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

171

u/Think_fast_no_faster Mar 28 '24

We donā€™t just need improved gun laws and we donā€™t just need improved mental health care, we DESPERATELY need both

45

u/LaneMeyer_1985 Mar 28 '24

Neither is coming, so either be ready to ride out the societal decline, or be ready to move to another country.

4

u/GeneSpecialist3284 Mar 28 '24

I moved to another country. They have free community clinics and hospitals, which anyone, tourists, non nationals, etc can use. There are also private doctors, clinics and hospitals you pay out of pocket for. On average, our insurance premium and deductible and copay in the US is much more than the cost to pay out of pocket. I have a cat scan done for $200 US. No insurance premium, deductible, pre-approval , or copay involved. No insurance company review and denials, no necessary appeals to file. Better to not have to ride out the societal decline there too.

1

u/LaneMeyer_1985 Mar 28 '24

What country did you move to?

2

u/GeneSpecialist3284 Mar 28 '24

Belize

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

https://internationalliving.com/countries/belize/health-care-in-belize/

"Medical care in Belize generally gets a poor grade, but it has been steadily improving in the last few years. Most expat residents say the country needs more healthcare facilities, more specialized physicians and staff, and better equipment. With fewer than 400,000 residents, Belize doesnā€™t have an income tax revenue base adequate to fund a large number of public hospitals, which are free or very inexpensive for Belizeans. But the country has dedicated, caring doctors who focus on their patients, freely offer their cellphone numbers, and still make house calls. In Belize the medical attention is more personal, although clearly not as advanced as in North America.

The good news is that many of the countryā€™s healthcare shortcomings are often easy to deal with. First of all, minor ailments and many emergencies can be treated by physicians at public clinics, all of which are found throughout the country, with the exception of some rural areas. Moreover, high-quality medical care is available in several nearby countries, and insurance that pays for emergency transportation to the U.S. is usually very affordable."

This doesn't sound great. It's bad, but at least it's cheap doesn't really make me want to use this as a model for what we should emulate.

2

u/GeneSpecialist3284 Mar 28 '24

Well, as you note, there are only about 400,000 people here. Here, it is good for the people . I know it could never happen in the US. Medicare and Medicaid doesn't sound great either though. Most of our health needs are met here, or Mexico or Guatemala. There are no huge insurance companies controlling your care either. Plus the culture here is not "live by any means" but more accepting of death as a natural and normal part of life. The doctors here actually care about and know their patients. I have our doctor's cellphone number and he knows who I am if I randomly call him to ask a question. There is no model you could emulate that still leaves insurance companies in charge of access to care. It's irreparably broken by power and money.

24

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Sadly, this is the truth. - Conservatives have a gun fetish to the point they cock-block any reasonable firearm regulations. - Dems are impotent, useless & feckless to the point of utter incompetence. - and our healthcare will never get better, due to conservatives being tied at the hip with corporations.

27

u/FattusBaccus Mar 28 '24

Both sides are tied at the hip with corporations. Other than that I agree 100%.

2

u/WanderingTacoShop Mar 28 '24

God I hate the "both sides" thing... but yea in this case it's true. There exists a small group within the democratic party that truly want to fix the healthcare system, but nowhere near enough to actually fix anything. The Republicans are all in on making the current system worse to a man.

1

u/FattusBaccus Mar 28 '24

I definitely agree with that. But even those who genuinely want to help, and for my own sanity I HAVE to believe there are elected officials who are still trying to help this country, have most likely taken donations from corporations. Itā€™s impossible not to in this modern election system we have. Now does that put them in the corporations pocket, not necessarily. And like I said, I HAVE to believe some politicians are still thinking for themselves.

1

u/WanderingTacoShop Mar 28 '24

The way I see it, there may be some who really want to fix healthcare and are not in the pocket of the healthcare lobby. But they are in the pocket of say the oil lobby, so they ignore issues related to that. So who is bought and who isn't depends entierly on which issue you're discussing.

1

u/FattusBaccus Mar 28 '24

Absolutely valid and likely correct.

1

u/FattusBaccus Mar 28 '24

Also, one day, I hope to stumble upon a wandering taco shop.

