• MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    I can be both mad that this data isn’t public record and that the BATFE aren’t doing their jobs.

    I would disagree that there’s zero reason for this data to be public record. I’d agree with you if we were just shielding individuals who are purchasing like one handgun or something. That’s something that I don’t think is anyone else’s business. But if a dude is buying 95 semi-automatic rifles in a short period of time you bet your ass I think that should be public knowledge. No one should be able to secretly purchase enough firearms to arm a small militia.

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s a huge risk for robbery and basically just asking for trouble. Shit tier idea to make that public knowledge tbh. Criminal doesn’t have a gun? Good thing they can just find someone that does. Already have one? Then they rob someone with 30 and put the guns onto the black market (still registered to the previous owner.)

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        7 months ago

        Aren’t you forgetting something? Every gun owner is a super cool action hero and if anyone tries to break into their house they’ll be all “blam blam blam” and they’ll be able to turn on their wives again.

          • PoliticalAgitator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            The answer has been given over and over again but it doesn’t meet the pro-gun communities deliberately impossible standards. Why bother answering it yet again?

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      37
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      But if a dude is buying 95 semi-automatic rifles in a short period of time you bet your ass I think that should be public knowledge.

      I disagree, I really don’t see why it’s any business of the PUBLIC (nor is there anything you could do about it.) But hold on…

      No one should be able to secretly purchase enough firearms to arm a small malitia.

      That’s the thing, it’s NOT “secret”. The FBI and the BATFE both know they are just choosing not to do anything about it. I mean they literally KNOW, and not in some vague / abstract manner that is time delayed. They know in near real time that one purchaser has submitted a 4473 with multiple firearms on it and they also know if a single purchaser submits multiple form 4473s.

      So when Craig Adlong was showing up to the Gun Store and buying 15,16,17 Rifles at a time multiple times a week both the BATFE and the FBI KNEW and chose not to do anything. They could have delayed or denied any of the transfers (sales) and / or sent out a Field Agent to figure out what was going on. They didn’t.

      This is the foundation of my “The public doesn’t need to know” argument when it comes to individuals. Assuming the Gun Store is complying with Federal Law then this isn’t happening in secret. At least two different Federal Law Enforcement Agencies know about it.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 months 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
          ·
          7 months ago

          @[email protected] - 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.

      • hakase@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Since you’re getting blasted here, I just wanted to hop on the downvote train to let you know that I think you’re exactly right on all counts.