There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Heavybell ,
@Heavybell@lemmy.world avatar

Maybe if they were taxed per use…

(Not a serious suggestion :P)

militaryintelligence ,

‘States rights’, right Republicans?

RememberTheApollo_ ,

I really doubt it. I mean, I’m all for realistic and effective gun control, but this isn’t it.

(and that’s not a perfection being the enemy of good statement)

uis , (edited )

Looking from country that is 4 kilometers to the west of USSA, it seems to me that such big amount of violence is caused by deep social problem, not just guns. Especially when compared to another country with relatively avaliable guns - Ukraine, where almost all violence comes from Shoigu.

It’s like watching two school students closed in one room for many years, and the only way to get food it to beat others. With society forcefully cut in half. With two right-wing parties, where “conservatives”’ agenda is destruction of most conservative institute - education, and “left” one is more right-wing than literal Union of Right Forces.

Fades ,

and that could put a dent in gun violence

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cornpop ,

Murder is already illegal lol

SirEDCaLot ,

Exactly. And that’s why this won’t do shit. The people who are committing the vast majority of those homicides and other violent crimes are not using legal firearms. They don’t go to a gun dealer and pay a tax and fill out a background check. They buy illegal guns on the street.

Those illegal guns can come from anywhere. Stolen, straw purchased in other states, or simply imported along with the equally illegal drugs that the firearm’s owner is probably selling on the street.

All this text does is punish the law abiding gun owners who are not committing crimes who do fill out background checks who do follow the law and who do pay their taxes. Those aren’t the people causing the problem.

mhague ,

Nearly all guns will have a legal upstream source, so it stands to reason that taxes can directly impact people selling guns used in crimes, indirectly impacts those who sell them under the table, extracts money from gun owners who as a class aren’t being as responsible as they should, and fundamentally reduces the amount of guns in circulation.

Dinsmore ,

So one of the most common handguns is the Glock 19, which can be found pretty easily for between $500 and $600 in any gun store. I have strong doubts that an extra $55-66 per gun is going to fundamentally reduce the amount of guns in circulation. The person who buys a single gun isn’t going to not buy the gun, and hobbyists who have a lot of disposable income won’t stop buying new stuff, but will grumble a lot.

Anyone with nefarious intentions (cartels, etc.) would just buy in Nevada, Arizona, or other states anyways, where there aren’t as many restrictions on firearms. If you ever see crime photos of people with glocks, it’s pretty common to see 30-round magazines, which have been unable to be purchased in CA for years, showing that these guns and magazines are all coming from out of state to begin with.

SirEDCaLot ,

Right, and don’t forget that guns are a lot easier to manufacture than drugs. All you need is a decent machine shop. So they could be made domestically with a night shift at a legitimate machine shop business, or made elsewhere and imported with the illegal drugs that are already being imported. The black market will provide what criminals want. Evil men will always find the tools they need to dispense their evil.

Dinsmore ,

Yeah, even 3d printed frames are even “good enough” for occasional use, especially if you buy all the other internals elsewhere, especially the slide/barrel, which are not covered at all by this tax (or by any other law in CA that I’m aware of, other than threaded barrels for pistols).

SirEDCaLot ,

Quite true. Keeping in mind everything but the serialized frame is unregulated (and probably unregulatable) accessories, that makes assembling illegal guns even easier. Just build, machine, import, jury rig, etc a frame, and buy the rest legally including all the stress parts like barrel and slide…

SirEDCaLot ,

You aren’t giving the black market enough credit. Right now most of the illegal guns start as legal ones, and are either stolen or straw purchased. That’s the case because that’s the easiest/cheapest way to get them, NOT because it’s the only way. Even if you completely cut off that supply, even if you somehow ended all civilian gun sales in the US, it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. Guns are not difficult to make. Any decent machine shop can make guns, and unlike a drug lab, that machine shop has a legitimate daytime purpose so it can operate out in the open, pay taxes, employee people, just have a ‘night shift’ that makes guns.

And even if we could somehow cut that off too, which we can’t, we illegally import billions of dollars worth of drugs every year. The government spends $30 billion a year trying to stop this, with pretty much no effect. If it’s that easy to import illegal drugs, why do you think it would be any harder to import illegal guns?

