Wow this post got popular. I got called into work and didnt see the replies, sorry ladies and gentlemen! Trying to catch up tonight.

  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    In NYS, for example, you can have a semi auto rifle easily enough, but it can’t have a telescoping stock, pistol grip, etc.

    I would argue that the primary driver of that ineffectiveness is not the fact that they're trying to ban specific types of guns, but that all of those things are completely legal in neighbouring or nearby jurisdictions with no border controls between them. It wouldn't solve the whole gun violence problem but if America as a whole banned them I think you would see much more of an effect than just a singular state.

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Look at last year's mass shooting in Buffalo, where a racist drove halfway across the state to shoot up a grocery store in a black neighborhood. He shot 12 people, including a "good guy with a gun" that the NRA claims stops attacks like that.

      He had bought his rifle legally in NYS, but went across the border to PA to buy 30 round magazines, which are illegal in NY.

      Having access to 20 more rounds per mag than NY's max certainly didn't help things, but that terrorist attack would probably still have happened if NYs laws were nation wide.

      The problem is both that location-specific gun control is ineffective because you can just go a state/city over, and that passing effective gun control even in a state like NY is almost impossible.