|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 21 2018 13:49 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 06:03 sCuMBaG wrote:On May 21 2018 05:53 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no.
Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me. Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement. Gun registry works in almost every country in the world. Your arguments ultimately only amount to 'it would be a real inconvenience to me...' That's crap. You guys have start limiting as well as tracking gunsales. Especially those gunshow and private sales you mention are just so dangerous. It always irks me so much to hear Americans talk about their 'constitutional right... after some nutter killed a bunch of kids. Nah. What's truly bewildering is that whenever a shooting happens, the gun control says how about we do something, and offers up some opinions. Gun ownership says no ooooo ALL THOSE OPTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR INCONVENIENT, but of course offer very little of their own solutions to a problem they are creating. Nothing happens. A few months down the road another shooting occurs.
Gun registry could be unconstitutional. There's already a supreme court ruling that could make things difficult for a national gun registry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States
Denying someone their constitutional right because they are a suspected person is stupid. What if I said you were a suspected terrorist (despite your status as a U.S. citizen) and I suddenly detain your right to an attorney, your 5th amendment rights, freedom of speech, etc. It leads to a slippery slope that no one wants to go down.
The Republican party has actually tried to pass somewhat reasonable bills before, the democrats voted them down because they said "they weren't doing enough" aka They weren't banning firearms outright.
|
On May 21 2018 13:49 levelping wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 06:03 sCuMBaG wrote:On May 21 2018 05:53 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:51 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:34 superstartran wrote:On May 21 2018 05:20 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 05:08 Sermokala wrote:On May 21 2018 04:40 Nebuchad wrote:On May 21 2018 04:32 Wegandi wrote:On May 21 2018 04:24 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
First we're going to acknowledge that you answered a demonstrably true statement of fact with "no" and followed it up with a development that doesn't justify the no.
Then we're going to play a 2018 game: who do you think wins, the united corporations of gun manufacturers pouring money into politics so that they can keep selling as many guns to as many people as possible, or one leftist boi who can write the legislation that you like? Lol this fantasy. You talk about facts, but where are your numbers? I'll give you some. The NRA donated 834,000$ in the 2016 election cycle to politicians. (http://www.businessinsider.com/nra-political-contributions-congressional-candidates-house-senate-2018-2) Holy shit, if all it takes is donating less than a million dollars to get what you want, let's start a GoFundMe. The fact is, that it's not corporations and lobbyists, it's that many Americans have vastly different values and attitudes towards this topic than you want to admit. It's easy to blame the nebulous "corporation and lobbying!" as the "left" is wont to do, but it's just a fantasy. You can't admit to the reality that you could be wrong, or that a majority of the population are evil in your eyes. That would make you the outlier and we really can't be having that can we. After-all, how do you square democracy uber alles and your calls to ignore what the majority wants. You refuse to acknowledge that reality so the boogeyman corporation at the heart of every action against your set of values is easy to trout out. 90% of Americans support universal background checks for gun purchases. For example here: http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/oct/03/chris-abele/do-90-americans-support-background-checks-all-gun-/Notice in that Politifact: In 2015, we rated as True a claim that polling showed nearly 74 percent of National Rifle Association members support requiring background checks for all gun sales. I have a hard time reconciling such large majorities with the notion that I'm misreading the american people and that they do, in fact, love complete inaction that favors gun manufacturers when it comes to gun control. But I'm sure you have the reality check that I require. You're mistaking the support for the ends without the support for the means. People don't want a national gun registry and they don't want the government tracking every gun purchase. This is further worse when you consider what a "background check" would actually mean as a mental health disqualify would run the gambit of peoples medical privacy to clerks deciding who gets and who doesn't get their constitutional rights in the case of the no fly list. Meat would taste better if we made a small incision in their throat and let the blood slowly leach out of their body instead of killing them first. Good luck getting that supported by people. Is there a way to do universal background checks without the government tracking every gun purchase? I don't really see it, and if there isn't, I don't see how you can answer yes in that poll and still be against that happening. You can support certain forms of checks while being in disagreement with how it's done. If there's a very big difference between the end and the means, sure. Here we're talking about being in favor of the government doing checks every time there's a gun purchase, while not in favor of the government being aware of every gun purchase. That doesn't really make sense to me. Example : How would you expect for the government to keep track of things like gunshow sales and private sales? It's alot more complicated then you think. You could in theory force everyone to register guns, but then you run into a whole process where you'd need to create an entire new agency (or move this responsibility to say the highly understaffed police that the democrats love to shit on all the time) to take responsibility for registering and enforcement. Gun registry works in almost every country in the world. Your arguments ultimately only amount to 'it would be a real inconvenience to me...' That's crap. You guys have start limiting as well as tracking gunsales. Especially those gunshow and private sales you mention are just so dangerous. It always irks me so much to hear Americans talk about their 'constitutional right... after some nutter killed a bunch of kids. Nah. What's truly bewildering is that whenever a shooting happens, the gun control says how about we do something, and offers up some opinions. Gun ownership says no ooooo ALL THOSE OPTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR INCONVENIENT, but of course offer very little of their own solutions to a problem they are creating. Nothing happens. A few months down the road another shooting occurs.
That's one of those things about different perspectives. From your view, people in favor of gun control propose action in their direction and offers opinions. From my view, people more concerned with gun rights also offer their opinion and some caution on just "do something, anything" motives. As the saying goes, the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
In your view, the anger is on the side of gun owners. UNCONSTITUTIONAL OR INCONVENIENT. From my view, the anger is mixed, and those from gun control include YOUR RIGHTS DON'T DESERVE CONSIDERATION and ONLY GUN CONTROL COUNTS AS SOLUTIONS. From my view, your perspective is also flawed when you observe that this is "a problem they are creating." Pardon me, but past ineffective gun control included actions that didn't fix anything and just makes things harder for lawful owners, and I've seen very little ownership of past mistakes in law (or current law badly administered). I'm very sympathetic to your point of view and why you think the way you do because I have lots of friends that think the same way. I think the blame and solutions to even the poisonous grounds of debate is way more shared.
|
People can 3D print a gun if they want to. (Or soon)
We need something like strong penalties for having one. Or maybe we have to reconstruct our education system
|
On May 21 2018 14:45 ragnasaur wrote:
People can 3D print a gun if they want to. (Or soon)
We need something like strong penalties for having one. Or maybe we have to reconstruct our education system
Reconstruct our education system how?
|
Northern Ireland22208 Posts
On May 21 2018 14:45 ragnasaur wrote:
People can 3D print a gun if they want to. (Or soon)
We need something like strong penalties for having one. Or maybe we have to reconstruct our education system
you can't 3d print a whole functioning gun, not even close. this is similar to the panic when polymer framed guns were first produced. people thought they were entirely plastic and weren't detectable at airport scanners etc...
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On May 21 2018 18:21 ahswtini wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 14:45 ragnasaur wrote:
People can 3D print a gun if they want to. (Or soon)
We need something like strong penalties for having one. Or maybe we have to reconstruct our education system you can't 3d print a whole functioning gun, not even close. this is similar to the panic when polymer framed guns were first produced. people thought they were entirely plastic and weren't detectable at airport scanners etc...
It's not literally the case that you can 3d print a whole functioning gun, but people vastly underestimate how easy it is to manufacture a gun. Also, in terms of “how hard is it to manufacture a rifle” it’s actually pretty easy for an AR-15, which is designed to be modular and easy to work with. 3d Printing is not required for people to manufacture them relatively cheaply, easily, and most of all legally at home in the United States.
The AR-15 platform is very modular and most parts of it are not the actual gun — you can change out the barrel, grips, stock, etc and it’s still the same gun. The part of the AR-15 that’s the actual gun is the lower receiver. All other parts can basically be bought at will without tracking or permits, and it is only the lower receiver that is serialized. Here’s what it looks like:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/3muaVri.png)
Everything else is not the gun itself, just bits that you add onto it. This piece is what you need. If you purchase one of these lower receivers at a gun shop, you are legally purchasing a firearm and need to fill out the appropriate paperwork, even if there's nothing else attached to it. This isn’t true for the grip, trigger, barrel, bolt, stock, etc which can all be purchased as accessories and parts.