Finally, you say gun owners aren’t being responsible because their guns are being stolen. How exactly do you expect to stop somebody who breaks into your house from stealing your stuff? You can put your guns in a safe but the thief can just steal the safe because that’s a guaranteed payday.

timmymac ,

The people shooting people will not be paying these taxes. Another law that punishes law abiding citizens.

Draedron ,

No citizen should own a gun so its a good step to tax them more. Should be much higher though

Jax ,

Yeah, states like Utah, Arizona, Nevada are much too far away and will definitely stop you from buying guns and bullets in their states/ bringing them over the borders.

chiliedogg ,

Do you think people are buying pistols from guns shops and neighboring states and bringing them to California? How about rifles that are illegal in California. Are people buying those at gun shops in other states to?

Most people reading this far are probably thinking “Yes” because people don’t know shit about gun laws.

When a dealer sees an out of state license, they have to apply the laws of both the state in which the gun is being sold AND the state in which the buyer resides. When I sold guns in Texas and someone came in from New Jersey to buy a rifle, I had to do a New Jersey background check, run their Firearm Purchaser ID, etc on top of our usual process. I also had to make sure the gun I was selling them was legal in New Jersey.

Oh - and handguns can’t be transferred to an individual in another state. Period. If someone from another state wantred to buy a handgun from us, we had to ship it to a licensed dealer in their state to complete the transfer. The only exception is for federal Curio and Relic license holder buying an antique pistol that’s been unaltered (e.g. a C&R collector buying an authentic WWII German Luger).

Ammo: sure. People can buy that out of state easy enough. And I don’t see a problem with that. The person who wants 5,000 rounds of 9mm wants it because they are practicing. If people are going to own guns, they should be able to afford to train on them enough to shoot in a straight line, which is way harder than a lot of you non-gun folk seem to think.

And I’m way less-suspicious of the guy who wants 5,000 bullets than the guy who wants 5.

Jax ,

That’s weird considering I just saw a former cop sell a pistol in California that was definitely illegal to purchase. I asked them about it and apparently it’s fine to purchase it from someone who acquired it legally, as long as they were law enforcement or former law enforcement.

Also, and I can’t believe this needs to be pointed out, we’re discussing illegally smuggling weapons and ammunition. If your mentality is “but it’s not legal” then I don’t even know why we’re having this conversation. It would not be difficult at all to find someone willing to purchase a gun for you and trade cash for it. They don’t search your car at border crossings, and we haven’t even gotten into ghost guns.

chiliedogg ,

Police are able to buy modern pistols in California, so there’s a thriving straw purchase market in California of police officers buying guns just to sell them at insane markups.

Jax ,

Seems like this would just succeed in putting money in the hands of the wrong people, no matter how you shake it.

That, on top of poor people just won’t be able to defend themselves when things inevitably become worse.

Cornpop ,

That will never happen luckily, at least not in my life. Would never give up my guns. Too much fun. Founding fathers had some great foresight to first separate the church (although the fucking Christians ignore the shit out of that) and second enshrine gun rights. Would be a real shame if a bunch of pansies were able to ruin that for us.

frostysauce ,

People who don’t fetishize and hide behind guns are pansies, eh?

Cornpop ,

Don’t hide behind anything. Don’t even carry them around with me. Just love blasting steel targets at my 100 yard range in my front yard. It’s a blast. Try it sometime. Just because some stupid fucks in the city shoot each other doesn’t make it ok to ruin my good time out in the country where I’m not harming anyone.

kerrigan778 ,

Those are some kinda true things said unbelievably poorly.

Jax ,

I don’t think pansies is the right word…

scholarship.law.columbia.edu/…/1327/

This study discusses Nazi gun control. Long story short, the Nazis specifically disarmed minorities (primarily Jews) and prevented them from arming themselves legally, whilst making it easier and easier for the ‘right people’ to defend themselves.

Funny enough, this kind of law would only serve to take guns and ammunition out of the hands of the poor. Which is exactly why a stupid law like this will get passed, because it goes along with what the conservatives in California govt. want. (In other words, no common sense gun control but they won’t get in the way of something that keeps guns out of poor black people, trans people, not-rich-peoples hands).

Food for thought, I guess. Not sure why I wrote this.

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I don’t understand how anything related to firearms can be legally taxed in the USA — their taxation can certainly be viewed as an infringement on one’s right to bear arms.

jeffw OP ,

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that some reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms (banning kids from carrying, for example). Not to mention that some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment

IzzyJ ,

It’s no different than the “time and manner” restrictions placed on speech

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

It’s no different than the “time and manner” restrictions placed on speech

By “it” are you referring to taxation?

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

SCOTUS has ruled in the past that some reasonable restrictions can be placed on the right to bear arms (banning kids from carrying, for example).

I would argue that such taxation goes beyond those sorts of “reasonable restrictions”, and only serves as a blanket infringement on the rights of the entire populace, regardless of context or circumstance.

Not to mention that some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment

For the sake of clarity, would you mind elaborating on this? Which legal minds disagree, and to what extent?

jeffw OP , (edited )

Souter, most famously (edit: and most recently, not sure about earlier justices in US history) and other SCOTUS justices have dissented

Here’s a summary: www.thenation.com/article/archive/…/tnamp/

I barely skimmed it but it touches on the dissenting opinions around the second amendment.

Here’s a summary of Souter’s positions:

ontheissues.org/…/David_Souter_Gun_Control.htm

And here’s a take from a linguist:

washingtonpost.com/…/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a5…

The linguist might seem out of place here but I’ve always felt that analysis was pretty damning for SCOTUS’ take during Heller. Been a couple years since I read that article but it really stayed with me.

Sorry for all the edits… but to be clear, prior to Heller in 2008, there was no assumption that an individual had the right to arms

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Souter, most famously (edit: and most recently, not sure about earlier justices in US history) and other SCOTUS justices have dissented

Here’s a summary: www.thenation.com/article/archive/…/tnamp/

I barely skimmed it but it touches on the dissenting opinions around the second amendment.

I’ll preface this by saying that this linked article isn’t exactly about David Souter. He is only mentioned once in the article as someone who supported another’s argument in D.C. v. Heller.

Scalia treated the clause [“A well regulated militia”] as merely “prefatory”

I agree with this. Imo, this comes out of how the commas are used: “A well regulated militia” is the first item, “being necessary to the security of a free state” is parenthetical information emphasizing the importance of a well regulated militia, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” is the second item, “shall not be infringed” is stating the level of protection on both items. Do note that this is only my personal interpretation/opinion.

Stevens pointed out, the term “bear arms” was most commonly used in the 18th century to describe participation in the military.

This is an interesting point to consider, however, it is not, on its own, an argument for the original intended interpretation of the Second Amendment.

“The idea that the founders wanted to protect a right to have a Glock loaded and stored in your nightstand so you could blow away an intruder is just crazy,” says Saul Cornell

Aside from this statement being conjecture, if I deviate from the interpretation of the original intent of the Second Amendment, in my opinion, I don’t understand why this is a fundamentally negative idea. Why wouldn’t one want people to have the means to protect themselves in the event of a scenario that public law enforcement cannot?

Here’s a summary of Souter’s positions:

ontheissues.org/…/David_Souter_Gun_Control.htm

Important to note that only the last section in this link is really relevant to the original point being “some legal minds disagree on the entire intent of the 2nd amendment”. And that being said, it essentially just reiterates what was said in the first link, albeit without the surrounding opinion piece, and much more to the point (which I do appreciate).

Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion that, even with an individual-rights view, the DC handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right. The Breyer dissent concludes, “there simply is no untouchable constitutional right to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas.”

Given the wording of the second amendment (if you interpret “bear” as a person physically arming themselves, and “keep” as the general ownership of firearms) I would agree that this argument is sound.

And here’s a take from a linguist:

washingtonpost.com/…/9243ac66-5d11-11e8-b2b8-08a5…

The linguist might seem out of place here but I’ve always felt that analysis was pretty damning for SCOTUS’ take during Heller. Been a couple years since I read that article but it really stayed with me.

This was an interesting read. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is certainly a linguistic issue.

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that ‘bear arms’ had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, ‘bear arms’ was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.”

This is very interesting.

“A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

This argument is essentially conjecture — they don’t argue why it can’t be interpreted that way, they just state that it isn’t.

