If you asked me what, say, the 20 most dangerous cities in America were, Albuquerque would not even be on my radar. But apparently it should be.
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
218 points (97.8% liked)
News
23259 readers
4506 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You obviously haven't seen Breaking Bad...
I mean, I don't base my impression of a real city from its fictional version or I'd have never set one foot in Baltimore due to The Wire.
Well I'd avoid New York due to all those alien invasions etc.
London is a lot worse in that respect. The first time I saw the Westminster Bridge in London in person, I was surprised to not see any Cybermen walking across it.
Yeah, but you might get to get a selfie with Thor!
That is fair lmao
My first day visiting Albuquerque, I was in pizza parlor picking up an order, and the news was on a TV nearby. They were covering the arrest of this cracked out looking couple. The lady behind the counter then explained to me that it was a big local story because those two had tortured and murdered their daughter. Its also the cartheftt capital.
I haven't been back.
It's the great drug corridor and it's got lots and lots of surrounding desert to disappear people, but I live in New Mexico and I go to ABQ a lot and never felt in danger. There are areas I definitely wouldn't go but that's just like any city
It's kinda taken a wrong turn.
Struck down as unconstitutional in 3... 2... 1...
Politicians like them know what they're doing is unlawful, but they also know that it takes time for courts to strike them down.
Until there's actual punishment for issuing blatantly illegal orders or laws (gun related or not) this will continue happening.
Which is kind of nuts because some states did not allow open or concealed carry when the country was founded.
All this is going to do is waste money on lawsuits that could be used to benefit the people.
When in reality this won't do anything to slow down crime in Albuquerque. The most murders done in Albuquerque is by the police. Targeting legal gun owners won't stop criminals from carrying firearms. Weaponizing the health system to deny constitutional rights really worked out well in the past.
I'm so glad I moved in 2020 from a city/county that is fine with police burning kids alive in their homes because they think a criminal is inside.
Targeting legal gun owners won’t stop criminals from carrying firearms.
I hate this talking point. You could say that about practically any law. "Targeting legal car owners won't stop criminals from drunk driving" or even "targeting factories won't stop some of them from criminally polluting." That's not the point. The point is to add charges once they're caught to maximize their sentence.
It's already illegal to carry a firearm and commit a crime...you wanting to make it double illegal? No this talking point is exactly that, a spot on assessment that laws like this only attack the law abiding gun owners. That's exactly what they're designed for, to create more criminals.
Do you really not understand the concept behind adding charges to extend sentences? It's why Trump has been indicted so many times.
This is great if you assume all gun carriers are going to commit a crime with their gun.
The problem is this order can be used to attack people who are otherwise doing nothing wrong, who might be caring explicitly because they want to protect themselves from the crime wave this order is trying to address.
Maybe the answer isn’t more guns.
The answer to the drug abuse epidemic isn't more drugs either. But banning drugs didn't do anything to help communities nor will banning guns.
So what accounts for the difference between the US and the rest of the developed world when it comes to gun crimes?
Social safety nets.
Things like: Universal health care, stronger worker protections, better welfare support, better maternal/paternal assistance.
People making enough money to support themselves, aren't in constant danger of layoffs just to boost profits, can access physical and mental healthcare cheaply, aren't financially ruined because they have a baby and new a few months off work, and aren't in danger of losing everything over an emergency room visit aren't out committing violent crimes.
Focusing on "gun" violence ignores the root cause of violent crimes regardless of the weapon of choice.
Every other country has problems too.
That’s just pointing to another problem and hoping people get distracted by it and not pay attention to the guns.
I didn't say those were problems to distract from gun violence. I said those things are a solution to violence more broadly. And as a bonus, those social nets help everyone while not violating this country's fundamental rights.
But that fundamental right has already been violated, there’s plenty of places you can’t bring guns and plenty of people who can’t own them.
Every country has problems, the states are not unique that way. But they are unique among developed countries with their gun crimes.
And I've pointed to strong solutions to help being us in line with other nations. Adding more violations to our constitutional rights is not something I support.
Guns, surprisingly enough, are a major contributing factor to gun problems.
You can’t look at gun crime problems but dismiss any conversation about the guns themselves.
I haven't dismissed any suggestions in this conversation. "less guns" is not an actual suggestion, its a vague platitude.
You just dismissed the conversation about guns again.
Okay
Why do you think there are laws prohibiting the possession of certain items or substances at all? I mean, why should a law abiding citizen owning a bomb, a sample of smallpox virus or a few pounds of heroin be a problem? Crimnals will get them anyhow and if they use them, it`s already illegal. Why is driving while intoxicated illegal? Wouldn't it be sufficient if only causing an accident while drunk driving would be illegal? That would certainly be way easier and cheaper to police. Why do we have building codes? Unless the house collapses or blows up, nothing bad has happemed yet.
Are...you assuming there are no gun laws out there? This is just dumb logic....there are over 20k laws on the books for guns....
But the additional laws take away rights from the law abiding only. The simple solution is to enforce the laws already on the books to the full extent.
These laws only harm the lawful exercising their constitutional rights! Prosecutors will add these on but not to maximize a sentence rather to make it easier to get the bad guy to plead at the cost of not filing on some of the additional charges. Just fully enforce the laws on the books already.
The laws on the books keep getting weakened.
I don't know about every states gun laws or which laws you might be referring to but I feel it's a safe bet to say that laws that pertain to crimes committed while using a firearm have not been weakened in very many places.
What may have been weakened are laws that restrict law abiding citizens from using firearms lawfully.
The laws are not "weakened" so much as pleaded down to less time or lesser charges. Prosecutors do this to get an easy "win" and clear cases from their dockets. There are a lot of gun laws that I agree with but more that I disagree that they solve any of the current problems. Again, enforce what is already law and leave the good people alone.
Don't get me wrong, violence is horrible and should be stopped but as a realist I promise that it never will.
I agree with you, but for different reasons. I also think it's an overreach to target everyone carrying guns, whether they are legal or not.
It's the legal equivalent of calling "Time Out". But it has to be enforceable, and I don't see how this can possibly be enforceable, even if the local authorities wanted to enforce it. People who want to do dumb things with their firearms aren't going to be deterred by this temporary measure. So it can only be enforced after someone does something irresponsible, and won't do anything at all to prevent things and solve the problem the Governor is trying to solve. But you can be sure that the "Demoncrats want to take away your guns!!!!" crowd will be citing this for the next 20 years. I bet they can use the Governor's statements on this directly in campaign ads, just like the Biden campaign did with that MTG speech.
The only saving grace here is that this emergency measure is temporary, but we've seen this movie before....
Targeting legal gun owners won’t stop criminals from carrying firearms.
Please compare the percentage of crimes commited with a firearm versus all crimes commited for the US and countries that have functioning laws limiting private gun ownership. In Germany (population about 80.000.000) in 2022 there were about 200,000 "crimes against personal freedoms" (this number is probably too low because I only added the numbers for the two main types of these crimes). In about 4500 cases (of all crimes) a gun was used to threaten somebody and in about 4000 cases (of all crimes) a shot was fired. So in the overwhelming majority of violent crimes (about 96%) no guns were used.
Oh this is going to go well.
I foresee the number of guns in Albuquerque to increase
A.L.B.U.KERKEE
Had my tray table up, and .y seat back in the full upright position!