this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2024
353 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3754 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Federal agents on Wednesday morning hauled more than 120 firearms, including "machine guns," out of the Ahwatukee Foothills home of a man suspected of shooting at a campaign office for the Democratic Party three times and posting bags of white powder labeled as poison near political signs.

Jeffrey Michael Kelly, 60, was arrested on Tuesday night near his Ahwatukee Foothills home by Tempe police who, according to court documents, used surveillance footage to find the suspect.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (20 children)

I do wish they’d stop citing weapons caches when making arrests. Just as many shootings are done by people with access to a single firearm as are done by people with over a hundred weapons.

If there were crated assault rifles, that would be worth making a deal about… but people are allowed to collect weapons in the US, and that doesn’t suddenly change anything when a suspect is arrested.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (6 children)

Do you have a source for your data on the percentage of people who commit gun crimes based on number of guns owned?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The overwhelming majority of gun crimes are committed in relation to the drug trade, and otherwise ordinary crime. This isn't a demographic that's collecting guns; they're using what they have access to. Meanwhile, I know tons of people that have multiple AR-15s, all configured differently, for different purposes. One for a basic two gun competition, one for home defense, one for a night match (usually with a suppressor; they're great for minimizing smoke), and so on.

I'm personally likely in the top 1% or so of gun owners, because I have >10 firearms, plus a progressive reloading press. There are three that I use regularly, and some that I never use because they're antiques.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

My question is more on a per capita basis for those groups. Do people who own 1 or 2 guns commit crimes at a rate higher or lower than people who own 5+ guns?

Yes there are fewer people who own the 5+ guns, but is there a correlation between owning more firearms and committing crimes?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

My gut feeling is that, the more guns you own, the less likely it is that you're going to commit violent violent crimes. I don't know if anyone tracks any kind of data on that though. People that collect firearms and/or are seriously involved in competition are not typically the people that will be involved in other illegal activities. But, again, I don't think that there's data to back this up.

My caveat on that is that there are non-insignificant number of high-volume gun owners that are committing gun crimes, that is, they're violating the National Firearms Act by owning illegal/unregistered machine guns, unregistered silencers, Other Destructive Devices, etc., or are violating local laws regarding storage, etc. (There's no storage laws where I live, and, uh, I def. have guns out pretty much all the time. But I have no kids, there's always someone at home, and I'm in a very rural area where breaks ins are very rare.So I think that there probably should be a distinction between commission of violent crimes using firearms, or crimes related solely to ownership/possession.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

I concur with your gut.

Hunter and have a small farm. My wife actually has more handguns than me. My primary use case for firearms is as tooling, but I totally understand the enjoyment from shooting sports and collecting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't see why your gut feeling matters at all. Lots of gut feelings are wrong. That's why we have statistics to prove things.

I agree that it should be related to violent crimes, maybe with some semi-violent crimes like human trafficking, etc.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Sure, we should have the data, because more data is usually useful, but I'm not certain that it's actually material.

Let's say that, statistically, the people that owned >20 firearms were 100% more likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm than the general population. First, that's still a very, very low percentage of people that own >20 firearms, second, any way you cut that, gun ownership is still a civil liberty in the US, and third, you're still looking at correlation rather than causation, and I don't know if a correlation--and remember, this is just a mental exercise, rather than any real statistics--gets you any closer to finding the real cause.

This is the same problem that you run into when you start talking about factors that make someone into a person that commits a mass casualty event; you can find a lot of factors, but simply having one or more of those factors doesn't mean that you will commit a mass-casualty event, and not having any of those factors also doesn't mean you won't commit a mass casualty event.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (17 replies)