this post was submitted on 23 May 2024
599 points (98.4% liked)

World News

38956 readers
2188 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] brbposting@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

@Buelldozer@lemmy.today - 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.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

In theory, state or even local law enforcement could do something about it.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 months ago

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?