Firearms and Extortions in Mexico,2012 to 2021

Abstract

The study of firearm violence in Mexico has primarily focused on homicides and trafficking. Less attention has been given to understanding how firearms affect other crimes and facilitate criminal activity beyond drug markets. By analyzing two questions, this study explores the role of firearms in extortions perpetrated in Mexico from 2012 to 2021. Questions are: What is the likelihood of reporting extortions to the police if offenders exhibited firearms? What is the likelihood of compliance with demands when offenders are armed with firearms? We obtained data from Mexico’s National Crime Victimization Surveys and analyzed 2,619 extortions reported from 2012 to 2021. To explore our research questions, we ran two binary logistic regressions. Our dependent variables were dichotomous (reported to police = 1, complied with demands = 1). The independent variables were weapon types (extortions involving firearms as the reference group). We controlled for victim demographics as well as crime characteristics. Our results indicate that 40% of these extortions (n = 1,058) were perpetrated with a firearm. Fifty-two percent of extortions were perpetrated by unarmed offenders (n = 1,348) and 8% (n = 213) were perpetrated with other weapons (no firearms). Models suggest that, when compared to extortions perpetrated by unarmed offenders or those exhibiting other weapons (no firearms), victims of extortions involving firearms are less likely to report these crimes to police, mainly because of fear of reprisal. Similarly, victims are more likely to comply with demands if offenders exhibit firearms. Findings highlight the role of firearms in criminal enterprises and support the need for a comprehensive policy agenda to address firearm violence in Mexico.

Keywords

extortions violence victimization surveys police reporting victim compliance

Introduction

Studies on firearm violence in Mexico have focused on illegal trafficking and its impact on homicides (Chicoine, 2017; Dube et al., 2013; Eby, 2014; McDougal et al., 2014; Perez Esparza et al., 2020). Limited research in Mexico has also focused on how firearms affect robbery outcomes (Heredia González, 2018). However, no studies have examined the impact of firearms on other crimes, such as kidnappings or extortion. The objective of this study is to analyze the role of firearms in extortion outcomes in Mexico from 2012 to 2021.

Mexico is a country with relatively strict firearm laws. There is one gun store in the country, and firearms must be registered with the SEDENA (Secretaria de la Defensa). To purchase a firearm, there are a series of requirements that include not having criminal records, being over 18 years of age, and showing a valid reason for owning a firearm. Certain types of firearms are exclusively for the military and are prohibited for civilian use (Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión, 2022). Moreover, Mexico is not among the top-tier countries for firearm exports or imports (Florquin et al., 2020). Despite this, the proportion of homicides perpetrated with a firearm increased considerably during the mid-2000s. According to Mexico’s National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2019), while 64 of homicides of men in Mexico were perpetrated with a firearm in 2005, this percentage rose to 78% by 2017. Similarly, while 38% of homicides of women were perpetrated with a firearm in 2005, this percentage rose to 58% by 2017 (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2019).

It is estimated that, from 2010 to 2012, roughly 213,000 firearms were illegally imported annually into Mexico from the United States (McDougal et al., 2015). U.S. agencies consistently report that 70% of firearms recovered in crimes in Mexico originate in the United States, primarily from Texas, Arizona, and California (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, 2023; United States Government Accountability Office, 2021). Researchers have concluded that changes in federal firearm policies in the United States during the mid-2000s had an effect on firearm homicides in Mexico (Chicoine, 2017; Dube et al., 2013).

The impact of firearms in Mexico goes beyond homicides. After 2007, robberies, kidnappings, and extortions increased significantly (Beittel, 2015; Calderon et al., 2021). The proportion of crimes perpetrated with a firearm also increased (Heredia-González, 2018). This work is conceptually guided by the idea that weapons, in this case firearms, influence criminal outcomes and that access to firearms facilitates the diversion of criminal enterprises. In particular, victim compliance depends on the perpetrator’s capacity to punish and/or threaten (Luckenbill, 1982). Furthermore, firearms increase the risks of lethality in violent situations (Braga et al., 2021). Thus, victims would be more likely to comply with offenders’ demands if a firearm is displayed. In the United States, studies have concluded that the use of a firearm increases levels of compliance during robberies and that offenders select to use firearms for these reasons (Pizarro et al., 2021), but work in other jurisdictions will provide a fuller understanding of this relationship.

