Let’s consider the island nation of Jamaica, and gun ownership there. The nation’s Firearms Act, which was first passed in 1967 and has been amended over the years, regulates the ownership and use of firearms and ammunition. This sounds like something that American gun control types would like to see in America. The law requires gun licenses on ALL firearms, and a yearly registration fee of $6,000 and for a rather poor nation this is an outrageous amount of money.

The nation even has a Gun Court, which was established in 197, to try criminal cases involving firearms. In other words Jamaica is an example to the world where gun control is a very serious deal. But is it working?

In a word… no.

Guns are reportedly smuggled into the country from places such as Haiti where firearms are traded for drugs. The BBC reported that recently 2,000 guns were melted down, and in the coverage of this story noted:

The BBC’s Nick Davis in Kingston says that although gun crime has long been a problem in Jamaica, the murder rate has been falling. However, the authorities want to do more. Between 70-80% of fatal shootings have been linked to criminal gangs whose firepower equals that of the police, our correspondent adds.

So has gun control done its job? Clearly it has not. And while we know that some anti-gun zealots will blame American guns, suggesting that if America cracked down our neighbors in Mexico and Jamaica wouldn’t have a source of guns – we need to remember that it is vintage Soviet and even modern Russian and Chinese firearms that are used in Asia and Africa by insurgents and criminals alike.

Basically, Jamaica should serve as an example of why gun control will always fail as long as there are criminals around. And until the drug and crime problem can be solved, gun control only makes it harder for the law-abiding gun owner.

The debate over U.S. gun laws and Mexican drug violence brings to mind Mark Twain’s famous quip about lies, damned lies, and statistics. In a recent editorial, the Washington Post blamed American policies for exacerbating the bloodshed, pointing out that “70 to 80 percent of the traceable guns seized in Mexico can be tracked to the United States.” The key word there is “traceable.” While it’s true that most of the traceable guns originated north of the border, those weapons represent a very small portion of total Mexican gun seizures.

According to a Government Accountability Office study based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), only 7,200 of the roughly 30,000 guns seized by Mexican authorities in 2008 were sent to ATF for a tracing analysis. Scott Stewart of STRATFOR has noted that just 4,000 of them were found to be traceable. Of the traceable guns, 3,480 were linked back to the United States. In other words, only 12 percent of the guns confiscated in 2008 were positively traced to the United States. In May 2009, the Associated Press reported that the Mexican military had “305,424 confiscated weapons locked in vaults.” Because those weapons were not submitted to ATF, their origin is unclear.

If those in the Senate can see the problem with the numbers why can’t his fellow senators such as Dianne Feinstein, Sheldon Whitehouse and Charles Schumer see the same thing? Or is it that those against guns don’t mind that this lie about the numbers continues, as it could help their push for gun control?

Additionally Cornyn has been one of the few to explain the assault weapon ban and how it relates to Mexico:

What about the U.S. assault-weapons ban (AWB), which expired in 2004? Citing estimates from a senior Mexican official, the Post said that the portion of seized guns classified as “assault weapons” has grown from about one-third in 2005 to 60–65 percent today. Yet Mexican drug violence was accelerating before the AWB lapsed — in 2001, then-president Vicente Fox called for “a war without mercy” against the cartels — and President Felipe Calderón’s courageous post-2006 crackdown on organized crime has prompted the gangs (1) to fight back against the government and (2) to fight a lot more with each other.

But again it is easier for Calderon to blame America than admit he’s facing a failing battle against the cartels. The corruption in his own government is the cause of Mexico’s woes – not America’s guns.

Deaths, guns, whistle-blowers and the highest law officer in the land stonewalling a congressional investigation are the juicy ingredients of a story network news reporters would love to cover – if a Republican were in office. However, when Attorney General Eric Holder testified on Thursday (February 2) before a House oversight committee investigating Operation Fast and Furious, the news was completely ignored by NBC and ABC (there was one full story on Friday’s CBS This Morning). The virtual blackout of Holder’s testimony continues an overall trend of ABC and NBC burying one of the Obama administration’s biggest scandals, despite continual coverage by their competitors at CBS, CNN and Fox News.

We’ve also noted that this story has had virtually no coverage in the evening news. As we’ve stated, who needs a cover-up when the media won’t cover the story anyway?

Kudos to Newsbusters for noting the lack of media attention on what is arguably a huge scandal for the Obama White House.

Newbusters: MRC Study: ABC and NBC Anything But Fast and Furious On Gunwalking Scandal

Roughly 2,000 firearms were melted down in a blazing furnace Tuesday as part of an effort designed to combat gun trafficking and corruption in Jamaica while reducing violent crime.

Police, government and U.N. officials destroyed pistols and revolvers by pitching them into a kiln glowing bright orange at a cement factory in the capital of Kingston. Most of the guns were decommissioned or seized in police operations over the years.

