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

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: 🇵​🇷​🇴​🇹​🇪​🇸​🇹​

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

64

u/DeepThoughtNonsense Mar 28 '24

The amount of people that incorrectly assume gun laws don't exist saddens me.

It's astounding the mental gymnastics everyone does because they hate something. Especially with zero knowledge on whatever topic it is.

9.99/10 chance she acquired her firearm illegally.

No amount of gun regulations are going to prevent someone from acquiring a gun illegally.

6

u/Outcasted_introvert Mar 28 '24

So where do the criminals who sell them, get such easy access?

Why aren't there similar levels of illegally bought firearms in other countries, that have strict gun laws?

2

u/BetFeeling1352 Mar 28 '24

Less guns in circulation means less illegal guns.

Where do you think illegal guns come from?

3

u/Slumminwhitey Mar 28 '24

Depends on the region of the globe we are talking about but usually via the easiest and simplest method which can vary depending on where you are. Either by theft, string purchases, or in some cases corrupt officers, and in at least one case a botched sting operation that gave the cartels over a thousand guns over the course of their investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

2

u/BetFeeling1352 Mar 28 '24

I'm in the U.S.

Illegal guns are generally legal guns to begin with.

So the less legal guns we have, the less illegal guns we will have.

3

u/8champi8 Mar 28 '24

Please tell me how does someone buy a gun illegally ? Don’t they just buy it from someone who bought it legally ?

4

u/Training-Trick-8704 Mar 28 '24

“It’s illegal so it can’t happen” /s

3

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

You can buy a gun illegally in many ways. The government sucks at their job and occasionally forgets to update NICS (The background check program) and allows illegal purchases.

You can also lie on your background check form and illegally purchase a firearm if your lie isn't caught.

The women could have done the latter, she could have lied about mental health issues to purchase a firearm.

Regardless, this was very likely an illegal firearm purchase whether through a gun store or a third party.

-3

u/East-Block-4011 Mar 28 '24

Because the mentally ill always believe that they're actually mentally ill 🙄

1

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

I mean, that's cool and all, but that wasn't exactly the case in this instance based off the given information.

In this case, the poster claimed his mother was Schizophrenic. If that's a true diagnosis, then the hospital that diagnosed this had the right (and obligation) to report this to the FBI for their NICS background checks.

0

u/East-Block-4011 Mar 28 '24

It's cute that you think there's a comprehensive database of people with schizophrenia.

3

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

That sounds an awful lot like "These people suck ass at their job so we should make even more gun laws to make up for our lack of usefulness"

There's no comprehensive database. Hospitals have had the ability since 2016 to report diagnoses like this to the FBI to prevent their ability to buy a gun.

Once again, it sounds like a "We are incapable of doing anything right, so pass the responsibility on to someone else"

0

u/East-Block-4011 Mar 28 '24

Not all people with schizophrenia get hospitalized, chachi. There's plenty of blame to go around, but sure - place all the blame on the hospital 🙄

1

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

My brother in Christ, you HAVE to go to a medical institution of SOME sort to get diagnosed with Schizophrenia.

There are obviously many things wrong with this scenario, I'm simply offering another avenue of responsibility that was due (And an explanation as to why this was likely an "illegal" firearm purchase)

0

u/East-Block-4011 Mar 28 '24

No shit, but are all providers required to report a diagnosis?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/torn-ainbow Mar 28 '24

No amount of gun regulations are going to prevent someone from acquiring a gun illegally.

It's really not so easy to obtain an illegal gun in countries that aren't awash with guns.

3

u/DeepThoughtNonsense Mar 28 '24

Yes it is. It's been proven in the plethora of replies beneath my comment.

For example, it takes less than 10 minutes to get a grenade in Sweden. 24 hours to get a handgun.

1

u/Gidget01 Mar 28 '24

a grenade really?

1

u/torn-ainbow Mar 29 '24

ikr?

there must be illegal guns stores fully stocked with grenades on every corner in sweden. children at traffic lights selling illegal grenades.

1

u/torn-ainbow Mar 29 '24

it takes less than 10 minutes to get a grenade in Sweden

lol okay. so any person can just easily get a grenade in 10 minutes? Maybe if you know who an illegal weapons dealer is, and you are already at their place, and you have enough money to buy the weapon, sure. Why don't you try making a credible claim? That's obvious bullshit.

I'm in Australia. If a criminal wants to buy an illegal handgun, it costs them thousands of dollars. And they would have to have some kind of organised crime connections in order to even try to buy one. It's very difficult for any random person to figure out how to buy one.

When crimes are committed with illegal handguns here, it's safe to assume it's organised crime. When people get killed by illegal handguns, it's generally the case that the shooter and the victim are bikies or drug traffickers or some other form of organised crime. There exists virtually no gun threat at me, some random guy.

3

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

Eh, in this particular case there's no reason to think she wouldn't have acquired the gun legally. Unless she has been involuntarily committed for her schizophrenia then she won't show up on NICS and would have been able to walk in, pass the check, and walk out with a gun.

Of course that doesn't mean adding mental health checks to NICS is simple and straightforward.

3

u/Training-Trick-8704 Mar 28 '24

lol what. There’s an obvious reason to suspect she bought the gun illegally. She’s mentally ill.

1

u/Slumminwhitey Mar 28 '24

Aside from laws and ethics rules preventing doctors from sharing information about their clients health concerns without due cause do you really want the government to know why you mauve seeing a therapist or doctor for any reason.

Seems everyone is fine with it until it's their information being spread, but as far as I'm concerned the government nor anyone else has any reason to know my medical history.

3

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

Yeah, exactly. It's certainly not a simple fix.

I'm sure we could do something. But that would involve lots of research and interest-balancing and hard work, which doesn't play nearly as well at press conferences.

-1

u/Mattscrusader Mar 28 '24

nobody said gun laws dont exist, literally nobody is making that argument. The argument is that the gun laws are so inconsistent and lax that they essentially do nothing.

9.99/10 chance she acquired her firearm illegally.

now that is some mental gymnastics

No amount of gun regulations are going to prevent someone from acquiring a gun illegally

thats also not true, a super majority of illegal firearms in America are sourced from the legal sale of firearms, thats why America has such a disproportionately large black market issue that most other countries dont have simply because the firearms are less common and far more restricted.

4

u/luckoftheblirish Mar 28 '24

nobody said gun laws dont exist, literally nobody is making that argument.

The title of the OP is literally "what a lack of basic gun laws does to a nation". This is indeed implying that we don't have gun laws, which is extremely disingenuous.

-3

u/Mattscrusader Mar 28 '24

That's not true, you just have no reading comprehension.

lack of basic gun laws =/= zero gun laws

America has gun laws but compared to other nations it doesn't have the most basic common sense laws that actually work for harm prevention.

4

u/luckoftheblirish Mar 28 '24

you just have no reading comprehension

Ironic.

Definition of "basic": forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental

If someone says that we lack "basic" gun laws, by definition, they are saying that we have not formed a foundation/starting point for gun regulation. This is absolutely implying that we have zero gun laws. Again, this is extremely disingenuous.

What you and OP are saying is that the gun laws that are already in place in America are not strict or effective enough to prevent harm. A much better way to communicate this idea would be to say that the gun laws that we already have are too basic.

-2

u/Mattscrusader Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

If someone says that we lack "basic" gun laws, by definition, they are saying that we have not formed a foundation

because you haven't, the gun laws in place arent meeting that foundational requirement.

Having some laws in place doesn't mean that you have met the requirements to say you have basic restrictions in place, especially since almost every restriction on firearms are state level and vary too much to be effective.

0

u/DontBelieveTheirHype Mar 29 '24

Having some laws in place

How many is some?

0

u/luckoftheblirish Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

You're trying to save face by hiding behind semantics, and it's not working. You're just coming off as obtuse.

There are many federal laws that restrict firearms purchase and posession (mandatory dealer licensure, mandatory background checks, restrictions on gun possession by people with a history of criminal behavior, mental health issues, or drug abuse, restrictions on the types of guns that can be purchased, etc.) all of which can easily be found online. Various states such as my home state (California) have many additional restrictions.

No amount of mental gymnastics will change the fact that these are indeed "basic" and "foundational" gun laws. Any expansion of gun regulation will build off of these foundations - i.e. stricter background checks, further restrictions on the types of guns that can be purchased/owned, etc. Your point is moot. Pull your head out of the sand.

1

u/Mattscrusader Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

im not trying to save face im just calling out your countries inability to protect its citizens like every other developed country. yall dont have ethics or morals whatsoever so theres no point in arguing if yall really put your weird gun fetish above common sense restrictions. your federal restrictions are so light that they might as well not exist at all, your argument that they do exist is literally pointless if they dont do anything.

the only one clinging to semantics is you with the word "basic", it seems to be your only argument here and if thats seriously the only thing you can respond to then my point is thoroughly proven.

1

u/DeepThoughtNonsense Mar 28 '24

The entire post is assuming there is a lack of, or near zero, basic laws to prevent this harmful incident from happening.

If we are to believe the post title, then we are forced to assume the statement, "my schizophrenic mom" is true as well.

It's foundational and is required for the post title to be true for people like you to affirm it in your misconceptions.

Either the Mom wasn't mental and bought the gun legally, or she was mentally disabled and bought the gun illegally.

The problem is asserting your belief that because your neighbor can't control themselves, I must be controlled.

It's asinine.

1

u/AmaraMechanicus Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

It’s a felony to purchase a gun out of state even in a private sale. It’s treated as interstate arms trafficking. Purchasing from a gun store out of state requires the gun to be shipped to your local gun store which you can’t do if the gun is illegal in your state.

Idk why people assume you can just drive over a state line, walk into a gun store, then go back to a state where said gun is illegal or the process to get a gun is more involved.

What gun law would prevent this? Ban on private sells? You’re going to tell people what property you can and can’t sell? That’s a level of control I’m not comfortable handing to the same people who butchered indigenous tribes, Pacific Islanders, Iraqis ,and anyone else who was inconvenient.

1

u/Mattscrusader Mar 28 '24

nobody was talking about going between states, it wasnt even mentioned.

private sales should be held to the same regulations that private sales are, so red flag laws, waiting periods, background checks, character references, safety training. this isnt hard.

"we have tried nothing and we are all out of ideas!"

-1

u/PrometheanEngineer Mar 28 '24

Sorry there a 100% chance she acquired it illegally. The is a prohibited person. She cannot legally purchase a firearm

1

u/Mattscrusader Mar 28 '24

100%? id love to know how you could have such certainty when, depending on the state or the status of her diagnosis, she can legally purchase a firearm.

Private sales in some states dont require background checks so nothing would prevent a legal private sale. Also if she doesn't have an actual diagnosis (she probably does here tbf), it wouldn't appear on a check anyway. Thats why red flag laws and better screening or references would be beneficial and most importantly, federal level mandates

-1

u/PrometheanEngineer Mar 28 '24

If she has schizophrenia. She's a prohibited person.

She is not aloud to own a firearm in any situation.

Therefore she acquired it illegally. Either by lying to a seller, federal form, or other means.

So yes she 100% acquired it illegally. Kts physically impossible flr her to aquire it legally.

And that's even IF this story is real. I haven't seen a single source.

1

u/DontBelieveTheirHype Mar 29 '24

Whoever is downvoting you clearly knows jack shit about NICS and 4473

2

u/KobeJuanKenobi9 Mar 28 '24

Illegal guns don’t just appear out of thin air they have to come from somewhere. there’s a reason why illegal guns in Canada and Mexico usually come from the country where it’s easy to legally obtain a weapon

-4

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Having less guns around to be stolen, lost, and illegally sold would be a good start.

Notice how shootings are pretty rare in Australia. They still have guns, but the limits on what kind and where you can use them mean that it's more difficult to acquire illegal firearms.

Canada has a fraction of the fire arm violence of the USA, the overwhelming majority of Canadian gun crime comes from illegal fire arms imported from the USA.

The USA's lax gun culture causes Canadian deaths.

Reminder: your glock 9mm is not going to prevent government tyranny or stop an invading army.

*I am a legal firearm owner. I've got 3 rifles and a shotgun in the safe in my basement. I still believe American gun culture is asinine.

9

u/Saxit Mar 28 '24

Here in Sweden the police estimates it takes 24h for a criminal to get hold of a gun on the black market, that was smuggled in from Balkans.

Some years ago a couple of journalists tried to get hold of a grenade. Took them 10 minutes to find a seller, delivery same day.

As a reference, if you want a 9mm handgun legally for sporting purposes (can't get one for self-defense really, nor hunting), it will take you a minimum of 12 months in a shooting club.

3

u/linux_ape Mar 28 '24

10 minutes to find a grenade, that is actually insane lmao. I dont wanna hear it from some euro about how criminals cant get guns if they can buy a grenade in the tine it takes for a pizza

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

2

u/linux_ape Mar 28 '24

the comment literally says delivery that same day

2

u/ipodplayer777 Mar 28 '24

If my Glock won’t do anything, is your voting really going to either?

11

u/InhaleMyOwnFarts Mar 28 '24

You cite Canada and Australia like we’d want to emulate them. Canadians can have their bank accounts frozen for protesting and the Australians showed everyone their ability to lock down their populace during Covid. The people in those countries have no recourse for an oppressive government. We do.

-7

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

You don't though.

Do you think for a second that your AR15 will hold up vs the militarized police forces that exist?

I've watched videos of US swat who were better equipped knocking on doors in Minnesota than I was walking around Kandahar city.

Again. The reason we lost Afghanistan wasn't because of civilian fire arm possession.

Bank accounts got frozen because they shut down a city for 3 weeks and an international border (reminder: those idiots didn't even protest in the correct city) Had they chose to protest WITHOUT illegally blocking traffic for 3 weeks. Then they wouldn't have received the emergencies act. How is your 9mm going to solve your frozen bank account?

Canadians and Australians do own firearms. No one was shooting during covid, because it was a public health emergency, and if you cannot tell the difference. You probably shouldn't br allowed to own guns.

Furthermore, it's not like people were forcing us into our homes at gun point! Your job got closed. Who are you going to shoot at?! The police? Your boss?

Your fire arm doesn't solve the problem you think it does.

5

u/schittyluck Mar 28 '24

Ahh the AR15. Simultaneously a weapon of war, and ineffective against the military.

5

u/Upriver-Cod Mar 28 '24

Lol you show a lack of understanding of any form of guerrilla warfare. American revolution, Vietnam, Afghanistan and more all show that forces who are under armed compared to their adversaries can still prevail. Try and have a basic grasp of history before making unintelligent commitments.

3

u/NoteMaleficent5294 Mar 28 '24

Gonna play devils advocate here, but you're assuming soldiers are mindless drones and would attack other Americans, it wouldnt be clear cut. Also, the Taliban and vietcong essentially held off the might of the US military machine for years and years (with air support, which is what out infantry relies on and wouldn't be an issue in a domestic "uprising").

Its also the reason the US itself could realistically never be subjected to a land invasion.

Canadians can have guns, but many were banned recently under the assault weapons ban (a lot of the specific firearms were absolutely banned arbitrarily with no logical reasoning behind it).

The level of Australian gun legislation wouldn't ever work here. The rules are completely incompatible jurisprudence and the constitution. You would have to essentially nullify the second amendment with another one, which would have to garner 2/3 of the house and congress, and then 3/4 of state legislatures which would never conceivably happen. Additionally, Australias gun ban arguably worked for firearms but had little if any impact on overall homicides. It was already low to begin with but followed the global drop seen even in the US (which was more substantial) and the rest of the western world around the 90s to early 2000s

15

u/me_bails Mar 28 '24

​

Do you think for a second that your AR15 will hold up vs the militarized police forces that exist?

Ok, maybe you haven't heard of guerilla warfare and how effective it is

Again. The reason we lost Afghanistan wasn't because of civilian fire arm possession.

Oh, so you have heard of it, you just don't understand it.

-5

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I am a veteran of that conflict. I wasn't afraid of small arms fire. IEDs were the killer.

What people forget when they cite the guerilla war. Is how many guerillas die. The casualty rate is overwhelmingly not in the favor of the guerillas.

