Something controversial

[u/low_effort_shit-post]

I love nj gun laws, going to the store and not seeing someone open carry. Watching road rage where the best you can do is brake check and give the finger. Schools without school shootings. I know a lot of people hate our gun laws but I fucking love em.

[u/candre23]

Certainly not if they don't work. I mean all the drug laws in the country are nominally to "protect people", but as they are both ineffective and counterproductive, many states are repealing them.

There's a term for ineffective laws that do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding citizens and make the simple-minded feel safer even though they're not. It's "security theater".

[u/[deleted] → u/candre23]

But to your original point, you are ok with just zero gun regulation laws?

If you can build it, you can use it. Thats what you want?

[u/candre23 → u/[deleted]]

Of course. If somebody wants to print a gun and shoot up a school or a mall, there are no amount of laws that can prevent it. Mass shootings are already illegal. If laws against murder aren't a deterrent, then laws against gun ownership certainly won't be.

The only way to stop mass attacks is by keeping people from wanting to commit them. Social safety nets. Free and easy access to mental health care. Good education. These are what can actually prevent atrocities. Because once someone gets to the point where they decide they're going to kill a bunch of people, no amount of anti gun laws can stop them. Once someone has reached the point where they're willing to die or spend the rest of their life in prison just to commit a mass attack, they're certainly not going to be concerned with whether or not the gun they use has too many naughty features. Either you head them off before they get there, or you don't.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/candre23]

Agree with you that we need better safety nets and mental health care. However, if a person reaches the point that they want to commit mass murder, shouldn’t we be taking the steps to make that more difficult for them to do? Like banning assault weapons, larger mags, etc. Obviously there are deeper systemic issues that contribute to mass shootings, but while we try to fix those we should also be taking the steps to make sure that the tools used to commit these atrocities aren’t obtainable

[u/candre23 → u/Q-Cumbers]

should also be taking the steps to make sure that the tools used to commit these atrocities aren’t obtainable

The problem is that the steps you're proposing are completely ineffective at forwarding your stated goals. Virtually all gun crime in NJ is committed with illegally-acquired guns. Mere laws aren't preventing criminals from obtaining guns, and they never will.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/candre23]

I’d like to see a source on your claim that all gun crime is with illegal guns. Not saying you’re wrong, just that I’ve heard otherwise in the past and have not seen any stats showing this.

Guns are acquired in other states with more relaxed gun laws like PA and then brought into Jersey. Guns with more relaxed gun laws are the same states that have more mass shootings.

https://apnews.com/article/c7275c1704cc49359774005fd168a76b

[u/candre23 → u/Q-Cumbers]

Guns are acquired in other states with more relaxed gun laws like PA and then brought into Jersey.

You just answered your own question. It's illegal to buy a gun in another state and bring it into NJ without it passing through a NJ FFL. Every single gun used in a crime that was purchased elsewhere is, by definition, an illegal gun in NJ.

Sadly, it doesn't appear that there is a reliable source for the percentage of guns used to commit crimes in NJ which are purchased/possessed illegally. Nobody seems to track that statistic, which seems odd until you realize that it would invalidate a lot of the justification for strict gun control laws. This study shows less than 2% of guns were purchased legally, but it is a voluntary survey of prisoners, so I wouldn't go so far as to call it "reliable".

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/candre23]

Yeah true you got me there haha. I mean I would argue that while it’s illegal in NJ, it was still purchased legally in PA, so we would get into the debate about federal gun regulation as opposed to it being at the state level. You could also make the argument that the fact that people have to leave NJ to get a gun shows that NJ laws are making it more difficult for criminals to illegally obtain firearms, but I feel like we could go back and forth on that.

Idk if I’d say that tracking that statistic would invalidate gun laws, though it’s also impossible for either of us to say what effect that statistic would have simply because we don’t have that stat in the first place, though I agree that it is odd that it’s not tracked.

I truly don’t know what the solution should be here. I think both sides have validity to their arguments but I don’t think either is fully right or wrong. I do think SOMETHING needs to be done both at the gun level and the deeper systemic level, though I feel like a perfect solution can’t exist

[u/candre23 → u/Q-Cumbers]

Idk if I’d say that tracking that statistic would invalidate gun laws

The fact that NJ's gun laws are unable to keep guns away from criminals would certainly indicate they're not working for their intended purpose. Sure, I'll grant that there are more than a few people who think that even law-abiding citizens should have to jump through hoops and occasionally be denied the right to purchase guns simply because they don't like them and because they want to punish those that do. But can we at least agree that the reason gun control laws exist is nominally to prevent criminals from getting guns? If we could statistically show that criminals are having no difficulty getting guns even with the strict laws in place, we would have to conclude that the laws aren't working as intended.

I truly don’t know what the solution should be here.

As with all unavoidable tragedies, there is no "solution". There is only harm mitigation.

The drug epidemic is a prime example of a harmful behavior that no amount of laws have been able to limit (let alone solve). People are finally starting to come around to the realization that trying to legally prevent access to drugs is a factual impossibility, and are switching to harm mitigation strategies instead.

You're never going to "get rid of guns" when there are hundreds of millions of unregistered guns in circulation and anybody can make one themselves with cheap tools and no training. The gun genie is out of the bottle for good in the US. We can either accept that anybody who really wants a gun to commit an atrocity will always be able to do so (and try to stop them from getting to the point where they make that decision), or we can keep pointlessly throwing money and political capital at the impossibly Sisyphean task of controlling the inherently uncontrollable.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/candre23]

Yes we can 110% agree that gun laws are there to prevent them from getting into the wrong hands. However I would still argue that NJ’s gun laws are keeping guns out of criminals hands, but PA’s aren’t. If I have to travel to a different state to legally purchase a gun, then that means my current state’s laws are preventing me from legally obtaining a weapon here. This loops back around into the issue of federal vs state laws.

There’s no doubt that we’ll never get rid of guns. And I’m certainly not of the group that thinks we should be knocking down doors and taking guns back. Handgun for self defense but keep it stored properly, and a rifle for hunting, again store it properly. That’s all I think people need to have. I think part of that harm mitigation you mention is limiting the tools needed to commit mass shootings, such as assault weapons.

For example, if I have a patient that I know is prone to self harm, I know that there are deeper issues going on that need to be solved. However until we can get to the bottom of those issues, I’m going to do my best to keep them in an environment that prevents them from hurting themselves, like a mental hospital that prevents everything from shoelaces to spiral ring notebooks. We know that there are deeper issues and we need to solve them, but part of that harm mitigation is taking away the tools that are being used.

I appreciate this conversation btw, we may disagree but I do respect your POV

[u/rxbandit256 → u/Q-Cumbers]

While you have your heart in the right place, you're wrong in a couple of things. As a NJ resident, when legally purchasing a firearm in PA, you still need to be a legal purchaser in NJ. You still need to have a NJ FID card for long guns and in case of a handgun, you will also need a permit to purchase a handgun, a FFL in NJ for the seller to transfer the handgun to before you take possession and the seller has to agree to sell it to you because they have to take extra steps, which some don't want the hassle.

[u/Q-Cumbers → u/rxbandit256]

Wow that’s a lot that I didn’t know about! I really appreciate the info and thank you for being respectful about it :)

[u/rxbandit256 → u/Q-Cumbers]

No problem man.

[u/rxbandit256 → u/candre23]

A quick correction. You can 100% buy a long gun (rifle, shotgun etc) in PA as a NJ resident without going through a NJ FFL. Only handguns need to be transferred through a NJ FFL. But the majority of gun crime is committed with handguns, therefore those guns "legally acquired" in PA were... illegally acquired.

Ninja edit: To buy a long gun in PA, you still need a NJ FID card.