In the United States, you are allowed to legally manufacture firearms at home for your own use. In some states this is illegal, but federally (and in the state of California, for example, which is under Democratic Party control) it is legal. Manufacturing a firearm at home does not require filling out all the paperwork associated with a firearm purchase or transfer. You’re not acting as a merchant but as someone making something for yourself.
You could, if you had the skill and the tools, buy a bunch of iron, then mill and forge all the components of the firearm. Alternatively, you could buy all the parts except the receiver (which is legally the actual firearm itself) and make the receiver yourself. To make things easier, you could buy something that is not a receiver, but somewhat similar to it, and using your own specialized tools take this legally-not-a-receiver (and therefore not a firearm) and convert it into a receiver. This counts as you manufacturing the firearm, even if the level of work was relatively small compared to what we think about when we think of “manufacturing a firearm” in these conversations.
An 80% lower receiver is a piece of metal that is 80% of the way to being a legal firearm, but the manufacturing process was stopped short enough that it can’t function as a lower receiver (and therefore is not one). It can be milled into a functioning receiver pretty easily. Here’s what it looks like:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/oeUqQkw.png)
If you pay attention, you see that it is missing a couple of holes above and behind the trigger, and there’s no fire control cavity at all. Without these holes milled out (and the cavity), it’s not a functional receiver and can be manufactured and purchased without oversight from the government, since it is not a firearm. Then, one can mill out the holes using a jig to make sure everything is aligned properly (though there are other ways) to create the fire control cavity and the holes for the pins for the safety/selector, trigger, and hammer. Here’s what a jig to make this milling easy looks like:
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/7pzt892.jpg)
The actual job of milling requires specialized tools, but not more specialized than a 3d printer. This is the kind of work anyone who is reasonably handy could do. Heck, I’m pretty sure I could do it. None of the parts involved require governmental approval or oversight. You don’t buy a firearm, you manufacture it. This is legal in most states, even in California (though starting in a year or so, you may legally need to serialize/engrave them), though probably not in the very few more restrictive states like NY, NJ, MA.
In terms of “can someone make an entire firearm from scratch” then maybe 3D printing will matter. But you can just buy a lot of the important parts, like barrels, stocks, triggers, etc and there are no regulations or tracking on it. And you can buy a bunch of 80% lowers and mill them out and you’re good to go. We crossed the “easily make unserialized firearms at home from parts you can buy untracked” long ago and so I don’t really think this whole 3D printing thing is going to amount to a lot, at least in America.
Let’s say next year you can 3D Print a lower receiver reliably. So what? You can pay 50 dollars in untracked cash at a store and buy an 80% lower receiver, mill it out, and assemble a gun today. There’s no imminent danger of being able to manufacture a firearm on a suburban dad salary; we crossed that rubicon long ago. $400 for a jig, that’s your fixed cost. $600 for an 80% lower receiver and all the parts needed to assemble a functioning firearm.
Don’t worry about 3D printing guns opening a new box of horrors. We’re already there. If people really want to, they can grab a couple pieces of tubing from home depot and make a slam-fire shotgun. And at least in terms of general crime, don’t worry about long guns anyways. The most important traits for crime guns are being one-handed and concealable.
Also, if you do plan to manufacture a firearm, check on all the state, local, etc laws that apply to you, and consider talking to a lawyer who specializes in gun law.
Also, don’t manufacture a firearm.
|
It would still probably mostly be illegal as it would be IP protected parts. As someone in Manufacturing I can tell you the real hiccup to making your own gun is really the barrel and fireing pin. There are conversations depending on the trigger mechanism but you can go super crude like a bolt action
But don't make one because it will most likely just blow up in your face.
|
You could make a functional zip gun in 1980s shop class. It was just far more likely blow your hand off after repeated use. 3D printed guns have the same problem.
That does not mean that someone won’t try it because of the ease of access, but the threat already existed.
|
There goes sermakola and his schtick that guns are particularily hard to make. There are Afghani peasants which are using guns over 150 years old, able to repair and maintain them in a country wholly lacking in modern technology and industry. Guns are literally a 600 hundred year old technology, and in the USA, it seems that you can practically buy every part anyways, barrel and firing pin included. A gun does not have to be modern to be a weapon of mass murder. The problem is in part availability of guns, but the main problem appears to be cultural. For whatever reason in USA, where a significant population appears to have a poor gun culture, these sorts of massacres will occur over and over again.
|
The assembly of a firearm, no matter how easy or difficult, serves as a cooling off period that still supports policies of decreased access. This is especially true when it comes to suicides.
|
And there goes Dangermouse again not knowing anything about guns or technology and thinking weapons from 600 years ago is no different then guns today. We get it you don't like america and don't think theres anything to do about the issue. Now go away if you arn't doing anything but spitting on people. We were talking about 3d printing the guns you aren't even reading the thread.
|
Let's do a thought experiment.