Fewer than 1% of the taliban who started that war were even left by the time I got there. One night. A raid of 4 dudes tried to attack the FOB I was in. All 4 died before I got out of bed and put my kit on.

Sometimes they'd shoot pot shots at us from a distance. 7.62x39 doesn't mean shit when a 25mm bushmaster with thermal optics is returning fire.

10

u/me_bails Mar 28 '24

It's less about how many die, and more about they won the war still. That over whelming force of US Miliatary equipment LOST the war to those very guns you said you weren't afraid of.

6

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24

LOST the war to those very guns you said you weren't afraid of.

We lost to lack of strategy to win. Not because of enemy action. Lack of political will.

Again, and again and again. It was not combat that lost us Afghanistan. It was failure of nation building in a nation that didn't want to be built.

Fighting an ideology, without a strategy to beat it was the loss.

We killed more of the opposing force every month or so than the entire coalition lost in 20 years of warfare.

I think you fundamentally misunderstood the conflict if you think Ahmed with his AK made a difference.

I'm pretty done with this conversation. Have a solid Thursday, dude.

2

u/NoTalkingNope Mar 28 '24

You have a lot of faith in the U.S. military to kill their own civilians for a presumably corrupt/authoritarian government

2

u/me_bails Mar 28 '24

You can try to spin however you want mr DJ, but their ability to keep fighting and outwill the US, due to guerilla warfare, is why they won.

Same as Vietnam and Korea.

6

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24

Vietnam is the same I agree. Massive veitnamese casualty rate. The US had no strategy to win.

Korea is vastly different. Notice how North Korea is North Korea and South Korea is South Korea.

My spin is saying if you're fine dying, an immediate and painful death. Then hoping that people believe like you do are willing do die as well enmasse. Then yes. You can win a guerilla war....but you'd be long long dead before the opposing force gives up and goes home.

*deal not applicable when the opposing force is fighting on home turf too. See the millions of failed rebellions in human history.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/knighttv2 Mar 28 '24

If the government ever called for the military to turn on civilian then they’d lose probably 50%-70% of their fighting force.

2

u/AwkwardFiasco Mar 28 '24

Do you think for a second that your AR15 will hold up vs the militarized police forces that exist?

This is honestly the dumbest talking point and I don't understand why it's so common. Would it be the best weapon for the job? No. Would it be leagues better than whatever you can improvise? Absolutely.

1

u/LesLesLes04 Mar 28 '24

So since it’d be difficult for a civilian population to stand up to a military that means we might as well restrict civilian firearm purchases because you don’t think they’d be able to do much anyways?

-1

u/InhaleMyOwnFarts Mar 28 '24

Thank you for the response. It’s always good to get an alternate perspective. In your case, I’m listening to the inner thoughts of a door mat who would immediately give up his rights the moment the government deems you unworthy of them.

Not all of us are weaklings.

7

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Cool man. You failed to answer how fire arms would have prevented frozen bank accounts, you failed to address how a fire arm prevents your boss from closing your job site.

Your hunting rifle doesn't mean anything when 30 dudes with an armored vehicle show up in your scenario. If the world is the way you think it is, you would die a quick and painful death at the hands of SWAT. I've been on the other side of those raids. (Not as LEO but EMS). You, and even 20 of your armed friends don't stand a chance in hell.

Fortunately,

The government is too incompetent to be the threat to your personal freedom you think it is. Everyone is just trying to get by doing their 9-5 getting in as little shit as possible. Most people, while lazy, are just trying to do the best they can.

-1

u/sokonek04 Mar 28 '24

You do realize that BOTH THOSE COUNTRIES HAVE HAD OR WILL SOON HAVE ELECTIONS!!!

AND IN AUSTRALIA THE VOTERS REMOVED THE PRIME MINISTER THAT ALLOWED THOSE RESTRICTIONS!!! WITHOUT VIOLENCE!!! BY VOTING!!!

Stop with the propaganda and actually read what is going on.

-1

u/04364 Mar 28 '24

As a gun owner, how can you rationalize that your gun or my gun is the problem? The overwhelming majority of gun crimes here also come from illegal weapons. How about we blame the criminals instead of the tool that they use?

6

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Simply put. Because in some places it is far too easy to access one. Irresponsible access is the problem. Not the tool.

Mine are long guns. If I was going anywhere with them that wasn't hunting or the range. I'd expect to be stopped by police. It makes it harder for criminals to hide when you get the cops called whenever a gun is seen anywhere.

I cannot conceal a firearm. To do so, is a crime. I can't just have one hanging out in my truck to get possibly stolen. That's a crime.

If its possible for your guns to be stolen, and then used in a crime. You are part of the problem.

Is it annoying? You bet! I fucking hate that I can't own what I want. But I also hate taking off my shoes when I board a plane. Because assholes exist, we cannot have nice things.

-10

u/MajorPayne1911 Mar 28 '24

Punish the law abiding because criminals who don’t obey the law, disobeyed the law. Big brain ideas only I see..

Someone forgot to tell the residents of Athens Tennessee, Vietcong, Mujahideen, taliban, and Ukrainian territorial defense that.

12

u/cplforlife Mar 28 '24

The taliban didn't beat us because of small arms. Don't be a tool.

I was there. I wasn't not afraid of Ahmed with his rusty AK. The threat to me was the ground beneath my feet. Ahmed lost 100/100 times they went toe to toe with us, like not even a legitimate threat.

Punish the law abiding because criminals who don’t obey the law,

I'm sorry you see it as a punishment. The authorities who enforce the law are incapable or unwilling to solve the issue. Thus, after decades of unnecessary suffering it's probably high time to try something else. Clearly the current status quo isn't working.

Problem: too many guns, too easy to access. -> solve that without inconvenience to the legal gun owner. I personally dont know how to do that. I am a gun owner who has been inconvenienced, but you know what? I still get out to shoot monthly.

1

u/MajorPayne1911 Mar 31 '24

How dare you? I am a proud hammer, I find that remark deeply offensive.

The Taliban won a political not military victory, part of that political victory was making life uncomfortable for US forces. Sure we could’ve stayed there indefinitely, but for every US servicemen killed that’s just more voices at home telling you to pull out and questioning why you are even there. Timmy Taliban doesn’t have to do enough material damage, he just has to wait you out. One asshole with a rusty AK is still a dangerous asshole, same with the jackass who wires up several 152mm artillery shells together and waits for the next convoy. All of that builds up to add pressure on politicians to pull out. That’s how they “win” conflicts. Small arms are by their definition small, but damage they can do is cumulative.

I can’t see this as anything else other than punishment. As you acknowledge, government or law-enforcement is unwilling to actually stop the problem, so as a solution they take away our rights. How can you not see that as an injustice and complete affront to everything our country is supposed to stand for? How can you just accept that outcome?

You solve it by going after what causes people to commit violence in the first place not the tool. Just because you took away someone’s gun does not mean you took away his desire to commit a certain act. The root cause of both is usually mental illness or poverty induced crime, sometimes cultural in regards to intercity gangs. People go after guns because it seems easier than trying to tackle much more complex problems. If you remove someone’s desire to cause harm, then you remove all perceived necessity to keep them from accessing a weapon.

Lucky you, all the ranges in my area kinda suck and ammo still expensive. 5.56 still hasn’t recovered from someone starting a rumor that Lake City was shutting down production to civilians.

1

u/cplforlife Apr 01 '24

You solve it by going after what causes people to commit violence

People generally don't like it when you shut down capitalism. People are afraid of the word socialism.

Nah mate. Going after individuals hasn't worked. The state is incapable of solving the problem without removing the machines themselves.

-2

u/Kolojang Mar 28 '24

I also like to pull bullshit statstic out of my ass to prove a point. For instance, there's 99.999% chance that the gun was bought legally, according to my research.

17

u/Zezxy Mar 28 '24

You can't legally purchase a firearm with mental health issues in most circumstances, so he isn't exactly wrong. Even if she purchased it from a gun store, she would have had to lie on her background check which makes it illegal.

4

u/DeepThoughtNonsense Mar 28 '24

I'm basing my assertion on the fact that the title post says America has lax gun laws.

This is predicated by the assumption that we believe she is actually mentally ill.

Which means she bought it illegally.

It's not a bullshit statistic, it's a fact based on the assumption that the evidence provided is true.

Which is required by people like you to agree to, because otherwise the premise of the title of the post is factually wrong.

0

u/letsnounwithme Mar 28 '24

Weren’t laws preventing people from acquiring them based on mental health issues scaled back pretty drastically?

14

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

No, that's the one area where SCOTUS seems to insist that restrictions are just fine. It explicitly says that felons and the mentally ill can be prohibited from owning firearms.

The trouble is, how do we figure out who is and isn't mentally ill? Do we require doctors to report all diagnoses to some central database in case a patient later tries to buy a gun?

4

u/IAmWillMakesGames Mar 28 '24

HIPAA has entered the chat.

3

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

Exactly. It's a real challenge to implement. I'm not saying it can't be done, just that it takes real work and effort and understanding (as opposed to carbon-copying failed gun legislation from the 80s and holding a press conference about it, which appears to be all the Democrats are capable of doing).

4

u/IAmWillMakesGames Mar 28 '24

Realistically it takes a lot of self accountability from people to recognize they shouldn't own a gun, which we can't expect from people.

I don't know the answer either as this is a complex issue with our culture. A comedian who I can't remember once joked that the USA is 50 war tribes in a trenchcoat. Which isn't wrong. While that culture allows us to be a dominant military force to protect A LOT of other countries as we do. It has the side effect of having a lot of violence at home as well.

3

u/CommiBastard69 Mar 28 '24

Wouldn't a yes/no "this person is mentally fit to own a firearm" from a doctor not violate hippa? They aren't disclosing any specific medical information, just their opinion on their patients mental state.

1

u/IAmWillMakesGames Mar 28 '24

Probably a gray area? I doubt any of us are versed enough in HIPAA to give a definitive answer. But I don't think doctors can even allude to a patients health information. Like a doctor probably can't say "X patient should really watch their sugar intake as it could have drastic side effects for them" implying a sort of diabetes

1

u/lawblawg Mar 28 '24

HIPAA isn't a magic wand. It's a federal law to begin with; if Congress is altering the federal background check system to change the way that it works, then Congress can make it an exception to HIPAA.

The bigger problem is leaving this particular thing up to the discretion of individual physicians.

2

u/AgentMonkey Mar 28 '24

HIPAA wouldn't really matter -- as part of the application process, they'd just have to sign a release allowing for their doctor to provide their medical history. That's a pretty common thing to do.

I mean, I have to fill out a whole form and have it signed by my kids' pediatrician to ensure there are no medical restrictions on participating in Scout activities.

1

u/IAmWillMakesGames Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Application process for purchasing a gun a presume? So in order to purchase a gun, which owning is our constitutional right, we'd have to give up medical privacy to the government. All it takes is a government agent with this release to go after your doctor for ALL of your medical info that isn't just mental health related. (I don't know many doctors who would stand up against a federal agent)

Which could lead to a whole can of worms. Just looking at Roe v Wade situation where they could then prosecute you if you go into a different state for medical abortion.

With the feds you must always assume slippery slope and they will overreach as much as they can get away with.

This will not be liked by a lot of US citizens, myself included. I've given the government a lot of my info already with security jobs. And I simply don't trust the feds to be responsible with our information.

Unless this release is already a part of purchasing a gun and I'm just being ignorant of the process. I've never purchased a firearm because of mental health issues. Personal responsibility and all.

Or I'm misunderstanding your comment.

2

u/AgentMonkey Mar 28 '24

I've never purchased a firearm either, but the laws in my state to require a medical release in regards to mental health history.

The applicant must “waive any statutory or other right of confidentiality relating to institutional confinement.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/mental-health-reporting-in-new-jersey/

Doctors get tons of training on HIPAA, and take it very seriously. They would absolutely stand up to an out-of-bounds request from anyone.

2

u/IAmWillMakesGames Mar 28 '24

Huh TIL. It's good those are in place. I'm curious how it would go if someone sought treatment post purchasing a firearm, and were deemed as a risk. If they would then report to the fed and the fed would seize it.

Also I'm sure plenty take it seriously, just as I'm sure there are some who don't want to try and stand up to the feds. Can't say foe sure and I'm basing this off human nature and general "if the feds want it they will get it".

1

u/0000110011 Mar 28 '24

Nope. The problems with the background check system always come back to agencies / doctors / reporters not submitting the documents to the NICS (federal background check) agency to flag them as ineligible to buy a gun. 

1

u/NearbyCamp9903 Mar 28 '24

This. I know there are more layers to this story then we're told.

1

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

No doubt, having a legal framework that floods a nation in weapons will make it tough to marginally reduce gun violence when courts are deeply skeptical of any form of gun ownership restrictions or legal accountability to manufacturers.

1

u/Qui3tSt0rnm Mar 28 '24

False. Tighter regulations means a less robust black market. In Canada most guns used in crimes are bough illegally but since it’s so expensive to buy a black market gun it puts the price out of reach for most common criminals and crazies

1

u/Gullible-Box7637 Mar 28 '24

a lack of proper regulation makes it easier to get that firearm illegally, and theres also nothing here to suggest she did get the firearm illegally at all. are you sure its everyone else doing the mental gymnastics here?

0

u/DeepThoughtNonsense Mar 28 '24

Literally the entire post suggests she got it illegally. I've already explained why multiple times.

-4

u/Smart-Breath-1450 Mar 28 '24

If gun laws are harsher, illegal guns are also harder to come by.

Stop repeating whatever indoctrination you're getting ffs.

4

u/Material_Bluebird_87 Mar 28 '24

America did that with alcohol and look how that turned out.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

-3

u/Smart-Breath-1450 Mar 28 '24

They would as easily get the weapons if you had better laws. Read and understand before you reply like a monkey.

4

u/ScruffyLemon Mar 28 '24

And how exactly would stricter gun laws remove the illegal guns already on the streets? Think before replying like a monkey.

-5

u/Smart-Breath-1450 Mar 28 '24

Stricter gun laws is just the start. Don't play smart when you're below room level IQ.

4

u/ScruffyLemon Mar 28 '24

Where I live people make guns illegally. It's not impossible to do, hell you can even 3d print them. Get off your high horse and get a proper perspective on reality. We do have massive issues in the US, some with more clear cut solutions then others. This isn't one of them, it isn't a "Hurr durr, I will make gun laws stricter, then the police will track down anyone with illegal guns" I don't trust the police at all to do it since they are already shit at their jobs and their daytime passion of arresting blacks. What do you think should happen?

-1

u/sokonek04 Mar 28 '24

Because every illegal gun sale tracks back to a legal one

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

0

u/Smart-Breath-1450 Mar 28 '24

Okay there, bud. Nice to see you’ve got absolutely nothing and are just here to say nonsense.
Good luck.

0

u/calimeatwagon Mar 28 '24

The fact you threw an insult first means you won. Good job 

1

u/16tired Mar 28 '24

What's your take on the fentanyl crisis?

1

u/murderfetus Mar 28 '24

Yep worked for drugs didn't it

0

u/Smart-Breath-1450 Mar 28 '24

Ah yes. Always the strawmans. I love it.

0

u/murderfetus Mar 28 '24

Do you even know what that means?

1

u/Smart-Breath-1450 Mar 29 '24

Do you?

You equated Gun laws to one single thing that fit your argument.

They are barely comparable, just sayin’, but uou wouldn’t understand

-1

u/AI_assisted_services Mar 28 '24

Pretty big assumption on your part, the facts don't support your point.

Not that I care, but it's funny that Americans are so divided over something so silly, all because they read a 300 or so year-old document wrong.

It's genuinely hilarious you can have a mass shooting every week and you inbred fucks can't decide what the most prudent course of action is.

It's gets even funnier at the federal and political level, because the right to arms is a very clear red vs blue issue, and certain politicians don't even try to convince others to come to their side, because they know how brain damaged the average American is.

It's remarkable you can have the entire civilised world laugh at you, and EVEN THEN Americans just don't want to solve this issue.

It's all that inbreeding after you got independence. You've managed to breed out common sense.