World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Per the linked article.
"Gun trace data is kept out of public view by a rider to a Congressional bill known as the “Tiahrt Amendment,” passed in 2003 to shield gun shops from scrutiny. Each year, the ATF provides a count of the guns recovered in Mexico that had been bought in the U.S., with no further details."
Nothing to do with the Mexican govt. The US govt passed a law in 2003 to prevent gun sale data from being public record. This includes sales of firearms eventually used in armed conflicts in Mexico.
I'm interested to know how the Mexican Government, who also had / has the trace data, is bound by the Tiahart Amendment.
I know it's going to be an unpopular opinion but I really see no problem with the Tiahart Amendment shielding Firearms Manufacturers and Gun Stores. The Manufacturers are already regulated and monitored directly by the Federal Government and Gun Stores can only make sales in compliance with Federal Law. They should not be culpable in either Criminal or Civil court for that reason. The truth is that most of the organization who want that data aren't working in Good Faith and only want it so they can launch lawsuits meant to force Manufacturers and Sellers out of business.
It gets even worse at the individual level. There is absolutely zero cause for firearm transaction records to an individual to be publicly available. It's not only a gross violation of privacy but it's also a security concern.
What you SHOULD be mad about is why the BATFE, who clearly and provably does have this data, isn't doing something with it. They already know literally everything in this article and yet they don't seem to be doing much about it. Why?
I can be both mad that this data isn't public record and that the BATFE aren't doing their jobs.
I would disagree that there's zero reason for this data to be public record. I'd agree with you if we were just shielding individuals who are purchasing like one handgun or something. That's something that I don't think is anyone else's business. But if a dude is buying 95 semi-automatic rifles in a short period of time you bet your ass I think that should be public knowledge. No one should be able to secretly purchase enough firearms to arm a small militia.
That's a huge risk for robbery and basically just asking for trouble. Shit tier idea to make that public knowledge tbh. Criminal doesn't have a gun? Good thing they can just find someone that does. Already have one? Then they rob someone with 30 and put the guns onto the black market (still registered to the previous owner.)
Aren't you forgetting something? Every gun owner is a super cool action hero and if anyone tries to break into their house they'll be all "blam blam blam" and they'll be able to turn on their wives again.
I forgot the answer to argument is a snarky remark.
The answer has been given over and over again but it doesn't meet the pro-gun communities deliberately impossible standards. Why bother answering it yet again?
Frankly the answer is "make the cops do their fucking jobs" not "make a list of gun purchasers public." Public means that you or I could access the list, what the hell do you plan to do with this list? Tell the FBI "hey that list you maintain has a new entry, as you know, because you're the ones keeping the list?" Do you have jurisdiction anywhere on the entire planet? The literal only reason to make it public is to have a handy list of what houses it's safe to break into when occupied vs when unoccupied. It's basically a treasure map to arm criminals.
What made you think I cared? I've never advocated making gun owners public knowledge, I'm just laughing because gun owners insist their guns can keep them safe from criminals but shrivel up at the idea of those criminals knowing where they live and targeting them specifically.
As always with the pro-gun community, consequences are other people.
Ya mama said you did.
Are you really dumb enough that you can't see how regardless of a gun owner's ability to defend themselves while they are home, they also don't want people targeting their house for theft while they aren't home based on a "has gun" list? Do you want stolen guns to end up in the hands of criminals? You think they have some magical ability to shoot people while they aren't at the location of the theft or something? This isn't fallout with grenade bouquets lmao.
The consequences are the people's who commit the crime, not the gun owning populace as a whole who has not? Yes.
You really need to get your feelings out about this don't you? The world must no your opinion, even the people who aren't actually advocating it.
Anyway, your feelings are bullshit. The pro-gun community routinely opposes safe storage laws and are happy to leave guns in glove compartments and closets. Not that the black market is required to arm criminals, given how easy it is to pass a background check, straw purchase or buy privately but again, the pro-gun community opposes reforms to combat all of that.
So whatever the fuck "The consequences are the people's who commit the crime, not the gun owning populace as a whole who has not? Yes" is supposed to mean, it's clear that you're only upset that you would be in danger, since you put other people in danger all the time.
Safe storage penalizes victims for being stolen from and is a tax to stop those dirty poors from having guns, glove compartments are necessary sometimes to follow the laws regarding where you can and can't carry which is the fault of the business and government that is forcing it, not the one forced to.
Well it is if they've been charged with something.
Oh so "no criminal record," shocker.
Illegal.
Illegal if you're a prohibited possessor.
And even with all that, publishing a list is still stupid. I put nobody in danger, you're projecting, it's your stupid ideas on guns that endanger people, and not even gun owners but the people who will be harmed with their stolen guns. You don't give a shit though because if they die it "owns the republitards" so it's actually a win for you, I know.
Good. If you didn't take reasonable steps to secure your firearms, your negligence armed criminals. Guns are already an exception to "dangerous things must be properly secured" thanks to crybaby gun owners.
Oh and don't waste your breath with a "B-B-B-But LockPickingLawyer opened this gun safe with his flaccid cock" because that's not even close to an insurmountable problem.
You're using poor people as a human shield. You've never advocated giving people guns as a form of welfare and realistically a gun is one of the last things those "dirty poors" need.
You're a simp for a multi-billion industry that funds the very worst Republicans and puts profits before lives. You don't have a leg to stand on.
Sounds like we know where you leave your gun. It's grossly negligent and absolutely your fault. Either leave your gun at home (where I'm guessing it's just as poorly secured) or don't go to places that don't want you.
Laws that are a complete failure, which the pro-gun community opposes all changes to, including better enforcement.
Consequences for other people. The "responsible gun owner" making the private sale gets away with selling a gun to a dangerous person. If we only charged underage people for buying alcohol (and not the person who supplied them), there would be zero expectation of those laws working.
Yet again, not actually a thing I advocated, just something I mocked your reaction to. Let's hope for your families sake you're not so easily confused when you hear a bump in the night.
Another worthless promise from a gun owner. Whatever minimal vetting you've been through is demonstrably not enough to ensure gun owners aren't a danger. You cleared the same low bar as the people shooting at children who rang their doorbell or used their driveway to turn around.
If we reduce you to a statistic, it's even more bullshitty. Every person in your household is at a greater risk of domestic homicide and suicide.
Are you still throwing a tantrum about an idea I didn't suggest or supoort, or are you just assuming all of my opinions based on what the gun lobby have told you I believe?
Your laws have failed America. It's 20 years past when "responsible gun owners" should have actually taken some responsibility.
Way to victim blame, if criminals didn't steal them they wouldn't be stolen, your logic is rapist logic, "she was asking for it out late at night in that slutty skirt, should've locked it up in a chastity belt."
I actually do advocate for a government program to pass out firearms to individuals in need, like a broke single mother with an abusive ex, for instance. Thing is I'm not the government so what I advocate for doesn't necessarily become policy. Funny how that works. Furthermore just because something that requires another's time, labor, and materials is sold by the company that makes it doesn't mean we should arbitrarily raise it more to make it harder for the poor (of which I am one, btw, "you don't care about the poor like yourself" is a dumb fucking take.)
Actually I view those laws as unsafe, therefore I just illegally carry past the sign. It's safer where someone would have to grab my dick to get it than unattended in a car. I'm not supposed to do that though, I'm supposed to leave it in the car. Oopsies. Still if someone does follow the law, the theft is the fault of the thief and the one who made it available for the thief: the law.
"Including" meaning "only" better enforcement, yes. Finish the laws you have at home before buying new ones little Timmy.
EHHH INCORRECT! If you sell a gun to a person who you should reasonably know is a prohibited possessor, like underage people, you get what is called "prison time." People have also been begging for years for access to NICs to help with this but you don't want to give it to us.
You're in a thread about advocating for a public list "mocking" gun owners who think a public list is a bad idea. Sure sounds like you're advocating for it while trying to pretend you aren't like a slimy little weasel.
Hmm ok let's see, there are 600,000,000 guns in the US, and yearly about 60,000 are used in murders/accidents/suicide, that is a 0.01% chance that in any given year my gun will be involved in a death. "OH NOOOOOOOO." Btw it's actually less because this equation assumes each gun only kills one person, but as we know that isn't the case in every scenario.
We've talked before dingus I know you have stupid opinions on guns first hand because you incessantly repeat them lmao.
"This woman scratched and bit me while I was raping her, so I'm the real victim"
I remember you now. You're not worth my time and it doesn't look like there's anyone left in the thread who is. I didn't read most of your comment but laughed when I saw you've lifted my insults to use as your own. Looks like you have made space for me in your head.
Lol so to you having your house broken into and having things stolen from you is akin to raping someone and being injured while doing it? How do you figure that one? In my view it seems more like the one doing the breaking in is the rapist and you're arguing that it's the victims fault for only having one locked door instead of a matryoshka door.
No u lol if me remembering your name as a moron is "making space" you remembering me for always being right is the same. Cute insult attempts though, unfortunately I'd have to have a modicum of respect for you not to think you're laughably pathetic for it however.
Didn't read.
'Course not lol.
I disagree, I really don't see why it's any business of the PUBLIC (nor is there anything you could do about it.) But hold on...
That's the thing, it's NOT "secret". The FBI and the BATFE both know they are just choosing not to do anything about it. I mean they literally KNOW, and not in some vague / abstract manner that is time delayed. They know in near real time that one purchaser has submitted a 4473 with multiple firearms on it and they also know if a single purchaser submits multiple form 4473s.
So when Craig Adlong was showing up to the Gun Store and buying 15,16,17 Rifles at a time multiple times a week both the BATFE and the FBI KNEW and chose not to do anything. They could have delayed or denied any of the transfers (sales) and / or sent out a Field Agent to figure out what was going on. They didn't.
This is the foundation of my "The public doesn't need to know" argument when it comes to individuals. Assuming the Gun Store is complying with Federal Law then this isn't happening in secret. At least two different Federal Law Enforcement Agencies know about it.
Since you're getting blasted here, I just wanted to hop on the downvote train to let you know that I think you're exactly right on all counts.
I would say that most of the PUBLIC wants to know if someone is doing illegal arms dealing to murderous Mexican cartels in their town.
Honestly I don't need a public record of people buying "too many" guns that may be selling them to cartels, I'm fine with the federal agents tasked with investigating such cases doing so and then reporting their findings when someone is guilty. I mean, they already know, what am I gonna do, tell em harder?
I'm not sure why you're fine with that. Maybe you don't know about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal
They literally allowed straw purchases to cartels repeatedly knowing that it was happening.
Why would you trust federal agents when they let that happen?
I should say, I'm fine with it if they actually do it, rather than being one of the largest contributers to it.
Still though even if they don't, I don't have jurisdiction in, well, anywhere, so again I ask what the fuck I plan to do about it if they did release such a privacy invading "rob me" list like California does? Say "hey mister are you selling these legally or not?" Great. What next? I'm not going to assault the dude's house and steal his guns at gunpoint myself, if the agencies tasked with doing something about it don't, why even keep a list? Why even report multiple sales if the only people who can do anything don't?
In theory, state or even local law enforcement could do something about it.
Sure they could, without that information being public. Public means you or I, who are not authorities that could do anything about anything, could look up a list. The authorities, be they federal, state, or local law enforcement, I am more comfortable with them having a list than you or me, yes.
Although tbh I'm not actually sure the state or local PD could do anything, if it is federal's jurisdiction because of trafficking across state/country lines (which is a thing). It's entirely possible they'd have to go through the FBI. Still though let's assume they could do something about it, why then would you and me need the list?
@[email protected] - I’m out of my element here:
Would you argue the public has elected officials who write policy and hire enforcers to govern arms, so we have a pathway to preventing illegal arms deals even if it’s not via the direct publication of details of original purchasers?
I can see tradeoffs here. I can imagine the security and harassment concern. I could also envision public benefit where our officials fail us but investigative reporters pick up the slack and shine light on specific problematic sales, leading to outcry and subsequently improved enforcement.
Perhaps illegal sales are a top NRA priority since these discussions involve some dangerous thinking from their perspective. If not, hope so, sounds win win.