GAO 'Mexican crime gun' report 'incomplete'

June 20, 11:37 AMGun Rights ExaminerDavid Codrea

Previous Next

4 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Accountability? Integrity? Reliability?

Others are noting deficiencies in the Government Accountability Office report on arms smuggling to Mexico that I've been discussing here over the past few days. The Los Angeles Times, of all papers, just published an account that adds credence to concerns some of us have been raising:

A government audit of U.S. efforts to stop arms trafficking to Mexico was criticized Friday by a Republican lawmaker who said its conclusion that smuggled weapons from America were fueling the rise of violent Mexican drug cartels was based on incomplete data...

Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.)... said he was also "troubled by the fact that the report makes conclusions based on opinions and assumptions rather than facts."

"I don't know that the report itself is something that we should put a lot of value in," Mack said.

Mack noted that out of the 30,000 firearms seized in Mexico in fiscal 2008, the report says only 7,200 were submitted for tracing.

"Where did the other 22,000 guns that were seized come from? Venezuela? Europe? Ecuador? Nicaragua?" Mack asked, adding that the incomplete sample undermined some of the report's broader conclusions.

Still, the report has its champion:

[L]ead author Jess T. Ford, the GAO's director of international affairs and trade, told the committee that he stood by the conclusions.

So who is Jess T. Ford? An Internet search gives us a general picture of a bureaucrat with publication and testimony credits on a variety of subjects, from visa waivers to drug smuggling. And a cursory glance at his directorate, International Affairs and Trade, shows us an organization providing oversight for America's role in global governance efforts.

But who is this guy? What are his affiliations? Who are his champions? And what is their agenda?

If this representative of the Government Accountability Office is promulgating conclusions that will be used to enact further infringements on our ability to purchase firearms, don't you think we should first demand accountability from him?  Especially since, as primary author of the report, he has a vested credibility interest in its acceptance?

In other words, a bureaucrat with ideological and career incentives--one who is unaccountable to the American people-- is attempting to leverage changes to laws they will be accountable for. And people in positions of influence are listening.

Without full disclosure on what he's all about, the report he is using as the vehicle for doing this is "incomplete" in more ways than one.

------------

Where's the dreaded 'gun lobby'?

When I posted the GAO report, I wrote:

[N]ational gun organizations will no doubt release position statements soon.

So far, on their websites, nothing, zip, nada...

And as we've seen, their enemies were ready to hit the ground running.

Come on, guys. Some leadership here?

I could probably rattle off a dozen instances off the top of my head where the 800 lb. gorilla was late to a table set up by alert grassroots activists and bloggers. They need to pay more attention to rapid response, particularly since their reach within the gun owner community is so extensive.

UPDATE: I'm advised NRA issued this yesterday. It was in their "Legislation" as opposed to "News" section.

------------

Some leadership here

Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman writes "GAO report being deliberately misinterpreted for sensationalism." We also learn:

A report appearing in the next issue of Gun Week, a newspaper owned by the Second Amendment Foundation that is considered by many to be the “newspaper of record of the firearms community” raises serious questions about the reliability of the report, and how it is being used by anti-gunners.

And Mike Sargent of NewsBusters give us "The Devil In The Details: LA Times Ignores Substance, Attacks U.S. Gun Manufacturers," where we learn:

[A]ccording to ATF, the identification of the country of manufacturing origin of a firearm does not depend on identifying the first retail dealer but rather on the initial description of the firearm.

"Holy bureaucracy, Batman," indeed.