482
submitted 1 month ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] arin@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

Pretty sure the guns i see the criminals use aren't even legal. Crazy extended mags

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 34 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is the fundamental problem with gun regulation at the state level -- they can be effectively abrogated by neighboring states with more lax regulation. FiveThirtyEight did a piece on this a while ago. In that article they show how strict gun laws in Illinois, California, and Maryland are defeated by guns flowing in from the surrounding states with more lax laws. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with guns which are illegally possessed, but were initially obtained through legal means.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

That's why Mexico is suing Arizona, and maybe Texas? Cali has strict gun laws so the cartels can't get guns here. They have no issues getting guns in AZ and TX

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Yeah, that's basically the legal theory of the suits. It's pretty novel and there are a lot of issues with it.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Big part of the modern drug trade is fueled by arms sales passing South as collateral.

US arms exports are paid for with Latin American drug money. And those arms help gangs engage in the human trafficking they need to produce recreational narcotics and amphetamines at industrial scale.

[-] jnk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?

I mean it makes sense, but doesn't certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much? Are they using their brains at all?

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?

More describing the economic incentives of the opposition.

I mean it makes sense, but doesn’t certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much?

On paper, sure. But in practice the folks profiting from the exchange can just blame the drugs and the crime on stupid weak leftists in government to deflect blame from the arms trafficking.

Are they using their brains at all?

Garbage in, garbage out. If all your information comes from gun-sponsored sources, you'll end up with gun-sponsored views.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

You can’t even argue that Mexican Cartel members have a constitutional right to bear arms.

[-] UnpluggedFridge@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Even though the law can be circumvented, it nonetheless provides resistance. Traveling to another state, filling out paperwork, paying extra money, etc all provide additional obstacles to overcome. If someone was having an acute mental problem and felt compelled to eat a barrel, a simple few hours delay in acquiring a gun can make all the difference. For someone planning on using a gun for criminal activity, at some point they might just consider employment as an easier alternative if acquiring a gun is too much of a pain.

We have already seen this effect in reverse with regard to immigration. Legal immigration is such a painful crapshoot that people are willing to surrender their fate to cartels as an alternative.

[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

That's great and all, but the data are in the article. Your hypotheticals don't do much to change the numbers of guns flowing in from other states. If your argument is that the counterfactual would be even more gun crime, you're welcome to make it; it's just a really weak argument to lean into.

[-] CaptainHowdy@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago

Wait.... You're telling me that they continue to do crimes with guns even when the guns are illegal? Criminals? Really? I refuse to believe it.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

the guns i see the criminals use

Are you running up to folks during a bank robbery and asking them for receipts?

Or is this, like, guns you saw criminals use in a cartoon show?

[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I assume they mean the ones they show on the news after a mass shooting.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee -2 points 1 month ago
[-] absentbird@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I assume they're more likely to show pictures of the weapon when the gun isn't legal or has unusual features. I hadn't even seen a bump stock before that shooting in Navada made them big news.

[-] refalo@programming.dev 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools stole guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice

Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes, there are many reports and statistics to back this up. If you need some hard data I'll be happy to provide or you could do a quick web search as well.

[-] todd_bonzalez@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

How is this relevant at all? If the tax slows the sale of guns, then there will be fewer guns in the future compared to the projected numbers without a tax.

Fewer guns = less gun violence. This is a well understood dynamic.

I'm really fucking tired of people like you arguing against harm reduction just because it doesn't go far enough to actually solve the gun crisis. We never take a step forward because of this attitude.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes

You're leaning hard on the term "stolen" to describe a teenager using a parent's firearm, particularly when the teen already has regular access to the weapon for target practice.

Similarly, guns that have been anonymized after purchase aren't something you can regulate against.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

Sure, that’s one of the missing links: owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences. Either it was an actual theft and the kid faces legal consequences for that too or it was careless behavior on the owner and they face partial consequences for the deaths and devastation

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences

We played this game with Beto O'Rourke. He tanked his electoral prospects by suggesting he'd enforce gun laws like any other governor would enforce drug laws.

Between the Sandy Hook style conspiracy theories and the NRA hysteria, the onus is never on the gun owners. It's always on the victims to not get shot.

[-] s_s@lemmy.one -1 points 1 month ago

So fewer guns to steal = few crimes?

Sounds like extra taxes are a good idea.

[-] arin@lemmy.world -3 points 1 month ago

Naw just around some major cities in California

[-] Glytch@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago
[-] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 1 month ago

The point of most gun control is to reduce the amount of guns not necessarily remove them all.

Of course at least some criminals will always have guns but lots of deaths could be prevented by just reducing the amount of people with illegal or legal guns.

It's also much more likely for a potential criminal to become a criminal with a gun if it's really easy to get guns, especially if they or someone they know (like parents) already own one.

this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
482 points (93.5% liked)

News

21752 readers
3361 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS