Most guns used in N.Y. crimes are from out of state: study

[Cthulhu 2020]

The solution is easy:
Traffic firearms: Life in prison no parole
Commit a violent crime with a firearm: Life in prison no parole
Commit 1st degree murder with a firearm: Death penalty, solitary confinement until carried out.

Anywhere there's tough gun control laws, there's a booming black market for guns to be shipped in from other states. As long as there is a booming market, simply throwing people in prison isn't going to stop the problem. Is there massive amounts of money to be made? If yes, there will always be people willing to do it. Throwing all the gun runners in prison will just mean there's a vacuum that gets filled by new entrepreneurs.

When it comes to drugs, guns and anything else where there is money to be made, simply throwing people in prison does jack all to fix the problem.

[Daelak]

What New York's laws have done is create a nearly defenseless law-abiding populous. This causes criminals to gain access to firearms illegally through trafficking, which they would have done anyway, and now have limited resistance when committing their crimes. I totally see your logic and what you're trying to argue, but I disagree with it.

This is false, and contrary to your view that if New York had lax laws like Virginia then there would be more people defending themselves, it would rather only increase the amount of guns both purchased in New York and Virginia to be used during crimes in NY state.

- - - Updated - - -

Why? What purpose does any of that serve? Also, I already repair and make my own firearms...

To make it harder for criminals to access handguns, like the NY state laws.

[willtron]

NY needs a wall?

They had one.

[Varitok]

Its because the states all have seperate laws and its kind of confusing and nonsensical. You could break laws in different states just by driving across your country and thats just weird.

[Blobfish]

Yeah GOTHAM CITY = NY

Who is it ..is it this dirk

[Fasc]

You might have just shattered the world of some posters here; the times I had to read "Look how Chicago is doing with their strict firearm laws, kek!" is too damn high.

Most of us laughing at Chicago usually use it as an analogy for the US with bordering nations, so no, no world view shattering whatsoever. If and only if you can restrict the flow of people and goods in and out of highly restrictive areas can those restrictions mean jack all to anyone. Have fun with state line border control...

This of course also ignores gun production/manufacture. It isn't complex science to create simple (and cheap and inconsistently operated) pistols for sale in less than savory enterprises. Further, unlike some meth lab that has very telling signs that would dissuade the excuse of "Oh we're just a friendly HS science team!!" a machine shop isn't going to instantly raise a red flag. Metal 3D printing is also on the rise so while that's not a thing really NOW, by the time harsher/more wide spread laws are enacted, tech will make enforcement even more difficult.

- - - Updated - - -

To make it harder for criminals to access handguns, like the NY state laws.

Just like prohibition made it harder for criminals to access alcohol... the ability to produce on one's own negates a lot of this. People will step up to produce and fill niche markets, people will pay for it, the ban and restriction is toothless.

You might as well say "Well most people know jack shit about farming, and for <lunatic reason> farming should be restricted and controlled by the Fed so ban it!" and thus people learn how to farm on small scales rapidly that never bothered before. Guns are not difficult things to fabricate, hence the myriad of manufacturers trying their own little niche modifications and such to get in the market. It isn't a matter of difficulty or skill, but a very saturated market with some very long standing giants who do it best.

[Daelak]

Just like prohibition made it harder for criminals to access alcohol... the ability to produce on one's own negates a lot of this. People will step up to produce and fill niche markets, people will pay for it, the ban and restriction is toothless.

You might as well say "Well most people know jack shit about farming, and for <lunatic reason> farming should be restricted and controlled by the Fed so ban it!" and thus people learn how to farm on small scales rapidly that never bothered before. Guns are not difficult things to fabricate, hence the myriad of manufacturers trying their own little niche modifications and such to get in the market. It isn't a matter of difficulty or skill, but a very saturated market with some very long standing giants who do it best.

These are all bluffs. Support a nation-wide gun restrictions comparable to New York and you will see less and less of firearms from other parts of the country being used in crimes in the major cities, then you get to see your wittle 3D gun printing revolution or some shit.

[GennGreymane]

Completely different scenario. Yes, when not carrying, your weapons should be out of reach of others. However, in this scenario, I am referring to the fact that the govt in NY has made it very difficult (in comparison to my state) for a law abiding citizen to obtain a weapon for self defense. Yet, it is still easy for a criminal to obtain a weapon. This is because criminals don't follow gun laws.

- - - Updated - - -



I am referring to the fact that the govt in NY has made it very difficult (in comparison to my state) for a law abiding citizen to obtain a weapon for self defense. Yet, it is still easy for a criminal to obtain a weapon. This is because criminals don't follow gun laws.

