In a recent development regarding the lawsuit of Smith & Wesson Brands against the Mexican government, the US Supreme Court has agreed to review the case. The Mexican government claims that Smith & Wesson, along with wholesaler Witmer Public Safety Group Inc., is complicit in facilitating the supply of firearms to Mexican drug cartels through middlemen. This accusation is part of a broader strategy employed by the Mexican authorities and their supporters, seeking external culprits to blame for the soaring homicide rates in Mexico over the last two decades. However, the argument rests on unproven allegations, and it suggests that the real issues pertaining to crime in Mexico should be examined domestically, rather than externally.
The root causes of crime in Mexico can be traced back to its corrupt governmental structures, the ineffectiveness of a federal government, and stringent gun ownership laws that effectively disarm lawful citizens. McMaken previously emphasized that these problems stem more from the conditions created by the Mexican government than from the availability of firearms. A critical observation is that while firearms are abundant in the United States, violent crime, particularly homicide, is significantly worse in Mexico. This stark contrast raises questions about the efficacy of gun control as a strategy for crime reduction.
Gun control advocates argue that the high rates of violence in Mexico can be attributed to the accessibility of guns from the United States. They posit that the proximity to the US paired with strict gun regulations in Mexico leads individuals to acquire firearms illegally and contribute to the rampant crime. Such logic, however, is flawed. An analysis of gun ownership figures demonstrates that, despite the black market’s contribution, the number of guns per capita remains significantly less in Mexico compared to the United States.
Current estimations indicate that, as of 2007, there were approximately 15 million privately held firearms in Mexico, translating to fewer than 20 guns per 100 people. In stark contrast, the figure in the United States stands around 100 guns per 100 people. To link Mexico’s violence solely to the number of guns fails to explain the discrepancy in homicide rates and ignores the substantial differences in gun availability between both countries.
Moreover, the commonly referenced statistic claiming that a vast majority of weapons seized in Mexico originate from the US is misleading. This claims that as much as 70% to 90% of seized firearms are traced back to American sources. However, this figure is based solely on those guns that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) manages to trace, which does not account for the majority of seized guns—many of which may trace back to the Mexican government itself. Consequently, a significant number of firearms are not traced, making the assertion of American culpability in Mexico’s violent crime an incomplete narrative.
In summary, the complexities surrounding gun ownership, availability, and the underlying conditions contributing to violent crime in Mexico illustrate the inadequacy of scapegoating American firearm manufacturers. The Mexican government’s reliance on external narratives fails to address the pressing internal issues of corruption, ineffective governance, and the challenges posed by their gun control policies. As the Supreme Court navigates this complex legal case, it will also uncover critical insights about the nuanced relationship between gun legislation and crime in both countries. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of crime in Mexico invites a broader discourse on how to foster effective strategies for reducing violence by addressing the real systemic issues rather than deflecting responsibility onto American entities.