The effects of firearm presence, however, are not just related to compliance. When compared to victims of crimes perpetrated without firearms, victims of firearm-related crimes are more likely to report post-emotional symptoms such as feeling anxious, insecure, and mistrustful (Weigend Vargas & Hemenway, 2021). In this regard, 37% of firearm victims in the United States do not report these crimes to the police because of fear of potential retaliation (Langton, 2012). In contrast, 12% of U.S. victims of crimes perpetrated by unarmed offenders with a knife or other weapon report fear of retaliation as the most important reason for not reporting a crime (Langton, 2012). Researchers focusing on Mexico have found that victims of street robberies are more likely to report higher levels of compliance and a higher sense of insecurity when perpetrators use firearms (Heredia González, 2018). We build on these studies to examine extortion outcomes in Mexico.

Extortion is a crime in which the perpetrator uses force or threats to demand property, money, or other goods in exchange for not harming the victim in the future (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2023). The threat of future violence is key to understanding extortion. This includes threats of death, bodily harm, property damage, or damage to reputation against the victim or the victim’s close associates (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2023). Extortion is common in Mexico. According to Mexico’s National Crime Victimization and Public Security Survey (ENVIPE), there were 62.8 million extortions between 2013 and 2021 (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2022a). However, most of these extortions occurred via telephone and do not involve a direct confrontation between victims and offenders. An analysis of extortion against businesses in Mexico found that the likelihood of compliance was higher when there were multiple perpetrators and when weapons were used (Estévez-Soto, 2021). The same study found that the type of extortion was important in understanding levels of compliance. Those perpetrated “in person” involved physical contact and had higher rates of compliance (Estévez-Soto, 2021). However, this analysis did not disaggregate by type of weapon (firearm or non-firearm).

To our knowledge, no study has examined the relationship between firearm victimization and extortion outcomes in Mexico. The present study aims to fill this gap. Specifically, we examined two hypotheses. (a) That victims of extortions perpetrated with a firearm (vs. those perpetrated with other weapons or no weapons) are less likely to report crimes to the police. (b) That victims of extortion are more likely to comply with perpetrator’s demands if firearms are involved.

Methods

Data

We compiled data on extortion reported by individuals from ENVIPE from 2013 to 2022, the most recent 10 years of available data. These surveys are nationally representative, conducted by Mexico’s INEGI, and are recognized by the United Nations Office of Drug and Crime as an important source for analyzing crime data (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2019). A key advantage of using these surveys is that they include information on crimes that were not reported to authorities.

The study population in these surveys is adults ages 18 and over. To collect the data, INEGI selects roughly 100,000 households each year and then collects information about the household, such as the state of residence. Sociodemographic information is collected on each household member. This includes sex, age, and level of education. One member of each household is then selected to complete a personal survey on crime victimization during the previous year.

The surveys include questions about 15 predetermined categories of nonfatal crimes, including the category of extortions. We filtered for those victims who reported any extortions. In addition, when victims select extortion, the ENVIPE surveys further include inquiries about the type of extortion. Though extortions by telephone, email, or labor-related are included in the ENVIPE surveys, for this analysis, we only included extortions that are “in person.” This means that there was a clear contact between victim and perpetrator. These included those considered cobro de piso (a term used to describe a situation where victims pay for the right to operate a business), those that occurred on the street, and those that occurred in the victim’s business (or family business).

Victims respond whether they complied with the demands of the perpetrators. Victims can respond that they partially complied, fully complied, did not comply, were not sure if they complied, or decided not to respond. The surveys also inquiries whether victims reported the crime to the police. Those victims who did not report the crime to the police are asked what the most important reason was for not reporting. The surveys include nine pre-defined categories for victims to answer. These are fear of the offender, fear of being blackmailed, the crime was of little importance, reporting was perceived as a waste of time, reporting takes a lot of time, distrust of authorities, lack of evidence, hostile attitude of authorities, and others.

The ENVIPE surveys include questions about whether the perpetrators were armed and about the type of weapon. A specific question asks whether offenders were armed with firearms. The questionnaires also ask about the number of offenders and whether victims were injured during the crime.

Variables

Our first outcome variable equaled “1” if victims reported a crime to the police and “0” if they did not. Our second outcome variable equaled “1” if victims complied with the offender’s demands partially or fully and “0” if they did not. Those observations where victims could not recall whether they complied (n = 10) were labeled as not complying. We excluded cases where individuals did not respond to the question about compliance (n = 349); there was no missing data in the question about police reporting. Our main independent variable was a three-level categorical variable where extortions perpetrated with a firearm were the reference group (other groups were extortions perpetrated by unarmed offenders and those perpetrated with other non-firearm weapons).

Our covariates included a dichotomous variable for gender (1 = Female) and four dichotomous variables for age groups, leaving those victims over the age of 59 as the comparison group. We created two variables around educational attainment. The first equaled “1” if victims had a high school education or less. The second equaled “1” if victims had a technical school degree or a high school degree. The comparison group consisted of victims with a college degree or a graduate degree. We also controlled for whether the victim was alone during the crime and whether there were multiple offenders. We also created a dichotomous variable that equaled “1” if the victim was injured. We controlled for the types of extortion as categorized by the ENVIPE surveys. We generated two variables. The first equaled “1” if the extortion was considered Cobro de Piso as defined above. The second variable equaled “1” if the extortion took place in the victim’s business (or family business). The comparison groups included those extortions that occurred on the street.

Analysis

Due to the construction of our dependent variables (dichotomous) and because we wanted to estimate and adjusted effect, we selected logistic regressions as our statistical method of analysis. First, we ran a logistic regression with a dichotomous variable indicating whether crimes were reported to the police as our dependent variable and the use of firearms as our independent variable, controlling for the aforementioned covariates. Second, we ran a binary logistic regression with a variable indicating victim compliance as the dependent variable and whether the perpetrators were armed with firearms as the independent variable.

Because the questionaries ask about crimes that occurred in the previous year, our analysis period is from 2012 to 2021. Moreover, survey weights supplied by INEGI are constructed to be representative within a single year. As we aggregated multiple years of data, weights would not necessarily produce a representative sample. Thus, we conduct unweighted analyses.

To examine the robustness of our models, we added two additional sensitivity analyses for each research question. First, we ran the same models but only included extortions involving multiple perpetrators. We then ran the same models but only included extortions perpetrated by a single offender. Results of these logistic regressions are presented in the appendix.

Results

We analyzed 2,619 extortions reported from 2012 to 2021. A description of these extortions is presented in Table 1; of note, a majority of victims were male (67%), most extortions occurred on the street (71%), a large majority were not reported to the police (88%), and a large majority of weapon-involved extortions were perpetrated using a firearm (40%). Of the examined extortions, 12% (n = 323) were reported to the police. Out of those perpetrated with firearms, 10% (n = 110) were reported to the police. Moreover, 18% of extortions perpetrated with other weapons (n = 38) were reported to police, and 13% of extortions perpetrated by unarmed offenders (n = 175) were reported to police.

Table 1.

Descriptive Characteristics of Extortions, 2012 to 2021.

Variable	All Extortions (n = 2,619)
Victim reported extortion to police
Yes	12% (n = 323)
No	88% (n = 2,296)
Victim complied with demands
Yes	46% (n = 1,214)
No	40% (n = 1,056)
Missing	13% (n = 349)
Weapon type used by perpetrator
Firearm	40% (n = 1,058)
Another weapon category (no firearm)	8% (n = 213)
Unarmed	52% (n = 1,348)
Victim sex
Female	33% (n = 866)
Male	67% (n = 1,753)
Victim age
18–29	28% (n = 737)
30–39	28% (n = 737)
40–49	23% (n = 593)
50–59	12% (n = 314)
>59	9% (n = 238)
Victim education
Less than high school	43% (n = 1,123)
High school or technical school	30% (n = 772)
College or graduate degree	28% (n = 724)
Type of extortion
Street	71% (n = 1,851)
Business	20% (n = 514)
Cobro de Piso	10% (n = 254)
Other characteristics
Victim alone	51% (n = 1,336)
Victim injured	13% (n = 333)
Multiple perpetrators	64% (n = 1,686)

Among reasons why extortions were not reported to police, 600 respondents (26%) reported fear of retaliation from the offender as the most important. This was followed by mistrust of authorities (24%) and the perception that reporting the crime was a waste of time (19%). Among victims of extortion perpetrated with a firearm who did not report the crime to the police, 322 (34%) cited fear of the offender as the most important reason. Loss of time was cited as the most important reason for not reporting the crime among victims of extortions involving other weapons (25%) as well as for those victims of unarmed offenders (22%).

Our first binary logistic regression (Table 2) indicates that victims of extortions perpetrated by unarmed offenders and by offenders armed with other weapons were more likely to report the crime to the authorities than were victims of extortion perpetrated with firearms (odds ratio [OR]: 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.11, 1.96], p < .01; OR: 1.66, [1.08, 2.55], p < .05). Women were more likely than men to report extortion to the authorities (OR: 1.69, [1.31, 2.17], p < .001). Victims with less education were significantly less likely to report extortion than victims with more education (OR: 0.65, [0.49, 0.87], p < .01). Victims were more likely to report extortion if there were multiple perpetrators or if they were injured (OR: 1.35, [1.02, 1.78], p < .05; OR: 3.19, [2.37, 4.29], p < .001). Victims who were alone were less likely to report extortion (OR: 0.76, [0.60, 0.97], p < .05). We found no significant differences in reporting to the authorities among the different types of extortion analyzed.

Table 2.

Logistic Regression Analysis of Reporting Extortions to Police, 2012 to 2021.

	OR	95% CI
Variable	OR	Low	High
Weapon type
Perpetrators unarmed	1.48**	1.11	1.96
Perpetrators armed with other weapons	1.66*	1.08	2.55
Perpetrators armed with firearms	(Ref)
Sex of victim
Female	1.69***	1.31	2.17
Age of victim
18–29	0.85	0.53	1.37
30–39	0.81	0.51	1.30
40–49	0.90	0.55	1.45
50–59	0.96	0.57	1.63
>59	(Ref)
Education level of victim
Middle school or lower	0.65**	0.49	0.87
High school or technical careers	0.80	0.59	1.08
College or graduate degree	(Ref)
Other factors
Multiple perpetrators	1.35*	1.02	1.78
Victim was injured	3.19***	2.37	4.29
Victim was alone	0.76*	0.60	0.97
Type of extortions
Cobro de piso	0.67	0.41	1.09
At a business	0.98	0.72	1.34
In the streets	(Ref)
Observations	2,619

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Of the 2,270 extortion cases where it was determined whether victims complied with offenders’ demands, 1,214 (53%) reported compliance and 1,056 (47%) did not comply with the extortion. When examining extortions perpetrated with firearms, of the 974 where it was possible to determine compliance, 626 (64%) victims complied with the extortion. Victims of extortion perpetrated with other weapons (not firearms) complied in 43% of extortion cases, and victims of extortion perpetrated by unarmed offenders complied in 46% of extortion cases.

This suggests that the proportion of extortions where victims complied with perpetrator’s demands where higher among those involving firearms.

Our second binary regression (Table 3) indicates that victims of extortion by unarmed offenders and victims of extortion by offenders armed with other weapons were significantly less likely to comply with offenders’ demands (OR: 0.51, 95% CI [0.42, 0.62], p < .001; OR: 0.47, [0.34, 0.65], p < .001). There were no significant differences by sex, age group, or level of education. Victims were more likely to comply when there were multiple offenders (OR: 1.30, [1.07, 1.58], p < .01). There were no significant differences in compliance when victims were injured or when they were alone. Victims of extortion that occurred in a business were more likely to comply than victims of extortion that occurred on the street (OR: 1.47, [1.18, 1.83], p < .001).

Table 3.

Logistic Regression Analysis of the Likelihood of Complying with Extortions, 2012 to 2021.

	OR	95% CI
Variable	OR	Low	High
Weapon type
Perpetrators unarmed	0.51***	0.42	0.62
Perpetrators armed with other weapons	0.47***	0.34	0.65
Perpetrators armed with firearms	(Ref)
Sex of victim
Female	0.93	0.77	1.12
Age of victim
18–29	0.79	0.56	1.10
30–39	0.83	0.60	1.15
40–49	0.97	0.69	1.37
50–59	0.85	0.59	1.24
>59	(Ref)
Education level of victim
Middle school or lower	1.02	0.83	1.25
High school or technical careers	1.15	0.92	1.44
College or graduate degree	(Ref)
Other factors
Multiple perpetrators	1.30**	1.07	1.58
Victim was injured	0.92	0.70	1.19
Victim was alone	1.07	0.90	1.27
Type of extortions
Cobro de piso	1.04	0.79	1.38
At a business	1.47***	1.18	1.83
In the streets	(Ref)
Observations	2,270

Note. CI = confidence interval; OR = odds ratio.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

When we only include extortions with multiple offenders, results from our first sensitivity analysis (Supplemental Table 1 in the Appendix) resemble those presented in Tables 2 and 3. When only examining extortions perpetrated by a single offender (Supplemental Appendix Table 2), results are slightly different than those presented in Tables 2 and 3. The likelihood of reporting extortions to the police is not statistically different across weapon types. When compared to extortions perpetrated by an unarmed offender, the likelihood of victim compliance is higher if the offender uses a firearm. However, the likelihood of victim compliance was not statistically different when compared to extortions perpetrated by an offender armed with other weapons (no firearms).

Discussion

The relationship between the proliferation of firearms and crime has been a contentious issue within the field of violence prevention. Although this discourse has primarily centered on the context of the United States, our research endeavors to extend this inquiry by investigating the Mexican case. The purpose of this study was to examine whether extortion outcomes differ significantly when perpetrators use firearms. We found that compared to victims of extortion perpetrated with firearms, victims of extortion perpetrated with other weapons and those perpetrated by unarmed offenders were significantly less likely to comply with the perpetrators’ demands and were more likely to report the extortion to the police. Overall, this suggests that firearm involvement in extortion enhances both the likelihood of success of the crime and decreases the chance of facing legal consequences.

Our first main finding suggests that firearms increase the credibility of offenders’ threats and thus make victims more likely to comply. These results align with those reported in studies examining firearms and robberies in Mexico (Heredia González, 2018), suggesting that firearms have similar dissuasive effects across crimes. Furthermore, by separating firearms from other types of weapons, our results support previous findings on extortions and weapons presented by Estévez-Soto (2021) but contribute by suggesting that weapon type matters. Because firearms have higher lethality rates than other weapons, they potentially make threats more credible than other weapons, such as knives or blunt objects (Braga et al., 2021; Weaver et al., 2004).

Our results also suggest that extortion perpetrated by unarmed offenders and those perpetrated with other weapons (not firearms) are more likely to be reported to the police than those where a firearm was involved. As illustrated in our results, victims of extortions perpetrated with a firearm report fear of reprisal as the primary reason for not reporting to police, an outcome similar to those reported in the United States. In this regard, while there are numerous reasons for not reporting crimes to the police, the use of firearms appears to be associated with specific reasons, in this case, fear of the offender and retaliation. Future studies could complement our findings by focusing on other crimes in Mexico, such as kidnappings or intimate partner violence. Our results could also be contrasted to extortions occurring in other Latin American countries such as Colombia or Brazil. Additionally, while the use of firearms is associated with not reporting extortions because of fear of a potential reprisal, many extortions (including a proportion of those perpetrated with a firearm) in Mexico are not reported because of mistrust in the police (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2022a). Policies to address these reasons should also be considered by policy makers in Mexico.

Finally, our results further suggest that the effects of firearm usage on extortion outcomes could be higher when these crimes are perpetrated by multiple offenders. Our OR focused on weapon type presented higher significance levels and were higher in magnitude when only analyzing extortions perpetrated by multiple offenders. Nonetheless, firearms appear to affect victim compliance even if extortions are perpetrated by a single offender.

The constraints of our investigation align with the typical restrictions of victimology surveys, such as recall bias or a potentially low response rate. However, it is estimated that at a maximum, the 2022 ENVIPE survey had a 15% non-response rate (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2022b), and previous versions of the survey had similar percentages. Additionally, there are limitations with self-reported data, such as misunderstanding of questions or social desirability. Nonetheless, we maintain that the ENVIPE serves as an exceptional resource for data collection in a nation where impunity rate remains exceedingly high (~93.5%), and official police records are notably deficient (Weigend Vargas & Pérez Ricart, 2021). Another limitation is that the survey does not collect information on individual or household income levels. However, we controlled for educational attainment, a proxy for income, in our models. Finally, we are not differentiating firearm types or calibers. As studies have reported that the caliber of a firearm is associated with the likelihood of death (Braga & Cook, 2018), future studies could examine differences in extortion outcomes across firearm calibers and types. Another limitation is that we are using unweighted data, which can potentially increase sampling bias.

The security predicament in Mexico goes beyond the realm of weapons, as it is rooted in systemic problems such as widespread impunity, institutionalized inequality, and a deficient judicial system. Nevertheless, it is inescapable to acknowledge the contribution of firearms to this predicament. Firearms have been a significant factor in the surge of homicide rates in Mexico; however, as this study indicates, they could be a fundamental tool for criminal diversion beyond drug trafficking. Our findings demonstrate that the utilization of firearms increases the effectiveness of criminal operations, specifically in the realm of extortion. These results reinforce the imperative to combat the illicit trade of firearms, both from the United States and other nations, and underscore the necessity of a comprehensive firearms agenda that encompasses measures to address the present accumulation of firearms in Mexico, which is estimated to be nearly 17 million (Karp, 2018).

Diversity

We acknowledge diversity issues that are not addressed in this article and should be the topic of future studies. Firearm-related violence in the United States, for example, disproportionately affects young people, black non-Hispanics, and those living in urban areas. Less is known about these disparities in countries like Mexico, an issue that must be addressed in the future. In addition, while the focus of our research was on the impact of firearms in reporting extortions to the police, we acknowledge disparities within the criminal justice system in Mexico. Our results shed some light on this issue by showing that, after controlling for covariates, victims with lower education (a proxy for income) are less likely to report extortions to the police. Future studies could focus on exploring potential explanations for why they are less likely to report extortion (or other crimes) to the police. Finally, while the ENVIPE surveys are a good source for understanding crime victimization in Mexico, potential questions about income and gender could be added to future questionnaires.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241246005 – Supplemental material for Firearms and Extortions in Mexico, 2012 to 2021

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-jiv-10.1177_08862605241246005 for Firearms and Extortions in Mexico, 2012 to 2021 by Eugenio Weigend Vargas, Carlos Pérez Ricart, Jorge Portugal and Jason E. Goldstick in Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article: Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number T32HD108054. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Statement of Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

