Because the US doesn't have a cartel problem so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does. I really do not know where you are trying to go with this.
Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico.
If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
> so they are not going to have the same demand Mexico does
The US has a higher demand for firearms than Mexico does - it's just local manufacturing more than meets the local demand.
> it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
They do just fine running drugs and people. I don't see why guns would be any harder.
> If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.
Gun bans at the city and state level have been found utterly ineffective at reducing violence - in large part because people run guns over the state/city border.
Why would you expect a nationwide ban to be any more effective?
It would still be easy to run guns over the border - just the border now is a national border instead of a state/city border.
Mexico has a demand for guns. US has a supply. The guns go south. US cutting its supply will not increase the demand internally to the level of Mexican cartels, and even if it did it is a stretch to think Mexican cartels can run guns as effectively in the US as they do in Mexico.
We have much more enforcement and LEO structure all around than Mexico.
If your solution is a wall at the border you have completely lost me.