“In the 18th century, someone going out to hunt a deer would have thought of themselves as bearing arms? I mean, is that the way they talk?” Clement finally conceded that no, that was not the way they talked: “Well, I will grant you this, that ‘bear arms’ in its unmodified form is most naturally understood to have a military context.” Souter did not need to point out the obvious: “Bear arms” appears in its unmodified form in the Second Amendment.

This appears to be an attempt at linguistic trapping, rather than an argument. Simply because it wasn’t colloquial, doesn’t necessarily mean that it couldn’t be understood in the manner that bear arms doesn’t require one to serve in the military.

to be clear, prior to Heller in 2008, there was no assumption that an individual had the right to arms

I can’t really comment on this, as it’s conjecture. Would you have any sources that show that the consensus prior to Heller was that the Second Amendment didn’t grant individuals the right to arms? Regardless, the current supreme court decision is how the constitution is officially interpreted. What that means is that if people were of that opinion prior to Heller, Heller states that those prior opinions were unconstitutional.

jeffw OP ,

I’m confused by a lot of what you said, in particular that it’s conjecture that it’s conjecture that there was no individual right prior to Heller. That’s just case law?

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

I’m confused by a lot of what you said

Would you mind pointing out all that you are confused with?

in particular that it’s conjecture that it’s conjecture that there was no individual right prior to Heller. That’s just case law?

Would you mind citing case law? I said that it is conjecture because it was an argument without premise. You now mentioning that you are basing the argument on the premise that there is case law which supports it is in the right direction, but I would be curious to know what case law you are referencing.

jeffw OP ,

gestures to all the nonexistent case law

Kalcifer ,
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

If there’s no case law, then what makes you claim that there was no individual right prior to Heller? You can’t know what the legal standard was without precedent.

Bakkoda ,

Poll tax is illegal but watch the ID required to vote crowd lose their mind when you discuss free government IDs

IzzyJ ,

Are you serious? A tax does not prevent you from legally acquiring anything. At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage

Kalcifer , (edited )
@Kalcifer@sh.itjust.works avatar

Are you serious?

Yes.

A tax does not prevent you from legally acquiring anything.

I could be wrong on how this is defined legally, but the term “infringement” doesn’t require absolute prevention.

At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage

This is an unfavorable outcome, imo.

uis ,

At worst, it risks putting the poor at even more of a disadvantage

Works as intended

inclementimmigrant ,

I doubt it. Look at Illinois, they’ll just straw buy shit from neighboring states.

retrospectology ,
@retrospectology@lemmy.world avatar

A demonstration that the laws work, but need to be implemented at a national scale.

orcrist ,

Right. Which brings prices up. Which decreases sales.

bluewing ,

And makes it so only the wealthy can afford them. Increasing the class divide. Which would give the wealthy even more power over the average citizen than they already have. On the other hand, it should increase money for the politicians to dole out to their best buddies. It also might reduce the population a bit as this might be the last straw for some. Not that criminals care. They ain’t buying them in a store.

How about if we make it totally illegal for people who live in cites over 40,000 populations to own any type of weapon. That would seem to solve most issues with city violence. Or is there a problem there also?

Just food for thought. What is seen a good idea at first glance almost always have some kind of unexpected effects that need to be taken into account. Some of which might not be seen until much, much later.

sinedpick ,

but then how will I defend my famuhly from the 39,997 other criminals?

bluewing ,

I don’t know. But you do you.

AA5B ,

What about my second home in the mountains? I’m a poor person barely scraping by so when I drive my Bentley there, I need my full auto m-60 to hunt squirrels for dinner

bluewing ,

Don’t talk like a fool. Make a better argument than trying to be flip and condescending.

AA5B ,

duckduckgo.com/?q=i+pity+the+fool+image&t=iphone&…

orcrist ,

Class warfare is a serious issue, but I’m not seeing the huge threat that emerges from wealthy people having guns when less wealthy people don’t, because the police are already going to support the wealthy people.

If you want to talk about class warfare, let’s talk about wage theft. Let’s talk about taxing the rich. Let’s talk about universal health care. Let’s talk about inheritance tax and systemic racism. In other words, let’s talk about the big ticket items, not a $200 gun.

bluewing ,

If you intend to “Eat the Rich” and prevent wage theft, you will need more than a cardboard sign. Even Tankies understand that to defeat the rich you need more than slogans.

orcrist ,

So let me get this straight. You think that if guns are taxed more, all of those poor people in California who are getting ready to violently overthrow the state and national government will be unable to do so. I’m curious when exactly you think they are going to do this. I’m also curious why you think that if they’re going to overthrow the government, they will be incapable of looting a gun shop in order to get their weapons.

