Article published Friday, December 9, 2011 at Fox News.

Fast and Furious Scandal Cries Out for Answers

By John R. Lott, Jr.

The "Fast & Furious" scandal is getting messier and messier. New e-mails finally released late this past Friday reveal that the Department of Justice personal viewed the then-secret operation as a way to push for more gun control laws. Despite administration promises to the contrary, whistleblowers have endured "isolation, retaliation and transfer."

Meanwhile the operation's managers have done pretty well, some have even received promotions.

Thursday Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that the operation was "wholly unacceptable," but he still offers absolutely no explanation to explain why the program was instituted.

What's going on here? Let's see...

- You have a government agency ordering gun dealers to make sales to suspected criminals that the dealers didn't want to sell to.

- You have government agents testifying that the being purchased were not being traced. No attempt was made to even alert the Mexican government that the United States of America was given guns to drug gangs in their country.

Up until now the only justification from the Obama administration for this "program" is that the Bush administration supposedly did the same thing with operation "Wide Receiver."

In fact, it is a defense that the Justice Department and Congressional Democrats have raise multiple times. Congressman Elijah Cummings' office just made this defense on Wednesday.

But the "Fast & Furious" and "Wide Receiver" programs are not remotely similar on the most important fact: The Bush administration tried to trace the guns and informed the Mexican authorities when the guns went across the border, but the Obama administration did not.

And it is well-known how ineffective tracing programs have been anyway.

The problem is that if "Wide Receiver" failed in tracing the guns and was subsequently shutdown, why is the solution to not even bother to try tracing the firearms? Holder's conclusion in testimony before Congress was simply: "Guns lost during this operation will continue to show up at crime scenes on both sides of the border." Would Holder have been as forgiving if a gun dealer had been caught intentionally doing the same thing that the Obama administration has been caught doing?

The new e-mails documenting Justice Department discussions on the political benefits from the "Fast & Furious" program are disturbing and they are only going to give more ammunition to conspiracy theorists for why the Obama administration instituted the program to begin with.

People who haven't trusted the Obama administration on this issue have already pointed out that "Fast & Furious" started pushing guns into Mexico at the same time that the Obama administration was making its inaccurate claims about the United States being a major source of Mexican crime guns.

The new internal messages reveal that in early January this year, a month before there was any publicity about "Fast & Furious," Department of Justice personnel were pointing out: "this case ["Fast & Furious] could be a strong supporting factor [for new regulations] if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case."

More evidence has also surfaced showing how uncomfortable gun dealers were in selling these guns that they didn't want to sell. One dealer wrote BATF officials in April 2010: "[W]e were hoping to put together something like a letter of understanding to alleviate concerns of some type of recourse against us down the road for selling these items. We just want to make sure we are cooperating with ATF and that we are not viewed as selling to the bad guys."

Unfortunately, Holders' testimony Thursday didn't make things any clearer. His definition of "lying" depending on one's state of mind sounded positively Clintonian.

But ultimately the Obama administration still faces a bigger problem. Can they ever come up with any remotely plausible explanation for why anyone would have started a program to push untraceable guns into Mexico? The longer it takes to provide an explanation, the more plausible the conspiracy theorists sound that this was all done for politics.

John R. Lott Jr. is a contributor. He is an economist and the author of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010), the third edition of which was published in May.".

Home (description of book, downloadable data sets, and discussions of previous controversies)

Academic papers:

Social Science Research Network

Book Reviews:

For a list of book reviews on The Bias Against Guns, click here.

List of my Op-eds

Posts by topic

Appalachian law school attack

Baghdad murder rate

Arming Pilots

Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me

The Merced Pitchfork Killings and Vin Suprynowicz's quote

Ayres and Donohue

Stanford Law Review

Mother Jones article


Craig Newmark

Eric Rasmusen

William Sjostrom

Dr. T's

Interview with National Review Online

Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide

The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott

Cold Comfort, Economist John Lott discusses the benefits of guns--and the hazards of pointing them out.

An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Some data not found at

Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack

Since the first news search was done additional news stories have been added to Nexis:

There are thus now 218 unique stories, and a total of 294 stories counting duplicates (the stories in yellow were duplicates): Excel file for general overview and specific stories. Explicit mentions of defensive gun use increase from 2 to 3 now.

Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election

Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set

"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper