• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 month ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      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?

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          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?

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 month 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?