Etterra ,

I think it was Chris Rock who said something like “if you want to reduce gun violence then you gotta make bullets more expensive.” You’re gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.

Kolanaki ,
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

“Damn! He musta did something cuz he put fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!”

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something … Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’

And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.

AA5B ,

This is a great idea. The flood of illegal and stolen weapons wouldn’t be taxed but they all need ammo to do harm.

I know home made ammo exists but I find it hard to believe it would ever be more than niche

Jax ,

And what makes you think bullets wouldn’t just be added to the black market?

Fades ,

They’re naive and desperately want to do literally anything since Republican fascists are focussed on not letting actual common-sense laws move forward.

Jax ,

You’re just putting more power into their hands. It’s not like the cops aren’t fascist, and we all know what they really protect. Not to mention seems like a ton of money that will go into red states.

Jax ,

Also, can you tell me more about who is blocking common sense gun laws? I’m not saying I think you’re wrong, I just want to learn more about who I should speak out against.

Fades ,

Hey pal, let me let you in on a secret – bullets have already been getting more expensive, especially since COVID.

publination.co/cost-of-ammunition-skyrocketing-in…

Maybe a comedian doesn’t have the secret key to gun control after all…

You’re gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.

First of all, that’s simply not true. Do you have any idea how easy reloading is? You seriously think these criminals are gonna just stop shooting people because they can’t buy bullets at wallmart no more? Even with that aside, the last thing we need is giving the rich and powerful gangs a monopoly on firearms.

Common sense gun control isn’t that hard, instead of pushing things that don’t make any sense we should be pressuring the GOP fascists more.

KillingTimeItself ,

this might be an interesting solution for the really wacky shit?

Though you would need to do it on a more federal level.

arin ,

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

Telodzrum , (edited )

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 ,

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 ,

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

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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

UnpluggedFridge ,

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 ,

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 ,

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.

lud ,

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.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,
@absentbird@lemm.ee avatar

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

todd_bonzalez ,

Those are usually legal.

absentbird ,
@absentbird@lemm.ee avatar

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 ,

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.

UnderpantsWeevil ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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 ,

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 ,
@UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

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.

todd_bonzalez ,

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.

s_s ,

So fewer guns to steal = few crimes?

Sounds like extra taxes are a good idea.

arin ,

Naw just around some major cities in California

Glytch ,

How very non-specific.

Fades ,

deleted_by_moderator

    •
    Glytch ,

    Just commenting that “some major cities” is super general especially after they were talking about guns they had supposedly seen personally.

    Also is calling them “ghost guns” supposed to make them scarier? Really? “Unregistered firearms” isn’t spooky enough?

    Omgboom ,

    I’ve been saying for years this was going to be what happens, instead of common sense gun laws they are just going to tax the shit out of it. Which sucks for law abiding responsible gun owners who just want to hunt or defend themselves. This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table.

    Corkyskog ,

    I don’t get how it’s even constitutional. How are even permitting fees constitutional? I could see having the requirements exist, but I don’t see how forcing a cost can be.

    dan ,
    @dan@upvote.au avatar

    Does the constitution say that guns need to be free?

    Corkyskog ,

    I would consider it an infringement, do any other rights include a fee? The only reason some states haven’t made it prohibitively expensive is that it is more likely to go to the courts.

    Cryophilia ,

    Neither side wants to negotiate here. Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible. Both sides view compromise as a temporary step towards their ultimate goal.

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    With respect, that’s bullshit. Common sense gun reform is on the table almost monthly, after every single mass shooting pretty much… which happen with great regularity. The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans and so nothing at all is allowed to progress. From the outside looking in, a nationwide firearms ban is a bogeyman used to prevent anything happening at all.

    Cryophilia ,

    The simplest of measures is treated like a slippery slope to full bans

    Is it not a first step leading to full bans? Look at this very thread.

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    Public opinion does not equal policy, and what you’re effectively saying is that there is no negotiation possible. Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.

    Don’t pretend that it is both sides who refuse to “negotiate”, when one side views any change at all as unacceptable compromise.

