12 ms·

Guns are most needed in African American neighborhoods. Banning them will criminalize more African Americans who need guns for their protection. If you can't pr

Guns are most needed in African American neighborhoods. Banning them will criminalize more African Americans who need guns for their protection. If you can't provide quality public safety services, at least keep self defense legal.

AlexanderDhoore 6y ago
Only because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal.
- corban1 6y ago
  And you think criminals have guns because they are legal?
  - altcognito 6y ago
    By in large in countries with well functioning governments, guns are kept off the streets.
    - TrispusAttucks 6y ago
      Okay. Tell that to Myanmar's unarmed citizens. The government there has reduced the civilian owned guns by over half in the preceding decade. [1] Is Myanmar and example of well functioning? [1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar
      - altcognito 6y ago
        I'm not sure what you think I was saying. All I said was that it is possible to enforce gun laws if the government is well-functioning, which was probably an overstatement. All I'm trying to say is that if the government is serious about gun control and has control of it's law enforcement (which was a proxy for 'well-functioning', outlaws will not have them) There are a number of countries that have laws on the books, but does a terrible job of enforcing those rules. All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the laws should exist or not. For my needs, Myanmar isn't a country worth discussing in terms of gun control because it's not like the citizenry has a voice in drafting policy and owning small arms has been a way of life there for decades, and does it seem to have resolved their issues with "representation"?
      - notahacker 6y ago
        Your stat shows that (i) Myanmar's citizens were not unarmed and (ii) privately owned firearms were more widespread in 2007 when the country had been under the control of an autocratic military junta for decades than in 2017 when it appeared to be transitioning to semi-democracy. Myanmar is certainly not well functioning, but it is also certainly not an example of effective gun controls, or an example of widespread private firearm ownership preventing autocratic regimes from doing what they like.
  - syops 6y ago
    In countries where gun ownership is hard to obtain legally criminals have much lower rates of gun ownership. Banning legal gun ownership does not prevent all criminals from accessing guns but it does prevent most of them from accessing guns. Importantly it prevents for the most part gun involvement in crimes of passion.
    - est31 6y ago
      Even if the USA banned gun ownership, which would require a constitutional amendment and given views on the issue by majorities of the populations of some states, would thus be quite impossible, even then there would be the practical issue of enforcing that ban. Immediately after the ban, there would still be gazillions of guns floating around the US. It would take multiple decades after the ban until the positive effects can be felt. During this time, the criminals would absolutely still have guns while the law abiding citizens would not. Furthermore, there are huge smuggling activities at the US's southern border, making it possible for guns to enter on that route. Maybe if a strong border wall is built, it can be pulled off somehow. Also don't forget that there are wild animals in many parts of the US, like say in Alaska. Sometimes you need to have a gun.
      - syops 6y ago
        This is a different argument than the one I responded to. I gather then that you agree with me that the point I responded to is invalid.
        est31 6y ago
        My point was that it takes decades until the point you responded to becomes invalid. Even if Biden banned all guns tomorrow, it's likely that criminals will keep having guns during the life span of everybody alive today.
        Ancapistani 6y ago
        Further, if guns were banned tomorrow, there are a significant number of people who would instantly become criminals. It feels like many who advocate banning guns severely underestimate the importance of the issue to the other side.
- cpursley 6y ago
  Since when have criminals been able to legally purchase firearms?
  - judge2020 6y ago
    The ones never caught don’t have issues with background checks.
  - iamben 6y ago
    It's a lot easier to get something illegally when it's legally available and ubiquitous.
  - OminousWeapons 6y ago
    What happens is you get people without records making straw purchases from legal sellers. These people turn around and sell them to criminals.
    - _-david-_ 6y ago
      Legal sellers have to do background checks.
      - OminousWeapons 6y ago
        Correct, the initial transaction is from a legal dealer or private seller to a legal buyer who will pass a background check. The legal buyer then turns around and illegally sells it to someone who cannot legally own a firearm. This is called a straw purchase.
- r3trohack3r 6y ago
  Counterpoint: prohibition on marijuana, cocaine, opium, etc. Yet they’re prolific.
  - syops 6y ago
    It’s easy to grow marijuana, for instance. I can do it. I can not manufacture a gun easily. In countries where legal gun ownership is hard to obtain they have much lower rates of crimes involving guns while at the same time having ready access to illegal drugs. Your counterpoint is not apt.
    - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
      It's as easy to smuggle guns into the US as it is to smuggle in drugs that aren't grown there. It's also pretty easy to manufacture them. I suspect the latter is just your perception from never having tried.
      - syops 6y ago
        I don’t know much about gun smuggling. Do you have sources or experience in this area to know that gun smuggling is as easy as drug smuggling? My impression, not based on experience, is that gun smuggling can’t occur at near the level that drug smuggling does. For one it’s far easier to track the manufacturing of guns as the location of factories is well known and public knowledge. Is it your contention that any old fool like myself can produce useful guns (ones that don’t explode when I shoot it) and ammunition? Does this ability scale the same way that growing marijuana does?
        carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        You might know where the factories are, but what does that matter if manufacturing guns isn't illegal in those places? At present, guns are smuggled _out_ of the US quite effectively [1] As for whether it's easy to produce a working gun: well, generally you can purchase the component parts of a gun on some continuum between raw materials and final product. The exact point on the continuum that you make your purchase depending on your risk level and how restrictive gun component laws are where you live. After that it's a case of following schematics and a little machining skill. However, it seems unlikely that individual criminals would manufacture their own guns, in the same way that drug users don't typically manufacture their own drugs. It would require investment into machinery and minor expertise, but the barrier to entry is low enough that suppliers shouldn't have much problem stepping in to meet demand. I would assume that the US has the highest prevalence of gunsmithing expertise of almost any nation at this point. Those skills won't vanish overnight. If you're really interested in making a home made gun, without involving a supplier, there are already ways to do that [2]. It seems unlikely a ban on 3D printing or other machinery and raw materials would work out. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed
- whoooooo123 6y ago
  You've obviously never spent time in Brazil, where all criminals have guns, but guns are illegal.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    Brazil is bad example, they have much more serious social problems. Compare with any European country and you will see that gun control works. Of course, there will always be criminals who will acquire illegal guns, but overall it’s much harder to get a gun. If your standard is 100% efficiency, you could make everything legal including murder, because making murder illegal doesn’t avoid it by 100%.
    - ceilingcorner 6y ago
      I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
      - pintxo 6y ago
        This might be because we are still waiting for a conclusive argument how wide-spread gun ownership would have prevented WW2. Hint: Hitler was legally voted into power. It's not that the Nazis had guns and the rest of the country was in fear to oppose them.
        ceilingcorner 6y ago
        That's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented. During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact. Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
- rubyist5eva 6y ago
  I live in Canada, we have very strict laws about who can get and how to get guns. 80% of gun crime is committed by people that don’t have a license, and got them from unauthorized places. Making something illegal doesn’t make it go away, just creates a black market. Criminals also don’t give a hoot about laws, by definition.
  - syops 6y ago
    The relevant statistic is not the one you mentioned. One expects the outcome you cited. What is the frequency of gun involvement in crime in Canada vs. the United States? That’s the relevant comparison.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    Make murder legal then because the law to make it illegal doesn’t keep it from happen 100% of the cases.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  Only because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal. There were many stories during the "firey but mostly peaceful" demonstrations last year of people who were ordinarily liberals trying to buy guns for personal and home defence and discovering to their horror that that actually there is a background check and a waiting period, you can't just buy one on a whim. Nor can a friend legally just lend you one.
wongarsu 6y ago
The solution should be better police (probably a major police reform), not more guns. You don't solve public safety by arming everyone.
- milkshakes 6y ago
  yes and the solution to homelessness is to build more homes. somehow we have neither and the horizon is bleak
  - wongarsu 6y ago
    The solution to homelessness is free mental health services, better safety nets (easy to get, unconditional unemployment benefits) and a public health system that doesn't bankrupt people. In the bay area "there are no homes" is a real problem, but the systematic reasons for homelessness are even more important to solve.
  - LorenPechtel 6y ago
    Homelessness is generally not caused by a lack of homes. Providing homes works well for those who are homeless for economic reasons. It works very poorly for those who are homeless for reasons of drugs/alcohol or mental illness.
    - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
      It's worse for them than not having housing at all? I find that hard to believe.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      If you give the homeless homes they aren't homeless anymore, they are merely drug addicts at that point.
      - LorenPechtel 6y ago
        Except they're likely to sell anything detachable to get money for their addiction and they're likely to wreck the place anyway.
throw0101a 6y ago
Reducing poverty would also reduce crime, and have other positive effects. A better welfare state, especially with regards to infant/child care and early childhood education, is probably a better ROI.

AlexanderDhoore 6y ago

Only because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal.

corban1 6y ago
And you think criminals have guns because they are legal?
- altcognito 6y ago
  By in large in countries with well functioning governments, guns are kept off the streets.
  - TrispusAttucks 6y ago
    Okay. Tell that to Myanmar's unarmed citizens. The government there has reduced the civilian owned guns by over half in the preceding decade. [1] Is Myanmar and example of well functioning? [1] https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/myanmar
    - altcognito 6y ago
      I'm not sure what you think I was saying. All I said was that it is possible to enforce gun laws if the government is well-functioning, which was probably an overstatement. All I'm trying to say is that if the government is serious about gun control and has control of it's law enforcement (which was a proxy for 'well-functioning', outlaws will not have them) There are a number of countries that have laws on the books, but does a terrible job of enforcing those rules. All of this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether the laws should exist or not. For my needs, Myanmar isn't a country worth discussing in terms of gun control because it's not like the citizenry has a voice in drafting policy and owning small arms has been a way of life there for decades, and does it seem to have resolved their issues with "representation"?
    - notahacker 6y ago
      Your stat shows that (i) Myanmar's citizens were not unarmed and (ii) privately owned firearms were more widespread in 2007 when the country had been under the control of an autocratic military junta for decades than in 2017 when it appeared to be transitioning to semi-democracy. Myanmar is certainly not well functioning, but it is also certainly not an example of effective gun controls, or an example of widespread private firearm ownership preventing autocratic regimes from doing what they like.
- syops 6y ago
  In countries where gun ownership is hard to obtain legally criminals have much lower rates of gun ownership. Banning legal gun ownership does not prevent all criminals from accessing guns but it does prevent most of them from accessing guns. Importantly it prevents for the most part gun involvement in crimes of passion.
  - est31 6y ago
    Even if the USA banned gun ownership, which would require a constitutional amendment and given views on the issue by majorities of the populations of some states, would thus be quite impossible, even then there would be the practical issue of enforcing that ban. Immediately after the ban, there would still be gazillions of guns floating around the US. It would take multiple decades after the ban until the positive effects can be felt. During this time, the criminals would absolutely still have guns while the law abiding citizens would not. Furthermore, there are huge smuggling activities at the US's southern border, making it possible for guns to enter on that route. Maybe if a strong border wall is built, it can be pulled off somehow. Also don't forget that there are wild animals in many parts of the US, like say in Alaska. Sometimes you need to have a gun.
    - syops 6y ago
      This is a different argument than the one I responded to. I gather then that you agree with me that the point I responded to is invalid.
      - est31 6y ago
        My point was that it takes decades until the point you responded to becomes invalid. Even if Biden banned all guns tomorrow, it's likely that criminals will keep having guns during the life span of everybody alive today.
        Ancapistani 6y ago
        Further, if guns were banned tomorrow, there are a significant number of people who would instantly become criminals. It feels like many who advocate banning guns severely underestimate the importance of the issue to the other side.
cpursley 6y ago
Since when have criminals been able to legally purchase firearms?
- judge2020 6y ago
  The ones never caught don’t have issues with background checks.
- iamben 6y ago
  It's a lot easier to get something illegally when it's legally available and ubiquitous.
- OminousWeapons 6y ago
  What happens is you get people without records making straw purchases from legal sellers. These people turn around and sell them to criminals.
  - _-david-_ 6y ago
    Legal sellers have to do background checks.
    - OminousWeapons 6y ago
      Correct, the initial transaction is from a legal dealer or private seller to a legal buyer who will pass a background check. The legal buyer then turns around and illegally sells it to someone who cannot legally own a firearm. This is called a straw purchase.
r3trohack3r 6y ago
Counterpoint: prohibition on marijuana, cocaine, opium, etc. Yet they’re prolific.
- syops 6y ago
  It’s easy to grow marijuana, for instance. I can do it. I can not manufacture a gun easily. In countries where legal gun ownership is hard to obtain they have much lower rates of crimes involving guns while at the same time having ready access to illegal drugs. Your counterpoint is not apt.
  - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
    It's as easy to smuggle guns into the US as it is to smuggle in drugs that aren't grown there. It's also pretty easy to manufacture them. I suspect the latter is just your perception from never having tried.
    - syops 6y ago
      I don’t know much about gun smuggling. Do you have sources or experience in this area to know that gun smuggling is as easy as drug smuggling? My impression, not based on experience, is that gun smuggling can’t occur at near the level that drug smuggling does. For one it’s far easier to track the manufacturing of guns as the location of factories is well known and public knowledge. Is it your contention that any old fool like myself can produce useful guns (ones that don’t explode when I shoot it) and ammunition? Does this ability scale the same way that growing marijuana does?