There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical.
Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people.
So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things.
And now a quick questionaire:
Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button?
if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist  Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one
if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem.
Bottom line:
+ Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem
|
On May 22 2018 05:05 _fool wrote:Let's do a thought experiment. There is an imaginary island. On that island, everyone carries with him a Big Red Button. If you press the Big Red Button, you kill someone of your choice. There are strict rules that you should not actually use it on actual people. It's only a) for recreational use, and b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical. Once in a while, a person decides to use his Big Red Button on innocent people. Those innocent people are killed. Everyone is upset, because it's sad that people died. They decide that it's OK to use your Big Red Button on someone who is killing people with his Big Red Button, because it prevents him from using his Big Red Button on more innocent people. So now we have 3 reasons to use the Big Red Button. It's a) for recreational use, b) to overthrow the government, should it ever become tyrannical, and c) to prevent people from using Big Red Button for bad things. And now a quick questionaire: Would you feel safer on this island if you were the only one carrying a Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +You're either naieve or a masochist Think rationally: with less Big Red Buttons, there is less chance of getting killed. Especially if you're holding the only one if Yes: + Show Spoiler +Ok. POOF! You're the only one carrying a Big Red Button, by Kings Decree. Next question: would you ever use your Big Red Button? if No: + Show Spoiler +Then why carry it around? That's right! Get rid of it. We agree that an island without any Big Red Buttons is the safest option. [Rejoicing] if Yes: + Show Spoiler +You're the only one with a Big Red Button, and you would still consider using it? You and likeminded people are the main reason people on this island feel unsafe. That makes you part of the problem. Bottom line: + Show Spoiler +I believe that a country without gun control can only move towards gun control (which in my opinion is a safer situation) if individual persons voluntarily get rid of their guns. It's a scary step, I guess, but if you're not willing to make that step you have to admit that you're part of the problem
Why is it everyone always believe the solution is to get rid of guns? This had already been tried; it doesn't work. D.C and Chicago already tried to ban handguns, yet they were the murder capitals in the world.
|
It is weird that you make that argument again, when people in this thread already pointed out the lax gun laws in the surrounding states that undercut the city’s gun control laws. I believe it is a 30 minute drive for Chicago.
I say this not because I agree the post you are responding to or with the gun laws in those cities, but because your fellow TL members responded in the past to the exact way you framed this argument. It is sort of a bummer that we need to rehash the same talking points over and over.
|
On May 22 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:
It is weird that you make that argument again, when people in this thread already pointed out the lax gun laws in the surrounding states that undercut the city’s gun control laws. I believe it is a 30 minute drive for Chicago.
I say this not because I agree the post you are responding to or with the gun laws in those cities, but because your fellow TL members responded in the past to the exact way you framed this argument. It is sort of a bummer that we need to rehash the same talking points over and over.
How many firearms were purchased legally from another state and then brought over to be used in a violent crime? Barely any. Well over 90 percent of firearm crimes are committed with illegal weapons that are stolen. Your argument still falls flat on it's face.
|
On May 21 2018 18:17 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2018 14:45 ragnasaur wrote:
People can 3D print a gun if they want to. (Or soon)
We need something like strong penalties for having one. Or maybe we have to reconstruct our education system Reconstruct our education system how?
I don't know maybe social pedagogies or virtual reality classrooms or gun culture stuff
Edit: do you address anything like this in your class DPB?
|
On May 22 2018 04:26 Sermokala wrote:
And there goes Dangermouse again not knowing anything about guns or technology and thinking weapons from 600 years ago is no different then guns today. We get it you don't like america and don't think theres anything to do about the issue. Now go away if you arn't doing anything but spitting on people. We were talking about 3d printing the guns you aren't even reading the thread.