ORCID iD

Eugenio Weigend Vargas

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Eugenio Weigend Vargas, PhD is a postdoctoral research fellow at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention. His research has focused on preventing arms trafficking and gun violence in the United States and Mexico. Dr. Weigend Vargas has provided testimonies before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as well as the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Firearms Trafficking in the Americas and has been invited to speak at conferences at Oxford University, Georgetown University, Washington University, Colegio de Mexico, and Universidad Autonoma Nacional de México. Prior to joining the University of Michigan, Dr. Weigend Vargas was the research director for gun violence prevention at the Center for American Progress, where he published numerous articles, books, reports, fact sheets, and issue briefs advocating for measures that strengthen gun laws in the United States at the state and federal levels. Dr. Weigend Vargas has been a visiting scholar at Georgetown University and the University of Texas in El Paso. He holds a master’s degree in public affairs from Brown University and a doctorate from Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey.

Carlos Pérez Ricart, PhD is an assistant professor in International Relations at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics (CIDE) in Mexico City. Prior to joining CIDE, he was between 2017 and 2020 postdoctoral fellow at the University of Oxford, where he worked at both the History Faculty and the Latin American Centre, St. Antony’s College. He holds a PhD in Political Science from the Freie Universität Berlin and has a degree in International Relations from El Colegio de México. His general research and teaching interests include the relationship between Mexico and the United States, security and organized crime, arms trafficking, drug policies, and the history of the Mexican police. His research has been published (or is forthcoming) in journals such as Global Governance, The British Journal of Criminology, The Social History of Alcohol and Drugs, Kriminologishes Journal, Foro Internacional, Historia Mexicana, Revista Colombiana de Sociología, and others. He is co-editor of the book Gun trafficking and violence: From the global network to the local security challenge (Palgrave, St. Antony’s College 2021).

Jorge Portugal, MS is a statistician/data analyst with the UM Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention. He assists in the development of research projects and provides statistical support. Mr. Portugal obtained his MS in Biostatistics with a Health Data Science concentration from the University of Michigan.

Jason E. Goldstick, PhD is the Director of Statistics and Methods in the CDC-funded University of Michigan Injury Prevention Center and a Research Associate Professor of Emergency Medicine and Health Behavior and Health Education at the University of Michigan. As a PhD-trained statistician and injury prevention researcher, Jason has extensive and varied applied expertise with analytically complex injury prevention research projects. He has been PI of several NIAAA, NIDA, and CDC grants, all related to novel analytic approaches applied to injury and violence research, and has been lead statistician on over a dozen federally funded studies, including RCTs, observational studies, and projects involving the complex spatial and longitudinal analyses. Jason’s largest ongoing projects he directs as PI are an opioid overdose surveillance system for the state of Michigan () and a prospective longitudinal study (R01CE003294) focused on applying machine learning methods to develop an optimal brief screen for future firearm violence.

References

Beittel

J. S.

(2015). Mexico: Organized crime and drug trafficking organizations. Congressional Research Service. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc743581/m1/1/high_res_d/R41576_2015Jul22.pdf

Braga

A. A.

Cook

(2018). The association of Firearm Caliber with likelihood of deaths from gunshot injury in criminal assaults. JAMA Network Open, 1(3): e180833. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0833.

Braga

A. A.

Griffiths

Sheppard

Douglas

(2021). Firearm instrumentally: Do guns make violent situations more lethal? Annual Review of Criminology, 4, 147–164.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. (2023). International firearms trace data. https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/data-statistics

Calderon

L. Y.

Heinle

Kuckertz

R. E.

Ferreira

O. R.

Shirk

D. A.

(Eds.). (2021). Organized crime and violence in Mexico, Special report 2021. Justice in Mexico, Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of San Diego. https://justiceinmexico.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/OCVM-21.pdf.