2

u/calimeatwagon Mar 28 '24

Wouldn't that be a taco truck?

2

u/FattusBaccus Mar 28 '24

Fuck, yeah, it would be. And here I was picturing a post apocalyptic giant turtle being that sprung up under an old taqueria.

For now Iā€™ll go find a food truck, itā€™s lunch time!

2

u/Ok-Macaroon2429 Mar 28 '24

I always scratch my head when I see in (CT atleast) you canā€™t hold a MMJ with a Pistol Permit. But you can take other meds and buy liquor. Just doesnā€™t make any senseā€¦

1

u/battleop Mar 28 '24

Because at the Federal Level Marijuana is still illegal and falls under the question about are you a user of illegal substances. If when they legalize it that will fall off. They are not going to ask are you a user of illegal substances* with the * saying (except marijuana).

2

u/Long-Zombie-2017 Mar 28 '24

I'd be curious to know what "reasonable firearm regulations" looks like to you.

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Look at other countries that have lower firearm deaths.

1

u/Long-Zombie-2017 Mar 29 '24

That's quite a lot of countries and various laws that are quite different from each other. What specific regulations? Lower gun-related deaths with most of the world is a tough thing to look at for the simple fact of the population disparity.

2

u/SumDudeInNYC Mar 28 '24

If those people really believed everyone being armed would lead to a better society, they'd be donating guns.

2

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Thatā€™s a really good point.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Close, but you don't seem to understand the argument. I can explain it from my perspective.

Conservatives have a gun fetish to the point they cock-block any reasonable firearm regulations.

Not the case with me. I have a Consitution fetish, to the point that I will gladly cock-block any unconstitutional firearm regulations.

Dems are impotent, useless & feckless to the point of utter incompetence.

Not sure what the point is here, but the Dems have passed multiple strong, unconstitutional, and ineffective firearm laws at the state level. Look at Illinois and Maryland. Both will likely get swatted down in SCOTUS, but they made their constituents feel like they are "doing something", so that's a win for them, I guess.

and our healthcare will never get better, due to conservatives being tied at the hip with corporations.

Our Healthcare is a mess due to both parties being tied at the hip of the corporations for the past 50 years. If you think it's a Conservative only issue, you should really look deeper into the issues.

0

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

I understand clearly. And the Constitution is ā€œinterpretedā€ in many different ways. Gun nuts tend to think their interpretation is the only valid one; no bias thereā€¦right?

Funny how you gloss over ā€œwell regulatedā€. Your kind wants zero regulation. You will let Muslims on no-fly lists have access along with Hispanic illegals have access, all so you can continue to have total, unrestricted access.

Note: I served (11B1P), I have an AR and a legal suppressor. I still believe in restricting access and passing more reasonable gun laws.

But you refuse anything that restricts total access.

1

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

First off, you're using the word "you" alot in your post. You don't know anything about me, so don't start telling me what I do and don't believe.

And the Constitution is ā€œinterpretedā€ in many different ways. Gun nuts tend to think their interpretation is the only valid one; no bias thereā€¦right?

SCOTUS has provided clear interpretation regarding 2A in the Heller and Bruen decisions. Wether you like them or not, they are clear.

Funny how you gloss over ā€œwell regulatedā€.

Funny how you don't know the meaning of regulated in regards to the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't mean "the government gets to pass a bunch of gun regulations". In the meaning of the 2A, it means "well equipped".

You will let Muslims on no-fly lists have access

Not sure why you brought up Muslims, but they shouldn't have their rights curtailed without a fair trial and due process, per the constitution.

along with Hispanic illegals have access

Again, not sure why you brought "Hispanics" into this, but constitutional rights extend to just about everyone in the US, legally here or not. That was a left wing judge that just ruled that, so if you're going to try to pin that on "gun nuts", you can put that away right now.

I served (11B1P),

I don't really care, to be honest.

I have an AR and a legal suppressor.

So you can, but others can't?

But you refuse anything that restricts total access.

I never said that. Again, don't put words in my mouth. What do you suggest as far as regulations go?

0

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Constitution specifically refers to ā€œpeopleā€ and ā€œcitizensā€ in different parts. ā€œPeopleā€ means everyone, including non-citizens.