    Cryophilia ,

    Moving an inch could lose you a foot, so no movement is possible.

    I mean, this is a succinct description. You’re saying it as a criticism, but it makes perfect sense.

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    Great. So everyone will just continue dying or being in fear of dying in mass shootings, regular shootings, and more. This will continue for the rest of time because one side is scared of making a positive change to the situation.

    Cryophilia ,

    Not scared, just unwilling.

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    Unwilling due to their fear. Of their donors, of their electorate, of losing control. Pick your poison.

    Cryophilia ,

    The electorate is unwilling. GOP Representatives are actually representing the wishes of their constituents on this one.

    ChaoticEntropy ,
    @ChaoticEntropy@feddit.uk avatar

    A small subset of the electorate sure, made fearful… by grifters, agenda led news, and arms manufacturers who want to sell them guns.

    Fedizen ,

    there’s already bans on military hardware sales to civilians. Explain why we should exclude bans on anti aircraft guns from slippery slope hypotheticals

    Cryophilia ,

    Bringing up bans on military hardware actually supports the slippery slope argument very strongly. You’re already thinking about bans.

    Fedizen ,

    dang you got me, I don’t want rich people to own nukes

    SeaJ ,

    No. Same as relaxing gun laws is not the first step leading to no gun laws. That logic is idiotic.

    Cryophilia ,

    Why? Lots of people are calling for bans.

    SeaJ ,

    “Lots of people” are also calling for no gun laws. Anecdotes don’t mean shit. Come back when you have some actual numbers on people wanting a full ban and let’s see how close to a majority that is.

    Cryophilia ,

    k

    stanleytweedle ,

    Democrats want bans. Republicans want as much access as possible.

    Can you elaborate? This is demonstrably false so I figured I’d give you the opportunity to explain what you meant with such a ridiculously simplistic and nonsensical statement.

    Cryophilia ,

    It’s a generalization but absolutely true. I’m not going to get drawn into a “aha! But this one Republican dude in New Hampshire supports restrictions on guns therefore you are wrong” bullshit fest.

    stanleytweedle ,

    Sounds like you think truth is just a feeling. I tend to look for collections of objective facts to garner truth but I get that your way is less challenging.

    Cryophilia ,

    If I suspected you might be actually conversing in good faith, I’d expend the effort. But I’ve seen this kind of rhetorical trap before. It’s not quite sealioning, but similar.

    stanleytweedle ,

    Yet you’ll expend the effort to explain why you won’t expend any effort to make an actual point- lol.

    I’m starting to think maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about at all ;)

    Cryophilia ,

    Big difference between saying “ha I’m not falling for that” and finding sources. The former requires little effort.

    stanleytweedle ,

    Yeah- makes it clear you’re just driven by emotion and don’t have any reasoned points to make.

    Cryophilia ,

    K

    stanleytweedle ,

    Yep- just like that.

    SeaJ ,

    Am Democrat. Do not want bans.

    I’m fine with permits after training, safe storage laws, registration, and universal background checks. We also need to do a hell of a lot better in tracking down the source of illegal guns once they are obtained. If it was registered and never reported stolen, they need to question the registered owner.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Did you know it’s already a felony to not report a stolen gun? If they track it down that far they’d be more than “questioned.”

    SeaJ ,

    In California it is, yes. That is not the case everywhere. In fact it is only the case in 11 states.

    thetrace.org/…/stolen-guns-reporting-requirements…

    I was stating my preferences for gun laws. Not sure why anyone would downvote that.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    In most states, not just CA. And even most without a “duty to report” lets call it, can and will punish you if an unreported gun is used in a crime. Besides, not reporting a criminal stole your gun a good way to get falsely imprisoned for murder which usually people don’t want to do, so even without laws requiring one to do so or not specifically enumerating punishment for not reporting if it is used in a crime, it is still seen as a generally good idea to prevent said false convictions.

    I didn’t downvote you, can’t answer for them.

    SeaJ ,

    Can you provide a source?

    ArcaneSlime ,

    You’d have to look into state laws and previous cases where a gun purchase being tied to some murder got someone convicted. I’m not going to hunt it down to prove it to you but you’re free to spend your time doing so.

