• Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Illinois has some fairly strict gun laws… which is why so many guns used in crimes there come from all the states surrounding it. So I ask… do Arizona, Utah, and Nevada have these taxes as well?

    I’m not against gun control, but it seems to me that a state level fix ain’t it.

    • mecfs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the US, especially in this polarised climate, the vast majority of changes to law start with one state, and then another, and then another until slowly it gets adopted around the country.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        States have long been called “laboratories of democracy” for exactly this reason. I’d actually argue that the current climate calcifies the process of policy experimentation in states and among them.

    • Fedizen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      california is big. It may work better than other places, but a fed licensing program would be ideal

  • arin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Pretty sure the guns i see the criminals use aren’t even legal. Crazy extended mags

    • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is the fundamental problem with gun regulation at the state level – they can be effectively abrogated by neighboring states with more lax regulation. FiveThirtyEight did a piece on this a while ago. In that article they show how strict gun laws in Illinois, California, and Maryland are defeated by guns flowing in from the surrounding states with more lax laws. The vast majority of gun crime is committed with guns which are illegally possessed, but were initially obtained through legal means.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s why Mexico is suing Arizona, and maybe Texas? Cali has strict gun laws so the cartels can’t get guns here. They have no issues getting guns in AZ and TX

        • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah, that’s basically the legal theory of the suits. It’s pretty novel and there are a lot of issues with it.

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

          Big part of the modern drug trade is fueled by arms sales passing South as collateral.

          US arms exports are paid for with Latin American drug money. And those arms help gangs engage in the human trafficking they need to produce recreational narcotics and amphetamines at industrial scale.

          • jnk@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?

            I mean it makes sense, but doesn’t certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much? Are they using their brains at all?

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Wait are you implying that regulating fire arms in USA would help to deal with human traffic and drugs from mexico?

              More describing the economic incentives of the opposition.

              I mean it makes sense, but doesn’t certain people hate mexicans and like guns a bit too much?

              On paper, sure. But in practice the folks profiting from the exchange can just blame the drugs and the crime on stupid weak leftists in government to deflect blame from the arms trafficking.

              Are they using their brains at all?

              Garbage in, garbage out. If all your information comes from gun-sponsored sources, you’ll end up with gun-sponsored views.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      the guns i see the criminals use

      Are you running up to folks during a bank robbery and asking them for receipts?

      Or is this, like, guns you saw criminals use in a cartoon show?

      • refalo@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        over 80% of mass shooters at K-12 schools stole guns from family members, according to research funded by the National Institute of Justice

        Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes, there are many reports and statistics to back this up. If you need some hard data I’ll be happy to provide or you could do a quick web search as well.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Stolen and ghost guns absolutely make up a large percentage of the weapons used in crimes

          You’re leaning hard on the term “stolen” to describe a teenager using a parent’s firearm, particularly when the teen already has regular access to the weapon for target practice.

          Similarly, guns that have been anonymized after purchase aren’t something you can regulate against.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, that’s one of the missing links: owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences. Either it was an actual theft and the kid faces legal consequences for that too or it was careless behavior on the owner and they face partial consequences for the deaths and devastation

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              owners need to be responsible for safeguarding their weapons or face consequences

              We played this game with Beto O’Rourke. He tanked his electoral prospects by suggesting he’d enforce gun laws like any other governor would enforce drug laws.

              Between the Sandy Hook style conspiracy theories and the NRA hysteria, the onus is never on the gun owners. It’s always on the victims to not get shot.

  • Etterra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think it was Chris Rock who said something like “if you want to reduce gun violence then you gotta make bullets more expensive.” You’re gonna see a drop in gunshots if every bullet costs $1k.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.

      Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something … Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’

      And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’

      So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is a great idea. The flood of illegal and stolen weapons wouldn’t be taxed but they all need ammo to do harm.

      I know home made ammo exists but I find it hard to believe it would ever be more than niche

    • JamesTBagg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s the real point. This will have no impact on violence, let alone make a dent. It’s about the controlling class disarming the working class. If only Marx had said something about this.

    • olympicyes@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      Smoking is so much more prevalent in other states than it is in California. Even vaping has been dropping off recently. California overall has less binge drinking than other states but I’d attribute that as much to good weather and lots to do instead of just taxes.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s education and culture. People will pay whatever it takes to feed their addictions. It’s cultural disappoval that changes behaviour.

  • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Issue is gonna be with stolen guns and ammo also it’s not far to get to the Nevada border if people wanna stock up

  • Steve@communick.news
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
    Yeah! Every time somebody get shot we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something … Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
    And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
    So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn’t have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like “I believe you got my property.”

    ― Chris Rock

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Iirc that’s how Australia does it. You need the whole strict background check and training and I believe you can only get ammo at the range.

    • Arbiter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      This is pretty fucking elitist.

      If you don’t want guns go all in and ensure the elites cannot have them either.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Same can be said for OP and Steve over here, the former of whom posted it presumably because they take it at face value as a good idea, and the latter defending it because he clearly does.

            In times like that it can be a worthy pursuit both to refute the premise, as the poster who said “this is pretty fucking elitist” was doing, and to remind people of the nature of comedians, as you have done.

  • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not like most guns used in crimes are stolen or sold illegally after being purchased legally and the actual causes of gun deaths aren’t related to how much guns cost.

    Surely my home state isn’t just trying to grandstand and figure out new revenue streams to find to not fund poor performing schools to improve performance or prospects, providing healthcare, addressing poor police training, helping the homeless, addressing working poverty, addressing high cost of living, improving job prospects with a living wages, or any of the other issues that will actually help to address gun deaths.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      But if there’s less ammo out there, there’s less to be stolen, no?

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There won’t be less ammo out there. Alcohol taxes don’t cut down on alcohol consumption, tobacco taxes don’t cut down on tobacco consumption, and ammo taxes don’t cut down on ammo purchases.

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

          tobacco taxes don’t cut down on tobacco consumption

          The more expensive cigarettes have gotten, the more people I know have quit. Every time there’s a cigarette tax hike, I’ll hear about someone quitting.

          • Got_Bent@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            The commenter above you was clearly not around in the eighties if they don’t think tobacco consumption has dropped. I’m amused that I’ve seen this argument at least twice in this thread.

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

              I can only tell you what I’ve experienced in my lifetime, and if it’s generational, it’s not amongst my peers. We’re in our late 40s and we all smoked as teenagers.

  • timmymac@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The people shooting people will not be paying these taxes. Another law that punishes law abiding citizens.