Cámara de Diputados del H. Congreso de la Unión. 2022. Ley Federal de Armas de fuego y Explosivos. https://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf_mov/Ley_Federal_de_Armas_de_Fuego_y_Explosivos.pdf.

Chicoine

L. E.

(2017). Homicides in Mexico and the expiration of the U.S. federal assault weapons ban. Journal of Economic Geography, 17(4), 825–856.

Dube

García Ponce

(2013). Cross-border spillover: U.S. gun laws and violence in Mexico. American Political Science Review, 107(3), 397–417.

Eby

J. A.

(2014). Fast and furious of slow and steady? The flow of guns from the United States to Mexico. UCLA Law Review, 61(4), 1082–1133.

10.

Estévez-Soto

P. R.

(2021). Determinants of extortion compliance: Empirical evidence from a victimization survey. British Journal of Criminology, 61(5), 1187–1205.

11.

Florquin

Hainard

Jongleux

(2020). Trade update 2020, an eye on ammunition transfers to Africa. Small Arms Survey. https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/sites/default/files/resources/SAS-Trade-Update-2020.pdf

12.

Heredia González

J. M

. (2018). Disuasión y lesiones en los delitos armados en México. Estudios Sociológicos, 36(107), 361–391.

13.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2019). Patrones y Tendencias de los Homicidios en Mexico. En Números, 1(15). https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenido/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/702825188436.pdf

14.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2022a). Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública. https://www.inegi.org.mx/programas/envipe/2022/

15.

Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía. (2022b). Encuesta Nacional de Victimización y Percepción sobre Seguridad Pública, informe operativo. https://en.www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/productos/prod_serv/contenidos/espanol/bvinegi/productos/nueva_estruc/889463907343.pdf

16.

Karp

(2018). Estimating global civilian-held firearms numbers. Small Arms Survey. https://www.smallarmssurvey.org/resource/estimating-global-civilian-held-firearms-numbers.

17.

Langton

(2012). Victimizations not reported to the police, 2006–2010. U.S. Department of Justice. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/vnrp0610.pdf.

18.

Luckenbill

(1982). Compliance under the threat of severe punishment. Social Forces, 60, 811–825.

19.

McDougal

T. L.

Shirk

D. A.

Muggah

Patterson

J. H.

(2015). The way of the gun: Estimating firearms trafficking across the US-Mexico Border. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(2), 297–327.

20.

Perez Esparza

Johnson

S. D.

Gill

. (2020). Why did Mexico become a violent country? Security Journal, 33, 179–209.

21.

Pizarro

J. M.

Zgoba

K. M.

Pelletier

K. R.

(2021). Firearm use in violent crime: examining the role of premeditation and motivation in weapon choice. Journal of Primary Prevention, 42(1), 77–91.

22.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2019). INEGI and the Center for Excellence publish a book about ENVIPE as a case for good practice. https://www.cdeunodc.inegi.org.mx/index.php/2019/08/17/inegi-and-the-center-of-excellence-publish-a-book-about-envipe-as-a-case-of-good-practice/

23.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2023). Extortion. UNODC Teaching Module Series: Organized Crime. https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/en/education/tertiary/organized-crime/module-4/key-issues/extortion.html

24.

United States Government Accountability Office. (2021). Firearms trafficking: U.S. efforts to disrupt gun smuggling into Mexico would benefit from additional data and analysis. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-322.pdf

25.

Weaver

G. S

Wittekind

J. E. C.

Huff-Corzine

Corizine

Petee

T. A.

Jarvis

J. P.

(2004). Violent encounters: A criminal event analysis of lethal and nonlethal outcomes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 20, 348–368.

26.

Weigend Vargas

Hemenway

. (2021). Emotional and physical symptoms after gun victimization in the United States, 2009–2019. Preventive Medicine, 143(1), 106374.

27.

Weigend Vargas

Perez Ricart

. (2022). Non-fatal gunshot injuries during criminal acts in Mexico, 2013–2019. Injury Prevention, 28(3), 238–242.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.04 MB