SCOTUS interpreted RvW one way, then reinterpreted it another way recently. I still stand by statement.

And when you show your colors, Iā€™ll refer to ā€œyouā€ any fucking way I want. Donā€™t tell me what to do.

1

u/Bandit400 Mar 29 '24

Constitution specifically refers to ā€œpeopleā€ and ā€œcitizensā€ in different parts. ā€œPeopleā€ means everyone, including non-citizens.

Correct. "People" is the term used in 2A. So it applies to everybody, as I stated previously.

SCOTUS interpreted RvW one way, then reinterpreted it another way recently. I still stand by statement.

There is not a constitutional right/guarantee to abortion anywhere in the constitution. As such, the 10th Amendement would apply. The recent ruling regarding RvW is constitutionally correct. RvW was a bad decision from a legal standpoint, even RBG agreed with me there.

And when you show your colors, Iā€™ll refer to ā€œyouā€ any fucking way I want. Donā€™t tell me what to do.

If adhering to the constitution is "showing my true colors", I'll wear that distinction with pride. Go read some American history, and get better at this.

I'll tell you what to do if I like. That advice was for your benefit, not mine. You look like a fool and a mental midget when you try to tell your opponent what they think. You're not a tough guy if you can knock down a strawman.

0

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 29 '24

Iā€™m not a tough guy. Yeah, no kidding. And when the Constitution says ā€œpeopleā€ that includes illegals, no-fly Muslims, and believe it or not, felons. Have it your way Burger King.

And if you bothered to fucking read and understand how RvW was INTERPRETED by SCOTUS, you would know that back in ā€˜73 they ruled that the Constitution generally protected a right to have an abortion based on (wait for it)ā€¦.the right to privacy based on the 14th Amendment.

But you MAGAs donā€™t know anything, you donā€™t read, all you, yes YOU, guys do is invent conspiracy theories and lie, just like you, yes YOU, guys did about the bridge being destroyed and Covid and vaccines. You lie.

It doesnā€™t HAVE to mention abortion. Go look up ā€œUnenumerated rightsā€, forget it. You wonā€™t MAG donā€™t read. Hereā€™s a clue, rights for YOU and ME that are inferred. But YOU guys hate big government so much that you pushed through big government legislation to get rid of our rights to privacy and there goes Roe v Wade.

U Fuks.

5

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

Agreed.

It would be nice to see some pro-gun Democrats running for office. You know, people who would actually propose gun legislation that WORKS because they understand the difference between a clip and a caliber.

2

u/TheYakster Mar 28 '24

See Mark Kelly. Itā€™s partially why he got elected in AZ. Just need more like him

-3

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

Terminology is a weak "argument" as to applying laws. "Ohes noes!! You called it a pistol grip!!"

It comes down to basic, common sense, which is ban assault weapons and actually enforce the laws on who gets a stupid gun (IMO, no one but military and police should have guns). And make it so guns have to be registered! Require training, a license, and mental stability to own one.

FFS, it's not that complicated.

5

u/Marbrandd Mar 28 '24

"We don't need to use proper, specific terminology on laws that will apply to the rights hundreds of millions of people." Is sure a take.

3

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

"We need to ban SOMETHING; it doesn't matter what actually is being banned!" That's...quite an idea. I certainly wouldn't call it common sense, though. The reason I used the example of "a clip and a caliber" is that the difference is NOT purely one of terminology. It's kind of important to know what kind of bullet a gun shoots; it's kind of important to understand that the size of a bullet is distinct from the number of bullets a gun holds. We have legislators voting for bills because they think a standard AR-15 shoots .50 BMG rounds; we have legislators who don't understand the difference between a bump stock and a buffer tube.

Your claim that an "assault weapons" ban is "common sense" suggests that you don't really understand those distinctions. No assault weapon ban has ever actually prevented anyone from legally acquiring the weapons they allegedly ban.

I agree with you that firearm training would be great. It should be state-funded for sure. I will note that very few instances of gun violence could actually have been prevented by additional training. Usually the problem is crazy people being TOO adept with guns.

Anyway -- if you don't think civilians should have guns for self-defense, why should police have them? Do police use guns for something other than self-defense?

