Unlawful gun owners commit 80 percent of gun crimes
intellectualtakeout.org
intellectualtakeout.org
But... I don't see the relevance to HN and if this were a leftist post I'd flag it and I want to be intellectually consistent, so... Flagged. Sorry.
If I'm wrong on flagging it, please let me know. Trying to adapt my HN behavior to the general decorum.
I'm not sure HN's algorithms are up to the task of sorting that out...
Maybe it's because I'm not an American and I've never been to America but this all just seems strange.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...
[1] https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/07/...
This write-up is more about the (lack of) reporting on the research. Here is the actual relevant WaPo article that is referenced: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-e...
"all guns start out as legally purchased weapons but “huge number of them” fall into the hands of unlawful owners"
And that's the issue. The USA has a massive amount of guns available for legal purchase, which countries with less gun violence do not have. Some of these guns make their way into criminal hands and are used in crimes. Why do other first world countries not have this issue? Because they do not have massive amounts of guns available for purchase.
Banning legal guns decreases the number of guns that will fall into criminal hands to be used in crimes. This is what other countries are doing, and it works. I don't understand the issue with this, I get that shooting is a fun sport, but people are dying. LOTS of people. Get a new hobby.
Talking about gun bans in other countries is like trying to convince Australia to ban Kangaroos based on how it worked in America.
The situation hasn't changed since the times of founding fathers. In Federalist Paper #46, James Madison was bragging about how because of American gun ownership, totalitarian governments can never take over America, like they can do in Europe.
[Reformatted]
>> Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. <<
>> Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.<<
>> But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. <<
>> Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. <<
Do you really guns are going to help, when the real threat is government overreach and the inaction of the populace? Keep electing "pro 2nd amendment" politicians who also happen to vote for the patriot act and support NSA spying.
So your logic is, "because politicians have passed Patriot Act and govt spies through NSA, give up your gun rights"??
I see similar argument being made by other people, "there is no way you will be able to fight a totalitarian government with your guns", (even if it were true) the point is that we should give up our guns because we are already doomed? Isn't that even more reason to fight for gun rights?
Quoting again from Federalist Papers #46, where James Madison responds to the argument similar to being made by you (you really should read it, because I am skipping a lot of meat):
>>Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed 1/100th part of the whole number of souls; or one 1/25th part of the number able to bear arms.<<
>> This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than 25 or 30 thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. <<
>> It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. <<
No, my logic is that it's a problem to give up your other rights but throw a fit about any mention of gun control because "MAH GUNS"!
My argument is also that it's incredible paranoia to talk about how your guns are going to keep you safe from your government.
Again, do you really think Australians are having trouble sleeping at night because they are afraid they might wake up and "Oh, military rule. Guess we'll just go with that then".
I am sorry, but I refuse to believe that you're participating in this thread because you care so much about our other rights. You don't, period.
Every other argument you're making(like bringing up Australia) betrays your sentiment.
I don't want to give any of my rights, but I DEFINITELY don't want to give my right to keep and bear arms nor my first amendment rights.
> Again, do you really think Australians are having trouble sleeping at night because they are afraid they might wake up and "Oh, military rule. Guess we'll just go with that then". <
Let them sleep peacefully. I don't give a crap. If you live in America, then move to Australia. If you already live in Australia then sleep peacefully there.
As far as I am concerned, the healthy skepticism about the government is the best thing about America.
"Criminals are committing the crimes, so lets punish non-criminals for their behavior!"
Thanks, but no thanks. I'll keep my 100% legal hobby and continue to exercise my right to protect myself and my family.
The only problem with this solution is: It will never happen in America. The 2nd Amendment protects against this. And the 2nd Amendment WILL be exercise should the government try to ban the 2nd Amendment.
Unlike the other Amendments that rely on the 2nd Amendment to protect them, the 2nd Amendment protects itself.
That can only be done via constitutional amendment. such an amendment could only realistically pass if the people actually want it. In which case trying to use guns to stop the process would be criminal, and for good reason.
Unless you are one of those people who thinks the government is gonna bring out the army to start collecting the guns by force.
In which case you definitely fall into the category of people who I don't really want to have access to firearms.
Obviously, if everyone agrees, the 2nd Amendment will be repeal legally.
But the problem is, not everybody will agree, due to the nature of how America was founded, and due to the importance of arms to the American people, the culture, the history, etc., no Congress will be crazy enough to go against the people and repeal the 2nd Amendment.
And should the government try to bypass the Constitution, then obviously, people will revolt.
Of course, nobody wants that. But that's what will happen. Can the people win a in war against the government? No. But a government that kills its own citizens in order to disarm them will no longer be viewed as legitimate by the citizens.
The same statistic probably applies to countries with stricter gun laws, it's the sheer amount of weapons available that make the difference. The US gun laws have created a flood of weapons into black markets, especially in South America, where the Mafia is often armed better than the police.
It's safe to say that this development cannot be reversed at this point, but it can still be curbed.
Don't focus on the individual illegal gun sale. Focus on the big operations. Like the cartels.
You cannot stop cartels from dealing drugs, despite massive efforts, what could you do to prevent them from dealing weapons?
Furthemore, while cartels are certainly important, the majority of gun-related homicides within the US are caused by small-time criminals, within a social fabric that facilites small-time illegal gun sales.
Well, it's up to the smart peoples working on this to figure out how to take down the cartels and the big time players that are importing guns illegally into the United States and selling them illegally.
>...the majority of gun-related homicides within the US are caused by small-time criminals.
So what are you saying? Focus on the small time criminals?
I don't think there is a solution for the small-time criminals having access to guns, all you can do at this point is try and drive the black market price up, by making it tougher to get new guns.
Either problems require new legislation, which the gun lobby is blocking at every step of the way.
Secondarily, this would lead to insurance on gun ownership, which would lead to insurance companies rewarding responsible gun ownership with lower rates and punish irresponsible actors.
You basically want to increase legal liabilities (which already exist) to an extreme, but you will then have trouble finding any insurance company that is willing to cover the kinds of damages that can be caused by guns at a rate affordable to an individual.
Either of these things will require legislation that will receive massive pushback from the gun lobby. In a country where even basic background checks or limiting of certain weapon types hasn't been realized, your ideas seem almost utopian.
Having said that, I don't disagree in principle.