Wow, broad question. I know for pharma it's skimmed off the supply chain. But I have a hard time believing all black market guns, or even the majority, are stolen from residences. I imagine this is a case for low-level criminals, sometimes, but again some proof would clear it up.

Of course they aren’t all stolen. Why would that absolute be implied or necessary?

The question is if any guns are stolen and the effect of publishing this list on the number of stolen guns.

I’m not sure how that is controversial. There can be other sources of guns. That doesn’t make this less bad.

Well the comment was in response to a claim that criminals get guns through burglary. Being a diligent person, I asked for a citation because it seemed like someone was making a claim out of their ass. I was right: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g...

Your link doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Gun theft is not the main way criminals get guns but it doesn't matter because it is still a way. Specifically it is the way that this data leak can contribute to the number of stolen guns.

dying by getting tangled in bedsheets is not the Main way to die, but its still a way, so we should get rid of bedsheets.

if some contrived scenario represents less than 1% of the problem we are discussing, it's not a real problem.

there are 8 billion people in the world, and it is always possible to find someone who has done something, no matter how ridiculous.

The leak of gun owners isn’t likely to contribute to the number of straw purchases. It could directly lead to gun thefts.

The existence of a problem does not dismiss the validity of another.

Open carrying similarly can directly lead to gun thefts.

Its not the governments responsibility to secure your guns either way. If anything more public detailed information about who owns guns is better so that people can properly avoid dangerous gun owners

>If anything more public detailed information about who owns guns is better so that people can properly avoid dangerous gun owners

Included in the 'leak' were people who merely _applied_ for a CCW. Not necessarily that you have a weapon or even a CCW license.

And where does this 'so we can avoid dangerous <x>' end? For instance, controlled substance prescriptions become government owned data when they are relayed to the DEA. Shall we publish private information of anyone prescribed anything related to conditions that increase their chance of being at risk of committing a violent crime?

> Open carrying similarly can directly lead to gun thefts.

Ok? So we agree?

> Its not the governments responsibility to secure your guns either way.

Ok? But that’s not been argued. It is also the government’s responsibility to not endanger the lives of citizens.

> If anything more public detailed information about who owns guns is better so that people can properly avoid dangerous gun owners

This list contains the names and employment details of judges and corrections officers (and their families) who are at risk of revenge. It may also contain the name of survivors of assault who wish to protect themselves from their abusers.

> But I have a hard time believing all black market guns, or even the majority, are stolen from residences.

Many are likely stolen from cars. Leaving a gun in the glove compartment isn't terribly uncommon in America, nor are car break-ins.

1300 guns were given to gangsters in Mexico by Holder and Obama. https://nypost.com/2020/05/12/mexico-sends-note-to-the-us-ov...

USA sending mountains of guns to Ukraine now. I expect many will go into black markets.

Ukraine already had shit load of firearm from the Soviet Union. Enough to fill the black market even without help from the US. What the US is sending now is more advanced and heavy, most likely not going to end up in the black market. IN some countries drug cartels probably can buy some of the heavy stuff directly from the manufacturer.

The first link you mentioned is about a failed operation, rather than Obama arming gangsters. Is it bad, that it failed, yes. But it's not like they were given to them to arm them. There is a lot of context missing there.

> 1300 guns

Ok? Is that a lot?

> were given to gangsters in Mexico by Holder and Obama.

There are two options here.

One, you believe this is true, and that it is somehow relevant.

That means you are arguing for more gun restrictions. Which means you are a person that makes it harder for me to preserve an important fundamental right of gun ownership.

The second is that you are playing the part of an ignorant rube that plays into stereotypes of gun owners which are ultimately self-defeating to anyone who actually cares about the issue.

Either way I can’t come up with a way that you are simultaneously making an interesting and honest argument.

As has been stated elsewhere, straw purchases are probably a major source. Smuggling is possible too. I couldn't say how these compare to theft, because I've never seen any solid data on the topic.

I don’t understand this line of thinking. Regardless of other sources of black market guns publishing this list increases the number of stolen guns. At best it accomplishes nothing.

You misunderstand my statement. I was answering your question, not arguing that the leak was good.

I don't subscribe to the argument that firearms serve as an effective deterrent to robbery, so it almost certainly can't help.

But you asked where the black market gets it's merchandise. Theft, smuggling, and straw purchases immediately spring to mind. It would be interesting to see data comparing the effectiveness of each.

> I’m surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the black market.

Reads to me as:

“I’m surprised [criminals steal guns] seems more likely they would buy [stolen guns] off the black market.”

The suggestion guns are sourced from a black market is not a compelling argument against those items being stolen. Invoking the black market itself establishes the incentive to steal.

You seem to have responded to me in error. I didn't make the statement you quoted.

I merely responded to the question regarding where else the black market could have acquired those guns.

I made no error. You seem to have lost track of the context in this thread. I replied to a comment (not yours) that essentially said guns come from the black market instead of being stolen. I pointed out through a rhetorical device the possibility that the black market sells stolen products and so both are true. You then replied to that rhetorical.

I haven't lost track of anything. You asked a question and I replied to that.

As far as your rhetorical device, I'm sorry but theft isn't the only way firearms get into that market.

You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

Thanks.

> You're trying to attribute arguments to me that I never made, and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop.

I explicitly did the exact opposite of that.

You are clearly confused but at this point I don’t think I can help you.

No. You did exactly that. I'm asking you politely to please stop that and the condescension. It's ineffective and rude.

You’re clearly still confused and I think that’s why you are being defensive.

I replied to sha256sum’s (not you!) comment at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31912312 with a rhetorical question. You then answered it as if it were an actual question. Since that wasn’t the reason for the question I then explained my interpretation of the original post (that again, you did not make).

Since that point you seem to believe I claimed sha256sum’s post was yours but in fact I did no such thing and actually disclaimed it specifically.

No. I'm clearly not confused. I know who you replied to. I'm not responding to them.

I'm tired of the disingenuous way you've approached this conversation, and your awful attitude.

As I said in my last comment, you need to cut it out.

By "a lot of opinions" you seem to mean that I gave two suggestions of possible sources of firearms, and then openly admitted I don't know how they compare to theft.

Would you rather I have simply stated those two sources and omitted the part about not having the data to compare the quantity of firearms obtained through those sources?

Do you have access to data we could use to make this comparison?