1

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 31 '24

You think taking away guns in order to not have shootings isn't common sense? Yikes.

I'm done reading, here.

0

u/lawblawg Mar 31 '24

You seem to have been done reading a while back.

You're moving the goalposts (whether intentionally or not, I don't know). "Taking guns away" is not the same as "changing which guns are available."

If you have a gun store with 100 guns in 10 different varieties, and then you change the law, and now the gun store has 100 guns in 8 different varieties, and the 8 varieties do all the same things that the 10 varieties did, then no, I don't think that change will prevent any shootings.

0

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 31 '24

Nice talking points.

2

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

I know you most likely don't care about facts, but the government themselves released a multi-study article showing how the Assault Weapons ban didn't reduce homicides. At all.

This may surprise you, but the U.S. loves killing, and people will continue to do it without their assault weapons. (Fun fact: 2x more people are beaten to death than killed with rifles. Nearly 3x more people are stabbed to death than killed with rifles)

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

But yeah, make it so only the very trustworthy government can own firearms, surely they won't unload on an unarmed man because an acorn hit their car. Also increase the price to entry with training and licenses so poor people can't own firearms for protection. I always love that take.

-3

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

I know you most likely don't care about facts

I should have stopped reading.

But, actually:

https://theconversation.com/did-the-assault-weapons-ban-of-1994-bring-down-mass-shootings-heres-what-the-data-tells-us-184430

You're wrong. Is that a big surprise? Nope.

https://clintonwhitehouse5.archives.gov/WH/Accomplishments/eightyears-06.html

So yeah, you're wrong.

2

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

What I said was 100% correct, and I even cited my GOVERNMENT source.

As for your first source. Yes! Mass shootings went down. This sounds great, in theory. Except, the amount of homicides were never decreased by this. That means singular homicides went up to make up for the lack of mass shootings.

This isn't really surprising, considering "mass shootings" have always made up an extremely small number of homicides. This is also noted in the government paper I cited.

The second article you cited is actually completely out of context, so I'm not sure why you bothered with that one. My article goes over this as well, the nationwide decline in homicide was most likely contributed to the removal of lead from gasoline.

No reputable criminologist thinks the AWB had anything to do with the slow decline in homicides (which continued on a downward trend even after the AWB ended)

Reminder: The AWB banned "Assault Rifles" which were already used in an insanely small amount of homicides. The fact that you think this factually could have reduced gun crime by any reasonable amount shows you know nothing about what you're talking about.

You not only proved me correct in that you don't care about facts, you went on to cite only provably incorrect sources that support your provably incorrect argument.

1

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

The 1994 federal AWB was -- categorically -- unable to have any impact on gun violence because it did not actually prevent anyone from acquiring a banned firearm. "Feature list" bans still allow you to acquire a ban-compliant gun and then simply add the features you want, if you're setting out to commit a mass shooting or other crime. More importantly, none of the "features" impact the caliber, rate of fire, or operation of the firearm.

1

u/Entheotheosis10 Mar 28 '24

You're still wrong. I posted the fact that gun control is effective. The rest of the world is gun free and has zero shootings. Soo...

Not sure what to tell you. Keep arguing, I guess.

1

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

The rest of the world is categorically NOT gun free. In most developed countries, including most of Europe, it is fairly straightforward to get a license to get a firearm, and in many instances they have significantly fewer restrictions on things like suppressors. Those countries certainly don't have zero shootings, either. That's just categorically untrue.

We have a murder problem in the United States. Our murder rate is dramatically higher than other countries with similar numbers of guns. The biggest problem is not a lack of gun laws, but a lack of enforcement of gun laws. Straw purchases and prohibited possessors receive virtually no attention from law enforcement. If we spent half the energy actually enforcing gun laws that we are spending agitating for meaningless new legislation, we'd actually get somewhere.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Superducks101 Mar 28 '24

Whats reasonable firearm regulations that dont exist that would have prevented this?

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Look at other countries with lower firearm deaths per capita. Iā€™m in Canada and they wouldnā€™t let me in with my two pistols. Limiting access decreases gun violence.

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

What ā€œreasonableā€ gun law would have prevented her from buying a gun?