Criminals don't follow laws, that is why they are criminals. You are not a criminal until you have violated a law. Why have laws of people who woulld be criminals would break them anyway? Laws are a deterrent especially if particular punishments are enfoRced when said laws are broken. However there needs to be a balance in said punishments as well. The goal should be to make it so the criminal never commits the violation again, there are many ways to do this. Rehabilitation has worked rather well

[Kathandira]

Soooo basically just New Jersey for the lulz?

No thanks, we're already 30bil+ in debt.

[GennGreymane]

They had one.

Welll.... clearly that wall worked out

- - - Updated - - -

No thanks, we're already 30bil+ in debt.

But NJ NY banter!

[Kathandira]

Welll.... clearly that wall worked out

- - - Updated - - -



But NJ NY banter!

We may as well merge Manhattan and New Jersey at this point, lol. Sure, we have our sibling rivalries, but we are still pretty much family.

- - - Updated - - -

Criminals don't follow laws, that is why they are criminals. You are not a criminal until you have violated a law. Why have laws of people who woulld be criminals would break them anyway? Laws are a deterrent especially if particular punishments are enfoRced when said laws are broken. However there needs to be a balance in said punishments as well. The goal should be to make it so the criminal never commits the violation again, there are many ways to do this. Rehabilitation has worked rather well

Further, Those who commit crimes are quite likely to be aware of their actions. They know the consequences, and are willing to take the risk for a comparable pay off (whatever that may be).

I smoke pot. I know the risks. But in my eyes, it is worth it.

[Cyberowl]

Guns are explicitly mentioned in the bill of rights


That's as asinine as suggesting you should pass a test to use free speech or to not self incriminate

There is plenty of stuff in the constitution; doesn't stop restrictions like jail by the government. The writers of the bill of rights weren't omniscient, why anyone would ever assume so is beyond me.

[araine]

So you would support instituting a national law against gun trafficking?

Of course they wouldnt, since that would actually work and they really cant stand government doing the right things for once

[Machismo]

Harsh punishments carried out in a timely manner would help stop crime.

The only reason anybody can attempt to suggest the death penalty doesn't reduce crime is because the death penalty itself rarely (by comparison) ever gets applied, and when it does you've basically got a lifetime to try a thousand different ways to fight it.

And stop and frisk was working fine in NY, but certain people didn't like the fact that other certain people were the ones always found to be in possession of illegal weapons so its all but stopped.

Cops know who the criminals are, go after them!

Stop and frisk is great... so long as you don't care about personal freedoms.

How is that any different than banning guns?

- - - Updated - - -

Gun control is a waste of time. So long as a society wants guns (and that is not going to change in America in my lifetime), then people will find a way to get them. Prohibition does not work if the demand for a product remains. We saw it with alcohol, we've seen it with marijuana.

[Dystemper]

What's the difference between a gun and a driver's license? You have the right to get and use both if you pass the tests ensuring you are a no explicit danger for the public. And we both know which license is still way easier to get. Background checks for guns aren't a bad thing, we are even getting the Republicans to slowly admit that.

A drivers license is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege. The ability to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right

[satimy]

There is plenty of stuff in the constitution; doesn't stop restrictions like jail by the government. The writers of the bill of rights weren't omniscient, why anyone would ever assume so is beyond me.

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

notice how theres no can be suspended for public safety after the 2nd amendment. Its different

[Dystemper]

Why is this a thread? We already have a gun control megathread

[araine]

The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

notice how theres no can be suspended for public safety after the 2nd amendment. Its different

And it talks about it in the militia context, clearly indicating that it was never meant for the average joe to have guns, you know unless he was part of that militia hunting down slaves that where escaping.

Pretty much all historians agree on this being the reason for the 2nd amendment to be created in the first place. and really what the USA needs is to abolish the 2nd amendment and regulate the fucking hell out of guns and firearms

[satimy]

And it talks about it in the militia context, clearly indicating that it was never meant for the average joe to have guns, you know unless he was part of that militia hunting down slaves that where escaping.

Pretty much all historians agree on this being the reason for the 2nd amendment to be created in the first place. and really what the USA needs is to abolish the 2nd amendment and regulate the fucking hell out of guns and firearms

And be militia was every able bodied male between 18-54

[GennGreymane]

And it talks about it in the militia context, clearly indicating that it was never meant for the average joe to have guns, you know unless he was part of that militia hunting down slaves that where escaping.

Pretty much all historians agree on this being the reason for the 2nd amendment to be created in the first place. and really what the USA needs is to abolish the 2nd amendment and regulate the fucking hell out of guns and firearms

Well no, a later Supreme Court case stated they can be used for regular old self defense. However if you ask legal scholars you may hear that Scalia may have had another angle. He disliked the roe v wade logic and thus used similar logic for guns