      - carmen_sandiego 6y ago
        You might know where the factories are, but what does that matter if manufacturing guns isn't illegal in those places? At present, guns are smuggled _out_ of the US quite effectively [1] As for whether it's easy to produce a working gun: well, generally you can purchase the component parts of a gun on some continuum between raw materials and final product. The exact point on the continuum that you make your purchase depending on your risk level and how restrictive gun component laws are where you live. After that it's a case of following schematics and a little machining skill. However, it seems unlikely that individual criminals would manufacture their own guns, in the same way that drug users don't typically manufacture their own drugs. It would require investment into machinery and minor expertise, but the barrier to entry is low enough that suppliers shouldn't have much problem stepping in to meet demand. I would assume that the US has the highest prevalence of gunsmithing expertise of almost any nation at this point. Those skills won't vanish overnight. If you're really interested in making a home made gun, without involving a supplier, there are already ways to do that [2]. It seems unlikely a ban on 3D printing or other machinery and raw materials would work out. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-the-u-s-to-mexico-is-getting-lost-in-the-border-debate https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-flow-of-guns-from-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Distributed
whoooooo123 6y ago
You've obviously never spent time in Brazil, where all criminals have guns, but guns are illegal.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Brazil is bad example, they have much more serious social problems. Compare with any European country and you will see that gun control works. Of course, there will always be criminals who will acquire illegal guns, but overall it’s much harder to get a gun. If your standard is 100% efficiency, you could make everything legal including murder, because making murder illegal doesn’t avoid it by 100%.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    I always find it odd how Europe is used as an example of gun control success. Especially when it comes to the issue of oppressive governments. World War 2 happened less than a century ago. During Weimar and the 1930s, pretty strict gun laws were put in place.
    - pintxo 6y ago
      This might be because we are still waiting for a conclusive argument how wide-spread gun ownership would have prevented WW2. Hint: Hitler was legally voted into power. It's not that the Nazis had guns and the rest of the country was in fear to oppose them.
      - ceilingcorner 6y ago
        That's a counterfactual argument. It is by definition unprovable. I said that Europe shouldn't be considered a gun control success, not that if there were guns, WW2 would have been prevented. During the Weimar era and the Nazi era, gun control laws were put into place. That is a historical fact. Also, hint: saying that Hitler was voted into power as if it were an average democratic vote deeply misunderstands the situation. I suggest reading more about the era, specifically Ian Kershaw's book.
rubyist5eva 6y ago
I live in Canada, we have very strict laws about who can get and how to get guns. 80% of gun crime is committed by people that don’t have a license, and got them from unauthorized places. Making something illegal doesn’t make it go away, just creates a black market. Criminals also don’t give a hoot about laws, by definition.
- syops 6y ago
  The relevant statistic is not the one you mentioned. One expects the outcome you cited. What is the frequency of gun involvement in crime in Canada vs. the United States? That’s the relevant comparison.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Make murder legal then because the law to make it illegal doesn’t keep it from happen 100% of the cases.
goatinaboat 6y ago
Only because all criminals have guns. Because guess what. Guns are legal. There were many stories during the "firey but mostly peaceful" demonstrations last year of people who were ordinarily liberals trying to buy guns for personal and home defence and discovering to their horror that that actually there is a background check and a waiting period, you can't just buy one on a whim. Nor can a friend legally just lend you one.

wongarsu 6y ago

The solution should be better police (probably a major police reform), not more guns. You don't solve public safety by arming everyone.

milkshakes 6y ago
yes and the solution to homelessness is to build more homes. somehow we have neither and the horizon is bleak
- wongarsu 6y ago
  The solution to homelessness is free mental health services, better safety nets (easy to get, unconditional unemployment benefits) and a public health system that doesn't bankrupt people. In the bay area "there are no homes" is a real problem, but the systematic reasons for homelessness are even more important to solve.
- LorenPechtel 6y ago
  Homelessness is generally not caused by a lack of homes. Providing homes works well for those who are homeless for economic reasons. It works very poorly for those who are homeless for reasons of drugs/alcohol or mental illness.
  - 8fGTBjZxBcHq 6y ago
    It's worse for them than not having housing at all? I find that hard to believe.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    If you give the homeless homes they aren't homeless anymore, they are merely drug addicts at that point.
    - LorenPechtel 6y ago
      Except they're likely to sell anything detachable to get money for their addiction and they're likely to wreck the place anyway.

throw0101a 6y ago

Reducing poverty would also reduce crime, and have other positive effects. A better welfare state, especially with regards to infant/child care and early childhood education, is probably a better ROI.