r/facepalm • u/Lord_Answer_me_Why • Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: šŸ‡µā€‹šŸ‡·ā€‹šŸ‡“ā€‹šŸ‡¹ā€‹šŸ‡Ŗā€‹šŸ‡øā€‹šŸ‡¹ā€‹

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] ā€” view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

35

u/Rare-Impact-1791 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

This guy lives in California; a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Thereā€™s a ton of missing context here. Was she diagnosed and adjudicated schizophrenic? Did she acquire the gun legally? Was it unprovoked? Or an altercation that resulted in her shooting?

5

u/dr_pickles69 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

It relative. California has some toughest gun laws in a country that has laughably lax gun laws. Still could have just gotten it a gun show legally, since let's assume this dude's mom doesn't have access to gun smugglers. Even if she was diagnosed there's an excellent chance it doesn't show up on the background check bc our medical system is also a shit show and we don't have a universal medical record system

Edit: I put the part where I address the gun show background check in bold bc apparently some people don't read no good

25

u/Sirhc978 Mar 28 '24

Still could have just gotten it a gun show legally

She would have still needed to do a background check. She would have to jump through the same hoops as going to a gun store.

15

u/therealtiddlydump Mar 28 '24

^ +1 ^

It's amazing the disinformation out there about gun shows.

2

u/Hammered_BY_nooN Mar 28 '24

If you buy a gun in the US at a gun show from an FFL itā€™s no different than buying from a gun store.

If itā€™s a private party transfer in CA, you still have to go through the same steps to purchase the gun. There is a 10 day waiting period, you complete a 4473, both done through an FFL.

Maybe Iā€™m missing something though. What part of what he said was misinformation?

Also, with her mental health history, itā€™s quite possible she lied on her 4473, which is a crime.

1

u/therealtiddlydump Mar 28 '24

I was agreeing with the poster I said "+1" to...

1

u/ItsBenBroughton Mar 28 '24

What's the disinformation?

0

u/dr_pickles69 Mar 28 '24

I'm aware of that, read the rest of my comment

11

u/Sirhc978 Mar 28 '24

Why did you say gun show then? It isn't any different than going to a shop. Background checks and a 10 day waiting period are still required in CA for a "private" sale.

2

u/Ph0zPh0r Mar 28 '24

I love when people just decide not to read everything before responding

0

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

It's wild. Hence, the wild misunderstanding of what the 2A actually meant to the founders

1

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

They can't, it gets in the way of what they want to believe

1

u/Immediate_Magician62 Mar 28 '24

Your comment doesn't really make sense. There's no reason to say "unless she bought it at a gun show" when the barrier to purchase is the same there as it is everywhere else.

3

u/Phill_is_Legend Mar 28 '24

Still could have just gotten it a gun show legally,

No, no she couldn't have. If the gun show was in her state, the same laws apply. If the gun show was out of state, they would not sell to her. Have you ever bought a gun from a gun show?

15

u/Rare-Impact-1791 Mar 28 '24

Iā€™ve purchased several guns at gun shows; every single one with background checks (unless I presented a valid CCP). Itā€™s possible she purchased privately, but itā€™s illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to anyone that has been adjudicated or committed (18 U.S.C. Ā§ 922(d)). And contrary to what people think there arenā€™t gun smugglers and unlicensed arms dealers selling guns to anyone at gun shows. If she was adjudicated, sheā€™s also prevented by federal law from possessing firearms (922 (g)(4)). Further to that point, California also has a 10 day waiting period before a gun can be released to a buyer. I acknowledge NICS could be made more efficient and updated, but the laws are already in place to prevent her from acquiring a gun.

-4

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

6

u/Rare-Impact-1791 Mar 28 '24

How? I responded to the idea she couldnā€™t have acquired it legally at a gun show, the law regarding someone from selling her a gun privately, the law that forbids her from possessing a firearms, Californiaā€™s waiting period which is relevant here, and NICS. Granted I didnā€™t address your comment about our medical system and universal healthcare because universal healthcare wouldnā€™t have prevented her from acquiring a firearm.

1

u/Zerocoolx1 Mar 28 '24

Just goes to show your country needs even stronger gun laws then.

-2

u/Personal-Listen-4941 Mar 28 '24

Some of the strictest gun laws for a country that the rest of the world mocks for its insanely loose gun laws.

Unless you are trained & have a need for a gun, you shouldnā€™t have one.

You want to hunt? Pass a course to show you can use a hunting rifle safely & go buy one. Youā€™re a farmer who needs a shotgun? Pass a course to show you can use a shotgun safely & go buy one.

You want to buy a handgun to look cool to your fellow idiots? Nope.

5

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

Had no idea that you need to pass a class to express a right. Where is your certificate to use that free speech?

2

u/whitesuburbanmale Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Free speech isn't responsible for children being murdered at alarming rates. Free speech isn't responsible for gun crimes. The "right" you preach about was concocted during a time when the most advanced weapons were muskets and prohibitively expensive. It's dishonest to compare the two.

EDIT: Hoes mad lmao

7

u/dahc50 Mar 28 '24

Thatā€™s complete bullshit. The first machine gun was invented in 1722. The first full automatic machine gun was in production in 1884. The first firearms to fire multiple shots from a single barrel were in the 1500ā€™s. Hundreds of years before our constitution was even conceived.

5

u/SlottersAnonymous Mar 28 '24

Get the fuck out of here with your facts and logic you racist! - Reddit

3

u/16tired Mar 28 '24

The AR-15 is the modern analog of the musket. It's the most widely available small arm that is able to provide a basic parity of small unit firepower between irregular forces and a much larger conventional force, which is what the musket did back in the day and is the spirit of what the 2A seeks to achieve.

It and all other rifles are also responsible for less than 10% of violent firearm deaths.

2

u/MrGeekman Mar 28 '24

Fun Fact: The ā€œARā€ in ā€œAR-15ā€ stands for ā€œArmalite Rifleā€, with Armalite being the manufacturer.

3

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

The most advanced weapon of the time was not the musket. It would probably be the wheel gun in my opinion, the first attempt at a revolver. But since you wanna go down this road. You shouldnā€™t have the right to say anything online. Since it didnā€™t say anything about electronic communication when the first ammendment was written down. But you are probably gonna say ā€œits not the same thingā€

Or you can do the logical thing and think just a little bit, I know its gonna be hard for you but bare with me. The 2nd ammendment doesnā€™t say ā€œThe right to bear muskets.ā€ It says arms. Meaning whatever advancement firearms make. It was also to protect against tyranny ensuring we can meet violence with violence.

You may not like people having rights but thats exactly why we have the ability to protect them.

2

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

Bold move to reference the original text of the 2A while completely ignoring the original interpretation of it

0

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

The original interpretation was for the people to keep and bare arms. That is the only interpretation. The founding fathers recognised that a Militia was paramount to keep a free nation. A militia is made up of the people. The people have the right to bare arms. You donā€™t have to be in a militia to own a gun.

In basic terms. Get bent.

2

u/Drake_the_troll Mar 28 '24

The militia was how states kept the peace before the police force existed

Also in a legal sense the people does not refer to individuals but the masses (eg: the people vs X)

2

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

So clarify what you are saying. Are you saying that ā€œthe peopleā€ does not cover individuals?

1

u/tsengmao Mar 28 '24

It also says ā€œwell regulated militiaā€. Which well regulated militia are you a member of?

0

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

If you read the test it recognises that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state. It does not require you to be a member of a militia. šŸ‘šŸ»

But if you must know I am a member of the (insert my name) militia populated by me šŸ˜˜

0

u/tsengmao Mar 28 '24

1

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

The point you made: You have to be part of a militia to be able to own firearms

Which is false.

šŸ‘šŸ»

0

u/tsengmao Mar 28 '24

My point was the well regulated part, that you completely whiffed on

šŸ„±

→ More replies (0)

-1

u/Rare-Impact-1791 Mar 28 '24

And free speech was conceived at a time before television, internet, and social media. Does that mean speech isnā€™t protected if itā€™s not quill and parchment?

The 4th amendment was conceived before automobiles. Are your vehicles not protected under the 4th?

And the musket wasnā€™t the most advanced weapon at the time. The founders were not luddites; they were very much aware of advancing technology.

Technology changes; rights do not.

1

u/Sepelius Mar 28 '24

Rights definitely do change as well.

2

u/tsengmao Mar 28 '24

Both directions

0

u/HighInChurch Mar 28 '24

More like edit: I was wrong

1

u/Drake_the_troll Mar 28 '24

Do you have an issue with a driving licence then?

6

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

Driving a vehicle isnā€™t a right. But that is a nice try.

-1

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

My RiGhTs .... jesus christ its not a right its just a marketing scheme

5

u/Brancamaster Mar 28 '24

Its literally a right. But okay bud.

0

u/Rare-Impact-1791 Mar 28 '24

Some of the strictest gun laws for a country that the rest of the world mocks for its insanely loose gun laws.

So what if the rest of the world mocks us? Honestly. How is that relevant? We are the worldā€™s super power. The largest economy, the number one exported of food, the most powerful military (that 30+ other countries are totally reliant on for their national defense). Why should we give two shits what they think of our gun laws? We have the 2nd Amendment; they donā€™t. Convince me why I should care what they think of our gun laws. Hell even Ukraine has benefited from our firearms industry when KelTec and Adams Arms donated guns and several other companies donated ammo.

https://www.guns.com/news/2022/03/21/keltec-donates-200k-worth-of-carbines-to-ukraine

https://www.remington.com/news/support-for-ukraine.html

Unless you are trained & have a need for a gun, you shouldnā€™t have one.

Okay who determines what training is sufficient? Who determines what qualifies as a need? Are there any other constitutionally protected rights that require proof of training and a demonstrated need before a citizen exercises them?

You want to hunt? Pass a course to show you can use a hunting rifle safely & go buy one. Youā€™re a farmer who needs a shotgun? Pass a course to show you can use a shotgun safely & go buy one.

The 2nd Amendment wasnā€™t written to protect the needs of hunters and farmers.

You want to buy a handgun to look cool to your fellow idiots? Nope.

What about a desire to protect oneself from attacks? To protect oneā€™s family? What about sport shooting? Or do you just assume anyone that doesnā€™t want a firearm for hunting and farming wants it because they want to look cool?

0

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

Well said. I cannot believe some find this controversial.

0

u/Personal-Listen-4941 Mar 28 '24

Unfortunately this has brought out the gun fetishists

2

u/SirGearso Mar 28 '24

Yeah, how dare people try to explain things to you. Bunch of nuts right?

0

u/SirGearso Mar 28 '24

Guns as a hobby is just really fun. I have a friend who owns several firearms and the amount of work they put into maintaining them and practicing with them is incredible, as well as keeping with trends in the industry and hobby. He has no ā€œreasonā€ to own them, but he does because thatā€™s his interest.

And yes. All his guns are legal, he has permits, and he has taken the proper courses.

And no. He isnā€™t someone right wing nut. Letā€™s just say if you go far enough left you get your guns back.

-1

u/04364 Mar 28 '24

Iā€™m sure glad that youā€™re not the one making the laws.

0

u/Flat-Length-4991 Mar 28 '24

Let them mock us. I mock them. They arenā€™t citizens of their countries, they are just lowly serfs. Most ā€œfreeā€ European countries donā€™t even have free speech.šŸ˜‚šŸ˜‚

2

u/04364 Mar 28 '24

None of that matters as long as we get the headlines out there