• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You think a crackhead gives one single fuck what they are legally allowed to do?

      The crackhead is gonna have a gun whether it’s legal or not (or maybe they’ll sell it for more crack). The gangster that sells them the crack is DEFINITELY gonna have a gun. Laws have no effect on the lawless.
      The question though is you. When you encounter the violent crackhead, do YOU want to have a gun?

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, they care when the gun they buy is either 50€$ or 50000€$ on the black market

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          1 year ago

          A gun is not difficult or complicated to make. Any decent machine shop can make them, especially if you don’t care too much about quality. And unlike a drug lab, the machine shop has a legitimate daytime use so you can set it up in plain sight.

          • PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            1 year ago

            especially if you don’t care too much about quality

            You do realize these things are directionally oriented resettable explosives right?

            Every time you fire a round is a fucking explosion going off very close to your hand.

            Someone not caring about quality is gonna wish they had after losing their fingers to an overpacked round.

            • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Perhaps, but it depends on the customer. A crackhead who wants a gat probably won’t even know what ammo to load in it. (Apparently it’s somewhat common for police to arrest street criminals with a gun loaded full of the wrong caliber ammunition). And unless you seriously overpack the round or make the barrel out of pot metal, more likely the quality problem that you will get is the gun failing to fire or failing to cycle. Remember though, you are talking about criminals, not people like you and me who care about safety ratings.

            • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Therefore, we should acknowledge reality and form policy around that rather than pissing into the wind while pretending we’re doing something useful.

              For example- if you want to attack the lion’s share of gun violence, address the causes of it, rather than the tools used in it. That means address drugs and drug gangs. Decriminalize or legalize drugs, put the gangs and cartels out of business. Treat addicts like patients who need help rather than criminals who need punishment, or at the very least stop locking up non-violent drug users with violent criminals (and thus turning them into violent drug users).
              Let’s also tackle poverty. Poverty is strongly correlated with drug use, so let’s give people some hope and upward mobility so they don’t feel desperate enough to use drugs. Doesn’t work for everybody, but a good intervention that takes a young kid from the hood and gives him opportunity and resources so he has an obvious path to make something of his life will keep an awful lot of kids out of gangs and drugs.

              Of course these solutions require more work and money than passing another law that criminals will ignore and getting your photo taken and saying I Did Something!.

              • Nobsi@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t forget to also fight the culture around guns.
                “Having a gun means you can defend yourself” is a dangerous thing to let live.
                Being forced to defend yourself from a person with a gun is a thought no child should ever have. And yet here we are. not a week without a shooting happening.

                • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Being forced to defend yourself from a person with a gun is a thought no child should ever have.

                  I agree 100%. I think it’s a failure of our society that ANY child has to think about defending themself from ANY sort of violence- be it a psycho with a gun, or crime on the street, or a bully who will beat them up. We should aim to do better as a society.

                  But the society I’d consider ideal is not the society we have. We have violent people in our society. A few go psycho and commit mass murder, most don’t. And thus, we do our children a disservice by pretending otherwise.

                  We do a bigger disservice by doing little or nothing to identify violent people and help them become less violent.

                  Blaming the gun is a placebo pill we can take to make ourselves feel better about Doing Something. But it’s like blaming the car for the actions of a drunk driver.

                  “Having a gun means you can defend yourself” is a dangerous thing to let live.

                  It may be dangerous, but it’s also not wrong.

                  If 65yo grandma is approached by a 25yo male thug, she cannot defend herself whether thug is armed or not. The thug is bigger, stronger, and faster than she is.
                  If 65yo grandma is approached by a 25yo male thug, and she has a gun, she CAN defend herself. The worst case scenario for her is he also has a gun, in which case they are physically equal.


                  To be clear- I agree with you that we should not HAVE to defend ourselves. I’d love a society where nobody ever needs a gun. But pretending that society exists when it really doesn’t does nobody any favors.

                  • Nobsi@feddit.de
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Excuse me what? The Grandma is shot dead before she could even pull the trigger.
                    And even if she defends herself then she will probably never live a happy life ever again because she just took a human life.
                    Why is it always Americans who do not understand that guns do kill people.
                    Yes, mental illness might also be an issue but you also dont do shit to solve that issue.
                    You dont even have healthcare. The one thing that could help is just banning guns but since every Jon Fuckwit sees himself as a one man militia we get columbine after columbine. But oh no you cannot take my guns its in my amendment that i am militia and i need my gun gun to defend myself from the bad guys. Two days later is the next shooting in a school, or a parking lot or a super market or on a highway.

                    No single other country that actually manages who can have a gun and who cannot has this problem.
                    While Germany, Canada and France together had 5 School shootings since 2009 the US had 360.

                    Even after Uvalde and 30 dead. Children! Dead children! You just said “oops the mental illness” and did NOTHING

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          You see a lot of criminals walking around with dynamite? I don’t.

          Do you think that’s because explosives are hard to make or buy? They’re not. Starting with nothing but a bit of money, it’s far easier to get something that will explode than a gun.

          Blowing shit up isn’t hard. It’s also not useful, and a bomb won’t usefully stop someone out to harm you. Thus criminals have little use for them.

          • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You see a lot of criminals walking around with dynamite?

            Again:

            If 7-11 started selling dynamite, do you think that would change?

            Blowing shit up isn’t hard. It’s also not useful, and a bomb won’t usefully stop someone out to harm you. Thus criminals have little use for them.

            Nevermind, I discount your opinion on literally everything.

            • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Okay so full answer from a real keyboard. Please consider this one to supercede the last one which was written on my phone on my way to sleep.

              First- addressing your argument:

              I argue there ARE NOT would-be bombers out there saying ‘I really wanna blow some people up but I can’t get explosives, my reign of terror ended before it began :(, curse you explosives licensing schemes! Guess I have no choice but to get a job and therapy.’. Evil men will always find the tools they need to dispense their evil.

              But there’s a sliding scale. The more determined someone is, the more stringent restrictions it will take to stop them from getting whatever they want. There’s a limit to what’s practical, and a higher limit to what’s possible. Look at prisons- the most secure, controlled, patrolled environment in the world, and yet prisoners still get drugs and weapons and cell phones. Evil men will always find the tools they need to dispense their evil, but assholes are more likely to settle for whatever’s convenient.

              So by ‘if 7-11 started selling dynamite’, that means drop the difficulty of acquisition to zero. And in that sense, of course there’d be more bombings- both because ‘Dynamite sale! 12 sticks for $12’ posters in the window would bring bombs closer to peoples consciousness, and because you now cover the entire scale of determination.


              Second, my argument:

              Bombs are a bad analogue because you can’t use a bomb defensively. If someone threatens to bomb my car, having my own bomb won’t help me much. And a bomb isn’t directed, it’s broad destruction that harms everything in its vicinity (buildings, people, vehicles, etc). So I can’t use a bomb to defend my home from an intruder as I’ll just blow up my own house & family; I can’t use a bomb to defend against street crime because I’d blow myself up too.

              A gun however CAN be used defensively. It doesn’t harm everything in the vicinity, just whatever you shoot at. The gun doesn’t also harm the shooter, doesn’t also harm everybody nearby. I can shoot the intruder or street criminal without also harming myself or my family.

              So consider Night City, or any similar society where you can assume everyone you meet is armed. In that society, much like in ours, you have two classes of people. There’s the criminal class- which includes the main character V. They go about their illegal actions, using violence against anyone who stands in their way. And there’s the average people. In a game like CP2077 or GTA, the average people are the NPCs that populate the city but with whom you have little or no interaction other than stealing their cars or wishing they’d get out of your way.
              Obviously we’d like to disarm the criminals. But as people who don’t follow the law, that’s easier said than done.

              When in the beginning of the game you hear the news report that there were 87 murders last week, notice that it’s talking about gangs and cartels, not innocent bystanders? Art imitates life.

              But now consider the NPCs. Imagine if every time you had to steal a car, the owner would try and shoot you, and if you shoot back then random bystanders would shoot you. Would that impact your willingness to steal cars? I think it would, you’d go looking for parked cars to avoid firefights.

              And that’s why I say having a mostly armed society is not an awful thing.

              • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                After you wrote it, did you read it?

                First part: ‘Laws never work because crime is magic. Okay, practical obstacles work. Actually I agree completely and making a bad thing easier makes it way more common.’

                I hadn’t even brought up how capitalism can make problems worse on purpose. You went out of your way to make that a gimme. And thanks a bunch for bringing up prison, which is the best possible example of everyone wanting something (escape) and approximately zero people achieving it.

                Stopping crime is not pass/fail. The existence of a crime doesn’t negate how much good was done, by forcing every asshole who wants to do a terrorism to gamble their fingers on redneck engineering contraptions intended to explode in someone’s face.

                Second part: ‘Nobody gets hurt in a mass shootout over a carjacking.’ You can’t even imagine assuming everyone you meet is unarmed. Like most places.

                • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I think you’re filling in the blanks a bit and putting words in my mouth.

                  I say practical obstacles work to screen out the ‘low hanging fruit’. It’s like metal detectors at the airport- screens out the random idiots, but not the dedicated terrorists. Trying to screen out the terrorists just gives you the TSA which costs billions and offers little of value above the standard metal detectors and xray machines of 1990.
                  There’s two things that would stop another 9/11-- locked cockpit doors, and the fact that passengers know to rush a hijacker rather than cooperating. Security is a distributed decentralized problem, and centralized solutions rarely work for that.

                  As for prison- my analogy was pointing out the futility of trying to stop people from getting items they want. It doesn’t work for drugs, it doesn’t work for guns. You’ll disarm the good people and the bad guys will stay strapped. And smuggling drugs into prison is a LOT easier than smuggling people out.

                  I’m all for reducing the number of guns criminals have. I just think it’s a bad idea to reduce the number of guns good people have even more. And since a law only affects the law-abiding…
                  If you read this comment of mine there’s minimum of 55k defensive gun uses in the US, probably more like 300-350k. The law will directly affect those. Not every one would become a murder, but that’s a lot more victims of various types of crimes. And of the 10-12k firearm homicides per year, how many are committed by people who aren’t legal to own a gun in the first place? An awful lot.

                  I CAN imagine a place where everyone I meet is unarmed- I live more or less in such a place. Connecticut, USA- I only know a few people who own guns but almost none of them ever carry, and I almost never carry myself.
                  I was making a specific point that you’ve sidestepped- that if a criminal had significant fear that their victim would be armed, there’d be less crime. That if in GTA random NPCs shot you for stealing cars, you’d probably steal fewer cars. Do you disagree with that?

                  • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Locked cockpit doors are also practical obstacles, numbnuts.

                    “Futility” is pass/fail thinking. We absofuckinglutely keep most prisoners from getting most things they want. If your standard is literally nobody and never ever ever, yeah no shit that won’t work. But I feel no need to defend the assertion that most people in prison are left wanting.

                    Don’t talk to me about systems if you think 99% success equals failure.

                    I’m all for reducing the number of guns criminals have. I just think it’s a bad idea to reduce the number of guns good people have even more.

                    You want magic.

                    The only reason it’s sooo easy for “criminals” to pull guns from behind their ears is the comical abundance of firearms. Where the fuck do you think the black market comes from? There’s no secret factory churning out bad-guy-specific firearms. Burglars find guns lying around, muggers take guns from victims, straw buyers look like “good people” - and there’s more guns than humans in America. There’s a gun and a half per person. How the everloving fuck are you “for reducing the number of guns criminals have,” if not by reducing the number of guns available?

                    I didn’t address ‘what if carjackers thought randos were armed’ because what happens is, they shoot you first.

      • JayObey711@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Damn it’s crazy that you say that despite there being dozens of countries where crackheads just don’t have guns.