Let’s review the second paragraph – which notes, “Police, government and U.N. officials…” – because we have to ask why is the United Nations involved? Well, it gets more interesting. Consider this next example of how the story was reported:

William Godnick, a coordinator with the U.N. Regional Center for Peace Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, said the destruction of the guns “is the beginning of a long process in which we hope to destroy a much larger quantity.”

Not to sound like alarmists, but we’d like to know where this destruction of guns ends? The words “disarmament” concern us just a bit. And the story also continues, and again it sounds like a replay of what we heard about Mexico:

The large majority of the gangs’ weapons are smuggled from the United States.

Illegal guns come in on freighters and in “guns-for-ganja” deals by fishermen, who carry homegrown marijuana to nearby Haiti and return with pistols, revolvers and submachine guns — many of them believed to be from the U.S. as well.

So once again, problems elsewhere are going to be blamed on America guns, and only after is the “drug” connection made clear. But let’s review a key passage, namely “pistols, revolvers and submachine guns – many of them believe to be from the U.S.” as this again implies that in Miami or elsewhere people can just go to the gun shop and buy submachine guns off the shelf!

We’ll continue to watch as this story likely develops.

There are also plenty of people who point to corruption in Mexico’s military as well as governments from Central America to Europe that could provide bulk shipments of guns to cartels.

They have noted that there is no way most of the guns used by Mexico’s cartels would be purchased over the counter at Texas gun stores. There is too much regulation and it would take too much time to outfit a private army using store-bought weaponry.

This is a fact that should be obvious. Anyone who has bought a single gun can know that with background checks, which are required to be conducted at all gun shops and despite a few high profile examples showing otherwise are conducted at the vast majority of gun shows.

Are these Fast and Furious guns or military hardware?

This week The Los Angeles Times is reporting that “Mexican officials have arrested a reputed enforcer for the country’s most powerful drug cartel – a man also alleged to have amassed weapons from the U.S. government’s failed Fast and Furious gun-smuggling operation.”

But let’s take a look at that photo that accompanied the story. While those could be semi-automatic AK-47s, as in the commercially available model, it is fascinating that there appears to be a grenade launcher on the far right and a .30 caliber machine gun in the center. These aren’t the usual items you find at any gun shop!

For now we say kudos to Mr. Cox for stating his point, which included:

Last Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder appeared before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to answer questions about his role in the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-running scandal. However, instead of answers, Congress got more defiance, more arrogance, and more wasted time with an attorney general who clearly feels no sense of obligation to the American people or our rule of law.

But for all the stonewalling, there was at least one telling moment at this hearing, and it should concern law-abiding gun owners and all Americans who expect accountability from our government.
In a rash attempt to deflect attention away from himself and his own irresponsibility, Holder let Congress know that the Obama administration is still working toward the day when it can reinstate former President Bill Clinton’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. According to Holder:

This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.

Read more: Holder tells Congress the Obama administration wants to ban guns

“The Senate today pandered to special interest groups and has just opened the door to begin illegal gun trafficking again in Virginia.”

Well it makes for a compelling kicker, is it accurate even? This isn’t the special interest if the vast majority of voters pushed for this. But apparently anytime an anti-gun type doesn’t like a ruling, they blame the “special interest” and unfortunately the media gives this added weight by supporting this line of thinking.

He reportedly attempted to a cache of firearms that included “three M-16 rifles, one shotgun, 16 handguns,” as well as slot machines and “thousands of cartons of cigarettes, along with counterfeit merchandise.” But even worse, is the fact that Masso was “recruiting other law enforcement officers to join the scheme.”

This makes us wonder if Mayors Against Illegal Guns shouldn’t look closer to home instead of targeting distant gun shows?

Twenty years ago, Virginia had a not-so-flattering reputation as a haven for illegal gun runners. Traffickers would buy batches of guns legally in the state, and sell them on the black market. With the Virginia guns turning up at crime scenes up and down the Eastern seaboard, the state legislature decided it was time to act — a law was passed to limit gun purchases to one a month. But gun rights activists have fought to overturn it, and on Monday, the Virginia Senate approved legislation to repeal it.

Is a “reputation” really what this is about? This type of reporting doesn’t offer all the facts, including that gun sales are up and crime is down. But that would get in the way of this reporting.

But the interview also included an interesting exchange:

SIEGEL: Now, Virginia is a state where there’s a great deal of gun ownership and I assume the Republican legislators and the governor figure the public opinion is on their side with these moves.

SIZEMORE: I think they do. Virginia certainly is a big gun-owning state, particularly in the more rural areas where hunting is a, you know, longstanding tradition. You know, in the more urban areas where crime has been a problem, I think you find more support for gun control, but at the moment, the gun enthusiasts certainly seem to have the upper hand.

Let’s review: Siegel makes it clear that it is “public opinion,” but Sizemore by responds by trying to suggest that there is support for gun control, yet “gun enthusiasts” have the “upper hand.” Isn’t this a naïve way to look at it this issue? Clearly the support for gun control isn’t strong enough, but once again the anti-gun types try to pass this off as if it is the voice of a few radicals.

At least the host notes there is “public opinion,” but too bad the media can’t see it that way.