and movie thrown in from time to time. Every once in a while I socialize with fellow grad students. I search for fellowships online and am constantly re-framing and re-writing my generic fellowship proposal. And I worry about the future, most specifically about how I'm going to survive financially once my funding runs out in April.

It's not the most exciting existence, but it certainly isn't that terrible either. Perhaps it could best be described as a break. I was thinking about it in terms of being in Limbo, but I think that description is a bit too bleak. Life for me right now is the most routinized, the most normal, the most settled it has been since I started writing this blog, maybe even since before that. Which is probably what I'm rebelling against (ha!). So my new plan of attack is to embrace routine and settle in for the next few months. Maybe then I'll get some real writing done!

So, dear readers, I'm setting myself the challenge of writing on this blog at least once a week. Not so much about my adventures abroad, but about my work and other interesting things (interesting to me at least, you all can judge for yourselves if it is universally appealing). Let's see how it goes, shall we?