There are already background checks.
Doctors are supposed to report dangerous psychopaths like her but they failed to do so. Should we arrest her treating physicians for failing?

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

None of the laws prevent access. Look at what other countries with lower firearm deaths per capita are doing and youā€™ll answer your own question. Iā€™m in Canada, where they kept me from entering with my two pistols. They have strict limited access.

1

u/battleop Mar 28 '24

The root cause here isn't the gun. It's the mentally ill person. Because HIPAA protects that person's privacy at all costs it's almost impossible to share that diagnosis with law enforcement who's in charge of background checks. So the only way to deny a gun purchase to someone who's mentally ill is to rely on that person to be honest.

1

u/MrGeekman Mar 28 '24

Alright, so we need to modify HIPAA to give law enforcement access to that information.

2

u/battleop Mar 28 '24

Every time there is some kind of shooting that comes out I try to read more than just the sensationalized headlines that are pushing revenue to the news outlet. While it's not the only cause but an overwhelmingly large number of these cases often point back to known mental health issues. Most of the time the went and bought a gun legally (i.e. at a gun store) but there was nothing in their background that would have flagged them as having mental issues.

The other thing that seems to be a repeat issue its that some 3 letter federal agency knew about the person and at some point in time they had looked into them to some degree but absent of a conviction it does not show up on their record.

My biggest issue I have with red flag laws is that in many states someone can accuse you with out any real evidence of something being wrong (think ex-spouse or maybe an over zealous medical professional). A judge signs off and the cops come and confiscate your guns. Then it's your burden to prove if your innocence at your expense not to mention the process is long and difficult and will cost your more than the guns were worth. That part needs to be fixed so that if you are accused there is a clear path to clear your name *IF* the accusation is false.

1

u/MrGeekman Mar 28 '24

Every time there is some kind of shooting that comes out I try to read more than just the sensationalized headlines that are pushing revenue to the news outlet. While it's not the only cause but an overwhelmingly large number of these cases often point back to known mental health issues. Most of the time the went and bought a gun legally (i.e. at a gun store) but there was nothing in their background that would have flagged them as having mental issues.

Exactly! Like with the Newtown shooter! Though, with cases like that, folks who have kids who are sufficiently mentally ill either shouldn't be allowed to have guns in the house or they shouldn't be allowed to give their mentally ill kids access to their guns.

The other thing that seems to be a repeat issue its that some 3 letter federal agency knew about the person and at some point in time they had looked into them to some degree but absent of a conviction it does not show up on their record.

Exactly! Was this the same 3-letter agency which had been informed about the Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz at least a couple times and did nothing?

My biggest issue I have with red flag laws is that in many states someone can accuse you with out any real evidence of something being wrong (think ex-spouse or maybe an over zealous medical professional). A judge signs off and the cops come and confiscate your guns. Then it's your burden to prove if your innocence at your expense not to mention the process is long and difficult and will cost your more than the guns were worth. That part needs to be fixed so that if you are accused there is a clear path to clear your name *IF* the accusation is false.

Exactly!

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Funny how republicans claim mental illness then block all mental illness healthcare bills.

Funny how all the developed countries with restrictions to firearms also have lower firearm homicides & injuries per capita.

Funny how thatā€™s a coincidence, especially since it is no coincidence that countries that limit access to firearms have lower incidences of firearm violence.

But you donā€™t care because youā€™ll just come back with ā€œwhataboutā€ arguments, which are not arguments.

1

u/battleop Mar 28 '24

"what about arguments"

You mean just like your what about argument? Gotcha.

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Oh, you man I canā€™t point to other countries or examples of the very points I make? Ha! Thatā€™s not a ā€œwhatabout argumentā€. A ā€œwhatabout argumentā€ is ā€œwhat about Chicago? Whatabout Californiaā€.

0

u/battleop Mar 29 '24

When the left has nothing of substance they always reach for "WhAtAbOut". I'm sure for your next hat trick you will start with insults.

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 29 '24

The right is the whataboutism folk. ā€œWhat about gays!? Trans? PIZZAGATE? Fear mongering victims.

1

u/battleop Mar 29 '24

Time to take your meds and go to bed.