    SeaJ ,

    I mean a source for most states saying there is a duty to report a stolen firearm and that there is halting for failure to report it. I was able to find a list of states where it is indeed illegal but that is only 11.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    What I’m saying is “No I do not have an article that lays out state laws succinctly, you’d have to search the actual .gov pages for the laws themselves, and as I am not your paralegal and not getting paid for my work I am declining to do it.”

    Or you could just do some thinkin’ and realize “Yeah if a gun that I did a NICs check on that got stolen shows up in a murder and I don’t have an alibi, I might be a suspect in said murder” isn’t actually that wild of a situation. If you can’t see how it could be likely though, like I said, you’re free to search yourself.

    TEC_XX ,

    Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    The source is there in the statutes laid out by the state, I’m unwilling to aggregate it for you, as I have a whole other job I’m doing that actually pays me. You are free to look em up yourself.

    TEC_XX ,

    Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    At this point I’ve spent too much time telling you I don’t have time for that, so, sorry. Deal with it.

    TEC_XX ,

    Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Know what? I think I’ll do whatever the fuck I want. Keep telling me what to do, you can’t make me lol nanny nanny boo boo.

    TEC_XX ,

    Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    No.

    TEC_XX ,

    Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Do you know any other words? You should get that duolingo app.

    TEC_XX ,

    Don’t make a claim if you aren’t willing to back it up with a source.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Shit I think I broke it.

    SeaJ ,

    So basically you made a claim that you cannot back up. It’s not my job to research claims you make.

    Your scenario makes me think you watch waaaay too many cop shows. The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low. The probability that police look into where the gun actually came from is extremely low. Otherwise straw purchasing would not be a thing which it very much is.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    The probability that a gun is used in a murder is pretty low

    Oh I thought we were talking about the US where guns are the leading weapon used in murder, my mistake.

    SeaJ ,

    Probability that a murder is done by a gun != the probability that a specific gun is used to murder someone. I hope you are not naive enough to think that every illegal gun is used to murder people.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Oh definitely not, actually if you look at the math of how many guns there are in the country VS how many are used in murders it’s basically just a rounding error. That’s actually why it makes me laugh when people demonize all gun owners like they’re all just one day away from killing. Statistically that isn’t the case. Of course nobody made that claim, so “cool” I guess.

    Still though, if they find a gun at the scene with a serial number and NICs says that Steve’s Pawn sold it and Steve’s Pawn’s paperwork says it was sold to Joe Smith, Joe better have a good alibi in most states or else he may find himself in court defending his innocence because “It was stolen and I never reported it” is a very shaky pretense for a defense, the DA could believe you, but it’s unlikely.

    Or not, whatever, believe what you wish idgaf. I wouldn’t take “oh I live in X state so I don’t legally have to report stolen guns” to be a good idea myself but you’re free to make your own decisions regarding your stolen guns I guess. Personally I’d report it anyway to avoid future questions and hopefully recover my stolen property, but that’s just me, obviously you disagree since you’re so dead set against me on that.

    Oh, unless of course you mean in cases where the gun isn’t found, in which case all this is moot because without the gun there’s no serial number to tie it to anyone anyway, it may as well be unreported. Of course they have to have the gun. Not sure why you are going on a tangent about “not all illegal guns are used to murder people,” because typically ones found at murder scenes were, and if it is tied to a NICs check you did and you haven’t reported it stolen, know what? Just come on back here and let us know how it went for ya.

    uis ,

    I’m fine with permits after training

    Does it include half of Russia? Because if you have wrong chromosome, you will be trained with weapons even if you actively avoid it.

    they need to question the registered owner.

    Also what to do if owner is too dead for this?

    orcrist ,

    There are not two sides here. Try ten, or twenty, or some large number.

    uis ,

    We are not talking about sane world.

    Telodzrum ,

    The constitutionality of this tax will come down to how the Roberts Court wants to interpret and apply the 200-year old concept first issued in an opinion during the Marshall Court – the power to tax is the power to destroy. The government cannot use its authority to levy taxes in a manner which significantly encroaches on the exercise of an enumerated right. I like CA’s idea here, but it’s all going to come down to implementation.

    Fedizen ,

    “As a giant chicken with a southern accent wearing a judges robe, this here tax is unconstitutional on the grounds of me not liking it.” -The Roberts court, most likely

    Telodzrum ,

    In my heart I genuinely wish that I could argue to the contrary, reality is just dashing my dreams term over term.