Come on, you know as well as I do that if 150 year old guns are perfectly servicable militarily then how servicable do you think modern self manufactured guns are to kill unarmed schoolchildren? WW1 was over 100 years ago, and their smallarms are just as lethal today to kill unarmed people. I'm not even proposing anything in particular, only discussing gun parts availability and manufacture, but for some reason it is important to you to propagate the falsehood that guns are particularily hard to manufacture. I don't know where you get the impression that I don't like USA considering that I beleive that it is an overall positive force in the world, but I guess, like supertranstan and his wild "liberals are out to get our guns", you are only capable of groupthink messages instead of discussing with the person at hand.
|
On May 22 2018 06:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:
It is weird that you make that argument again, when people in this thread already pointed out the lax gun laws in the surrounding states that undercut the city’s gun control laws. I believe it is a 30 minute drive for Chicago.
I say this not because I agree the post you are responding to or with the gun laws in those cities, but because your fellow TL members responded in the past to the exact way you framed this argument. It is sort of a bummer that we need to rehash the same talking points over and over.
How many firearms were purchased legally from another state and then brought over to be used in a violent crime? Barely any. Well over 90 percent of firearm crimes are committed with illegal weapons that are stolen. Your argument still falls flat on it's face.
Yes, we had this discussion and provided information crimes in Chicago.
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work
And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.
Other evidence corroborates this — a 2014 Chicago Police Department report found that Indiana accounted for 19 percent of all guns recovered by the department between 2009 and 2013.
The guns are purchased legally at some point, but then make there way into the hands of criminals. The studies linked show that criminals will travel to obtain a fire arm, including crossing state lines. So the claim that Chicago's gun laws don't work is accurate, but not for the reason you claim.
I also don't think the gun laws are great to begin with, but it is a challenge for a city next to two states that will never change their gun laws or provide any help Chicago deal with its gun violence problem.
|
On May 22 2018 06:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2018 06:22 superstartran wrote:On May 22 2018 06:03 Plansix wrote:
It is weird that you make that argument again, when people in this thread already pointed out the lax gun laws in the surrounding states that undercut the city’s gun control laws. I believe it is a 30 minute drive for Chicago.
I say this not because I agree the post you are responding to or with the gun laws in those cities, but because your fellow TL members responded in the past to the exact way you framed this argument. It is sort of a bummer that we need to rehash the same talking points over and over.
How many firearms were purchased legally from another state and then brought over to be used in a violent crime? Barely any. Well over 90 percent of firearm crimes are committed with illegal weapons that are stolen. Your argument still falls flat on it's face. Yes, we had this discussion and provided information crimes in Chicago. https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-workShow nested quote +And there's good evidence that being next-door to those states keeps Chicago criminals well-supplied with guns. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago, co-authored by Cook, found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes and 31.6 percent used in non-gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states. Indiana was a particularly heavy supplier, providing nearly one-third of the gang guns and nearly one-fifth of the non-gang guns.
Other evidence corroborates this — a 2014 Chicago Police Department report found that Indiana accounted for 19 percent of all guns recovered by the department between 2009 and 2013. The guns are purchased legally at some point, but then make there way into the hands of criminals. The studies linked show that criminals will travel to obtain a fire arm, including crossing state lines. So the claim that Chicago's gun laws don't work is accurate, but not for the reason you claim. I also don't think the gun laws are great to begin with, but it is a challenge for a city next to two states that will never change their gun laws or provide any help Chicago deal with its gun violence problem.
That study only shows the source of the firearms and not whether they were actually purchased legally by a family member or not, or whether the transfer of said firearm was legal or not. The study itself really is only proving the point that banning guns just means criminals go find them elsewhere. It's not like Russia has a plethora of illegal guns to trade for, place still has like 3x the homicide rate as the rest of the world.
|
Well no one collects data on second party sales of fire arms. And there is almost no way to do so given current laws and the limited requirements placed on person to person sales. But the study does shows that the gun laws of surrounding states can have a huge impact on a city’s ability to address gun violence. I don't think that Chicago is off the hook because of this, because they have a shit police force and shit city goverment. But they also have no ability to police illegal gun sales that may be taking place in neighboring states. States that have little reason to care about those illegal gun sales.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