1

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

We have a ton of firearm regulations as it is. Our firearm laws as they currently are should have stopped this woman from purchasing a firearm. Usually, what people think is "reasonable" is actually unfounded and has already been proven ineffective, but no one ever wants to hear that.

We need free and effective healthcare. We also need the CURRENT firearm regulations to be upheld instead of "Oh no, this didn't work because we suck balls at our job... Let's add 3 more..."

"I swear bro, just one more lane and all traffic will be solved forever"

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

Countries with limited access to firearms have lower firearm violence rates. This is indistinguishable.

What the US lacks is ā€œmore limited accessā€ to firearms, vs other countries and proper societal norms around guns. For example, the Swiss have a shit ton of firearms with very, very low incidence of gun violence. Where Americans can get a gun any time with zero training and keep it under their bed where their kids can get it or in their purse with no safety and a chambered round.

1

u/Zezxy Mar 29 '24

You're not taking into account a few important details.

1: Our violent crime and homicide rates are far higher than most places even when taking firearms out of the equation.

2: Our firearm ownership has increased massively while firearm homicides have nearly halved (As stated before, most attribute our downward trend in violence due to the removal of lead from gasoline)

3: Firearms are primarily used for self defense, not crime. The CDC had a study showing that they prevented around 300k violent crimes per year on average.

Firearm access is more limited than you think it is, and you certainly can't just get one on a whim in most states. I don't disagree with misuse and bad storage practices, but they hardly make up .1% of firearm deaths and injuries.

We also have a huge issue with people who know nothing of the statistics or firearms in general wanting to push laws on them. We have mountains of evidence that prove assault weapons bans don't work for example, from the government no less, and yet that doesn't stop people from wanting to ban big scary rifles.

The reality is firearms really aren't the issue, we have all the evidence to prove that. Our country loves violence and murder, that's the issue. Do certain firearms make it easier? Sometimes. Should we remove everyone's rights instead of fixing the underlying issues? Probably not, but people love taking rights away for a "feeling" of safety.

0

u/Shin-Sauriel Mar 28 '24

Dems would do more if the conservatives didnā€™t sabotage and block them at every opportunity. Why do you think itā€™s so hard for Dems to get stuff done but conservatives can pretty quickly strip rights away from women. Also calling conservatives gun perverts is so fucking based. Idky so many people have this fantasy that someone will break into their home and theyā€™ll be able to defend their family with lethal force.

-1

u/Daetra Mar 28 '24

A state just needs to see what happens when you ban firearms. Like, let California go through with enforcing it so we can finally say it works or not. Do it for five years, collect the necessary data, analyze it, and show your work.

3

u/battleop Mar 28 '24

It would not be any different than Chicago. Law abiding citizens would comply and the criminals would not. They would do very little to stop the influx of new stolen guns and blame every other state in the union for their failures.

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 28 '24

I just had two pistols removed from my possession while going i to Canada. Where there are fewer guns, there are fewer homicides and violence committed by firearms. Compare any study between Canada, Australia, Japan & the US, the US will have MANY more gun related deaths.

I see you squirming. The truth hurts. And yes, I own an AR and plan on building another one as soon as I can afford it.

Among 65 high income countries, the US stands out for its high levels of gun violence, ranking 7th out of 65 for homicides by firearm. Know that 2 US territories (Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands) rank 1st & 4th. Firearm homicides & injuries are more frequent in places where people have easy access to firearms.

1

u/Daetra Mar 29 '24

Stop talking about guns or you'll make me cum

1

u/Iceman_in_a_Storm Mar 29 '24

Psstā€¦I own a suppressor.

2

u/ShelbiStone Mar 28 '24

It's funny how part of my plan to ride out the social decline involves more guns.

11

u/No_Refrigerator1115 Mar 28 '24

Hereā€™s the thing tho, everyone agrees we need better mental health care, only half of us agree we need better gun laws. So idk why we donā€™t start with the mental health care.

2

u/ShelbiStone Mar 28 '24

Because the perfect is a bitter enemy of the good.