    AngryCommieKender ,

    Foghorn Leghorn had more integrity and righteousness than the justices on the current SCOTUS

    samus12345 ,
    @samus12345@lemmy.world avatar

    https://i.redd.it/7nt5z4lmje431.jpg

    HEXN3T ,
    @HEXN3T@lemmy.blahaj.zone avatar

    There’s also this crazy thing called an illegal market which circumvents tax entirely

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Tbf, define “refuses.” Suppressors, SBS, SBR, 1932; Background Checks, 1968; Full auto ban, 1986; AWB, 1994-2004, expired, little to no measurable impact on crime.

    And yet they push and push to get the AWB back despite the fact that those guns make up less than .01% of our gun deaths, why would I think that rounding down that .01% would be “enough” and they wouldn’t then progress to handguns which are demonstrably the highest contributing type of arms? Frankly there has been those compromises in the past and yet they continue to push already, it wouldn’t make sense for them to stop pushing for the 99.99% once they get the .01%, they just know the “well handguns for protection I understand but those assault weapons are automagical murder machines” crowd won’t go for it yet.

    Wogi ,

    National firearm registry. Have all the guns you want, but be accountable for them.

    ArcaneSlime ,

    Ehhh no thanks. States like NY and CA which publish a “steal guns from me” list with your name and address are not exactly privacy friendly. I mean, “what if the database got hacked,” but also what if CA and NY just publish them as public knowledge without the need to “hack,” because they do. Furthermore, there’s already 600,000,000 unregistered firearms in ~50% of the populations hands most of whom refuse to register, it’s not even effective enough to make a difference. And with that whole AWB thing, they can’t really take them all right now, but with a registry they could, and that’s why they push for it so hard. Those of us who see this writing on the wall are hesitant to give them the power they seek.

    DAMunzy ,

    And sucks even more for POC because statistically they don’t have the monetary means that white people do. So higher taxes mean less legal guns for POC… Oh, wait, the law is working the way it’s intended.

    lud ,

    Sure, but you say that guns are a human right like housing or food.

    No one needs a gun.

    DAMunzy ,

    De facto is a right in the USA by the 2A. Try again. I didn’t say it was the equivalent of food but it is a right.

    lud ,

    But it’s not an important “right” in the slightest.

    DAMunzy ,

    You can have that opinion. I respect it but don’t agree. I think the five human necessities (Food, water, clothing, sleep, and shelter) should be human rights over guns but that’s not what is actually the law.

    lightnsfw ,

    reviewjournal.com/…/las-vegas-woman-shoots-man-af…

    lud ,

    How often do people really defend themselves with lethal force?

    Are your criminals weird or something? Do they shoot people at every opportunity?

    No, defending property doesn’t justify lethal force.

    Omgboom ,

    I live on a farm, an hour from town. The sheriff response time is about 45 minutes usually. Meth heads roam around looking for stuff to steal. There’s also wild dogs, Coyotes, and also wild pigs that will kill you given the opportunity. I truly hope that I’m never in a position where I have to take a human life. But having a gun is a necessity out here, even if you only have to fire a warning shot to get the crackheads to scatter. I also hunt, not even just for sport, game meat is a not inconsequential portion of our food supply. Wild pigs are a very real concern, they will gore you before you can even blink, and they can run at close to 40 MPH.

    lud ,

    I absolutely get hunting rifles we have a lot of them here and as far as I know they are rarely used or crime.

    AA5B ,

    Maybe don’t let those wild pigs in when they ring your doorbell? Even if they huff and puff

    dan ,
    @dan@upvote.au avatar

    Even if they huff and puff

    Be careful - there’s a correlation between huffing, puffing, and houses being blown down.

    CoCo_Goldstein ,

    This is what happens when one side refuses to come to the negotiating table

    Say for the sake of argument, I am President of the NRA and I can persuade my members to agree with whatever comes out of negotiations and you are on the other side, seeking a ‘reasonable compromise’ on gun ownership and some ‘common sense’ gun control legislation.

    What are you willing to compromise on? What are you willing to give up??

    sirico ,
    @sirico@feddit.uk avatar

    Criminals love paying taxes

    Sir_Kevin ,
    @Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

    That’s just going to make it harder for people that follow laws.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •