And where do you think black markets source their wares?
The question is if any guns are stolen and the effect of publishing this list on the number of stolen guns.
I’m not sure how that is controversial. There can be other sources of guns. That doesn’t make this less bad.
if some contrived scenario represents less than 1% of the problem we are discussing, it's not a real problem.
there are 8 billion people in the world, and it is always possible to find someone who has done something, no matter how ridiculous.
The existence of a problem does not dismiss the validity of another.
Its not the governments responsibility to secure your guns either way. If anything more public detailed information about who owns guns is better so that people can properly avoid dangerous gun owners
Ok? So we agree?
> Its not the governments responsibility to secure your guns either way.
Ok? But that’s not been argued. It is also the government’s responsibility to not endanger the lives of citizens.
> If anything more public detailed information about who owns guns is better so that people can properly avoid dangerous gun owners
This list contains the names and employment details of judges and corrections officers (and their families) who are at risk of revenge. It may also contain the name of survivors of assault who wish to protect themselves from their abusers.
Included in the 'leak' were people who merely _applied_ for a CCW. Not necessarily that you have a weapon or even a CCW license.
And where does this 'so we can avoid dangerous <x>' end? For instance, controlled substance prescriptions become government owned data when they are relayed to the DEA. Shall we publish private information of anyone prescribed anything related to conditions that increase their chance of being at risk of committing a violent crime?
Many are likely stolen from cars. Leaving a gun in the glove compartment isn't terribly uncommon in America, nor are car break-ins.
USA sending mountains of guns to Ukraine now. I expect many will go into black markets.
Ok? Is that a lot?
> were given to gangsters in Mexico by Holder and Obama.
There are two options here.
One, you believe this is true, and that it is somehow relevant.
That means you are arguing for more gun restrictions. Which means you are a person that makes it harder for me to preserve an important fundamental right of gun ownership.
The second is that you are playing the part of an ignorant rube that plays into stereotypes of gun owners which are ultimately self-defeating to anyone who actually cares about the issue.
Either way I can’t come up with a way that you are simultaneously making an interesting and honest argument.
The first link you mentioned is about a failed operation, rather than Obama arming gangsters. Is it bad, that it failed, yes. But it's not like they were given to them to arm them. There is a lot of context missing there.
I don't subscribe to the argument that firearms serve as an effective deterrent to robbery, so it almost certainly can't help.
But you asked where the black market gets it's merchandise. Theft, smuggling, and straw purchases immediately spring to mind. It would be interesting to see data comparing the effectiveness of each.
Reads to me as:
“I’m surprised [criminals steal guns] seems more likely they would buy [stolen guns] off the black market.”
The suggestion guns are sourced from a black market is not a compelling argument against those items being stolen. Invoking the black market itself establishes the incentive to steal.
I merely responded to the question regarding where else the black market could have acquired those guns.
As far as your rhetorical device, I'm sorry but theft isn't the only way firearms get into that market.
You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.
Thanks.
I explicitly did the exact opposite of that.
You are clearly confused but at this point I don’t think I can help you.
I replied to sha256sum’s (not you!) comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912312 with a rhetorical question. You then answered it as if it were an actual question. Since that wasn’t the reason for the question I then explained my interpretation of the original post (that again, you did not make).
Since that point you seem to believe I claimed sha256sum’s post was yours but in fact I did no such thing and actually disclaimed it specifically.
I'm tired of the disingenuous way you've approached this conversation, and your awful attitude.
As I said in my last comment, you need to cut it out.