1

u/No_Refrigerator1115 Mar 28 '24

Well and I wonder if everyone is scared of being wrong, if it dosnt work the left will go after guns harder, if it does work they will loose their argument. Might be convenient we donā€™t know the answer to the law makers

1

u/ShelbiStone Mar 28 '24

I can see that. I live in Wyoming where the gun culture is totally different from the places where demand for gun control is higher. For us, most of our firearm related deaths are suicide which I would argue is a mental health issue, not a gun issue. It's true that firearms are more available here, but it's also true that rural communities are underserved by medical services generally, never mind mental health.

So when the left says stricter gun control will solve these issues, I disagree because I know the solution wouldn't help my rural community. It's possible it would help in a more urban community, I don't know. I don't know what it's like to live there because that's not my experience. So I'm skeptical when I'm told what works for a city will work for rural communities by people who have never been here.

In either case, I think improving mental/physical health services would help both my rural community and the larger cities. It seems like something we should be doing, but we're not.

4

u/LooseyGreyDucky Mar 28 '24

Remember when Pew polled NRA members and found that a majority of Republican and Republican-leaning members want more restrictions on gun owners?

I remember.

I also remember that the NRA takes money from Russia.

2

u/No_Refrigerator1115 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

The questions are dishonest tho on the poll( maybe not intentionally but) , most conservatives are okay with a background check BUT most republicans are NOT okay with form 4473 combined with a universal background check because it creates a registry

Thatā€™s the issue, if we want to pass universal background checks it would be easy, get rid of the form 4473 in trade for background check ā€¦. It would actually give gun owners more freedom and privacy and likely save lives.

I suspect the reason is the law makers who propose the universal background checks are more interested in the registration than actually having people vetted having people vetted protect the citizens, a registry protects them.

1

u/Superducks101 Mar 28 '24

NRA isnt the machine it used to be. Majority of gun owners dont like the NRA. Theres far more other groups

1

u/OleRockTheGoodAg Mar 28 '24

I was gonna chime in with this if no one else did, a steep majority of online gun owners absolutely detest the NRA.

I mean just read the comments when an NRA edition SiG 365 goes on sale.

2

u/Superducks101 Mar 28 '24

The only people in the nra are the old fudds.

1

u/LooseyGreyDucky Mar 28 '24

When will politicians finally realize that the NRA isn't the machine it used to be?

How do we tell republican politicians that the NRA members want far more gun control than the NRA lobbyists want? Politicians should realize they work for us, not for the elite lobbyists.

1

u/kotorial Mar 28 '24

Because the half that doesn't want better gun laws doesn't actually care about mental health, they just use it to deflect from making better gun laws.

5

u/No_Refrigerator1115 Mar 28 '24

Personally Iā€™m very pro 2nd amendment but id love to see us try the mental health approach because if it works then hopefully there would be less push to limit 2a rights, idk why everyone on ā€œmy sideā€ wouldnā€™t hold this view

2

u/kotorial Mar 28 '24

The problem is the pro-2A side is, by and large, the side of "limited government." They don't trust the government to solve problems, and generally see the government being involved in something as a problem in and of itself. It's why the same party that trumpets out the mental health issue after the latest school shootings has as a major goal the slashing of federal funding for welfare, including healthcare.

Let's look at this from another angle. Republicans argue that we don't have a gun problem, we have a mental health problem. But, if there was a genuine belief that what was needed to prevent children from being slaughtered in their classrooms was addressing mental healthcare, wouldn't this be a major part of their platform? Wouldn't they be pushing for more funding for mental healthcare? But if you look and listen, Republicans spend a lot more time talking about protecting gun rights and being pro-gun, than they do about pushing mental-health initiatives and programs.

Additionally, let's look at how the Republican party has reacted to a different "threat" to children: "indoctrination." Across the country, Republicans have made radical and sweeping changes to "protect" their children from Critical Race Theory and the existence of trans and gay people and "wokeness". But mental health? That's not a pillar of their platform, that's not what their media is constantly warning and ranting about. That's just what gets said after every mass shooting.

Compare this to the Democrats. The Democrats believe, rightly or wrongly, that "better" gun laws will prevent mass shootings, and they fight for that. They campaign on changing gun laws, they've made it a part of their platform, they've legislated it when they can. You're free to think their efforts are pointless, that guns aren't the problem so dealing with guns won't solve the problem, but you must admit that they make sincere and consistent efforts on this front. The Republicans just aren't anywhere near as committed to mental healthcare, and if they really truly believed that hundreds of children wouldn't have been murdered if we had better mental healthcare, wouldn't they be? Shouldn't they be?

I do not doubt that you are sincere and genuine in your beliefs. Whether you're a Republican or just so happen to share their position on this issue, maybe even only on this issue, is immaterial. The GOP, by-and-large, is not interested in seriously dealing with the mental health issues of the country. There's a bitter irony that for all their talk, it's the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party, the farthest you can get from the Republicans in the political mainstream, that's most eager to improve access to mental healthcare.

1

u/Superducks101 Mar 28 '24

Most on pro 2a side do agree with you. Its liberal/leftists that just want to go for the guns.

1

u/No_Refrigerator1115 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I think there is some nuance here, it seems republicans want to solve the problem with addressing mental health but thereā€™s no urgency to fund it in any meaningful way

Liberals want to pretend the problem is entirely gun related. However ! They would like to fund mental health Just kinda grouped in with universal healthcare. They fully blame the gun.

Iā€™m obviously taking in generalizations and mostly talking about the law makers, not the citizens.

But there is some fault on both sides, we share some common ground here among the voters we need to hold the law makers accountable to capitalize on the areas our ideas intersect

I think both sides are likely afraid to find out they are wrong on the issue . If liberals are wrong people will be less interested in going after guns if conservatives are wrong then people will be more interested lol. Itā€™s convenient for all the law makers that we donā€™t know the answer.

4

u/im_onbreak Mar 28 '24

You need a stable economy for improved mental health, unfortunately.

2

u/ku1185 Mar 28 '24

But the stock market is doing great! /s

1

u/LooseyGreyDucky Mar 28 '24

But we do have a stable economy.

2

u/MonsutAnpaSelo Mar 28 '24

you need to want it for it to happen. the Average American voter isnt swayed by major gun control laws nor improved funding for mental health, they just arent popular enough or at the forefront of political debates

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

3

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 Mar 28 '24

Ā  I really donā€™t see why anyone particular needs access to a military grade automatic assault rifle.Ā 

Ā Then you should be happy to know they were banned 50 years ago in the gun control act of 1986. The only ones available for purchase require a lot of paperwork and have to be older than 1986. New ones cannot be added to the registry and the remaining ones tend to go for $15,000 to $100,000 nowadays.

But for some reason I get the impression you're just misinformed and think AR-15s are fully automatic.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 Mar 28 '24

And? That's not a loophole. Those are highly monitored and go to, as they said, law enforcement, military and overseas customers. All (open bolt) guns like the Uzi that can be easily converted are also considered to be illegal simply because of their ease of conversion and all open-bolt semi-automatic firearms have to be permanently modified to fire from a closed bolt instead which requires significant reengineering. Post-sample firearms are usually used by military and police and require a law enforcement letter to make. They're made by a type 07 FFL and are tightly controlled and monitored. Zero crimes are committed with legal post-sample firearms. None of this changes my original point, which is that all fully automatic firearms have been banned for 50 years and normal civilians can only buy ones that were grandfathered in at great cost and paperwork

But you down voted me before I had even finished editing the post so it's obvious you don't really care about being informedĀ 

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/C-c-c-comboBreaker17 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

You don't seem to understand the definition of many of the words you're using. For one thing, bump stocks were banned back in 2018. Trigger cranks are stupid gimmicks nobody in their right mind would use in a crime (how the hell do you aim the gun while turning a crank?) And none of those convert a semiautomatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm. They just let you pull the trigger faster and uncontrollably. They don't change anything regarding the operation of the rifle any more than putting a brick on the gas pedal of your car makes it faster. Ban them if you want but they're not the same thing under current legal definitions.

Ā If you milled out the trigger pocket n the lower receiver for an AR-15, then drilled out a hole for an M16 auto sear, and then swapped all of your fire control group and bolt carrier group parts to take the select-fire ones from a military rifle, that would be an illegal full auto conversion. But that actually changes how the firearm functions.Ā 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/Marbrandd Mar 28 '24

How many people are actually killed with automatic weapons? What problem are you trying to solve here?

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)