“The majority of profits feeding the Mexican mafia derives from the sale of marijuana to U.S. markets. This is profitable because marijuana is illegal, just as rum running was profitable during the era of alcohol prohibition. The mafia uses these profits to buy powerful weapons that are readily available in the U.S. I lived in Colombia during the cocaine wars of the 1980s and saw firsthand the devastating effects of the toxic combination of the U.S. drug war and gun policy on that nation.”

This reader thinks that ending the prohibition of drugs would end the problem? But he makes the assumption – wrongly – that “powerful weapons” are so readily available in the United States. Clearly he believes the hype that 90 percent of guns come from the United States, a number widely debunked. Moreover, he fails to note that many of the guns that did flow south were because the AFT!

He then adds:

“As we continue to incarcerate citizens for possession of small amounts of marijuana and continue to deregulate the sale of powerful weapons, we should be conscious of the collateral damage these policies cause for our Latin neighbors and, increasingly, for our own security.”

Here is the problem with this line of thinking. Today in America it is legal to buy a semi-automatic rifle, provided you are legally entitled to do so (in other words not a criminal), but it is illegal to buy or possess marijuana. This is a simple fact. But people such as this author have a problem with this fact. This is because they don’t like guns, and they want to smoke weed.

So they try this logic that somehow this isn’t right, and that if we legalized the latter and criminalized the former all would be set right. They’d rather see a world where you can buy marijuana but not buy guns. And they’d think that was fair. But the point is that it isn’t the way it is, so again they offer this logic that blames the former because they want the latter. Maybe they’ve just been illegally using too much of the latter in the first place.

“In an Arizona drug bust last month the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration confiscated more than druga [sic]. Federal agents accidentally came upon two giant garbage cans filled with assault rifles, and they just uncovered some of those guns that had been in the hands of the drug runners once belonged to their brother agency, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

“The federal drug agents discovered the AK-47-type assault rifles wrapped in cellophane and hidden inside two giant trash barrels. Agents believe the confiscated weapons were heading to drug cartels in Mexico. Problem is, a serial number on at least one of the weapons traces back to the ATF.”

The story adds that the DEA did not know about the gun operation.

He is the second member of an anti-drug enforcement squad to be charged. Once again, we ask who guards the guards?

We’re making light of a real tragedy, but the fact is that the sensational headline is almost a throwback to the days of yellow journalism. The piece titled “Drugs and guns are killing New York – two thirds of murder victims are black, drugs involved,” tells the story of how those with a history of drug crimes and who hang out with friends who illegally pack heat are more likely to be murdered.

But isn’t that akin to saying those who drink a lot before getting into their car are more likely to be involved in a drunk driving related accident? There is something called “cause and effect.” Those with a history of drug crime will likely end up in a bad way, especially if they don’t change their habits.

The paper of course sees it another way, and offered insight from those in the community:

“Tony Fields, whose barbershop sits in the city’s most lethal precinct, never noticed much change around his East New York business. ‘It’s not that complicated,’ said Fields, 44. ‘Lots of guns and drugs equals a high murder rate. Get rid of the drugs. Get rid of the guns. Get rid of the murders.’

This is a naïve take on the problem, and with respect to Mr. Fields how does he suggest getting rid of the drugs and guns? The guns he is likely describing are illegal handguns. The city already have laws that make it difficult to legally own a handgun. His is thus an obvious solution… yes, the city should get rid of the drugs, should get rid of the illegal guns but the point remains that “drugs and guns” in themselves are not “killing New York.” What is killing New York are the criminals using the drugs and guns.

Maybe that’s the real problem. Don’t target the guns and drugs. Target the criminals instead.

“The Mexican ambassador to Washington again blamed lax American gun laws for fueling the drug conflict in Mexico.

“Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan also said the U.S. could do more to limit the sale of weapons that eventually end up in the hands of the cartels.”

How many years have gone by where we in the United States could say, “Mexico is supplying drug dealers in the United States,” or “Mexico could do more to limit the sale of drugs that eventually up in the hands of dealers?”

Our stand remains the same. We should tell Mexico to stop the flow of drugs, which will stop the flow of money and with it the flow of guns south.

“It (the report) also said the majority of recovered guns in Mexico were not traced, although trace requests to ATF for guns recovered in Mexico increased from 5,834 in fiscal 2004 to 22,000 in fiscal 2009.”

This fact, namely that the majority of recovered guns in Mexico were not traced, is a key component that is continued to be ignored by the mainstream media. Thus no matter how great the number of guns that are sent for tracing, there is a far greater number that is never traced – because it is obvious that these guns are not from America.

This implies that the America is not even the key supplier, but yet we continue to get the lion’s share of the blame.

“Insufficient cooperation between the top US body for gun rules oversight and its counterpart in Mexico is undermining Project Gunrunner, which seeks to curb US-Mexican cross-border arms traffic, a US report found Tuesday.”

But we ask, why is this an American problem? As we’ve asked before, isn’t the problem really the drugs flowing north, not the guns flowing south? Stop the drugs, and there is no money to buy guns.

We at FirearmsTruth.com first dispute the claim that guns are flowing as rapidly as drugs to the north. That is simply absurd. If this were the case there would be enough guns for every man, woman and child several times over in Mexico at this point.

But let’s assume it is true, which is a greater problem for America? Seriously, are guns, which are bought and paid for in the United States, really as much of a problem as the drugs heading into this country. Yes, we’re being serious in asking this question.

Consider this point. If the drugs were to stop there would be no reason why the guns would flow south. It isn’t guns that are paying for the drugs. It is drug money that is really fueling this war, not American guns. So the real problem remains the drugs. Stop the drugs, and there is no money to buy the guns.

The paper further noted, as has been noted time and time again that there are a lot of gun dealers near the Mexican border. But could it be there are numerous major cities not all that far from the Mexican border, including San Diego and El Paso, which are right on the border? The paper offered this thought:

“About 7,000 licensed U.S. gun dealers operate near the 2,000-mile border, and cartel leaders often hire straw buyers to purchase firearms and pay others to transport the weapons into Mexico. Just as the drugs flow steadily north, the guns reach Mexico secreted under truck beds or stashed in car trunks, sometimes even hidden in clothing.

So what is the solution? Telling the gun shops to close shop? Or how about making gun laws tougher in the United States so that law-abiding citizens can’t own guns. That will show those Mexicans we mean business. Seriously, why doesn’t this story die?