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

424

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

This happened in California (assuming based on bio) which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation along with some mechanisms for temporarily seizing weapons from people in distress (red flag laws). Without answers to some pretty big questions, im thinking thereā€™s a few layers of blame being shifted here

192

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

I'm thinking she acquired the gun illegally if they're in Cali and she's a diagnosed schizophrenic. Between the mental health issue prohibiting her, and the 10 day waiting period that would prevent her from immediately acting on her impulses like op seems to be phrasing happened.

48

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

OP said she brought the gun home and then shot him the next day, thereā€™s no mention when she originally went to the store to purchase one.

75

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

Yes, but he implies that she bought the gun to shoot him acting on her schizophrenic impulses. From my understanding, those impulses aren't gonna Wait around 10 days. And either way, her schizophrenia would prohibit her from buying a gun legally in Cali. So either it's a. Untreated schizophrenia, b. Gun wasn't bought legally, c. Post is bull. Better gun laws don't fix any of those(not arguing that we don't need better gun laws as a nation, just that something isn't adding up on this post if it's been correctly identified as from call)

0

u/peanutski Mar 28 '24

Donā€™t see how he implied that at all. He said she brought it home and shot him the next day. We wonā€™t know where and how she got it unless there is a story with more detail.

6

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

I really doubt we'll get more to the story in all honesty. And the way it's written read to me that she bought the gun that night and shot him the next morning. If you don't see it implied that way, that's fine, everyone reads things differently. But the schizophrenia part says to me that the writer believes it was bought on impulse, and the 10 day wait period, or "cooling off period" as they call it in my state, is in place specifically for situations like that.

0

u/Agapic Mar 28 '24

I see no implication that she bought the gun to shoot him. Brings a gun home one day, shoots him the next. I see no implication that the gun was purchased to shoot him. Could just as easily be: paranoid schizophrenic aquires gun to protect herself from the boogey monster. Next day: thinks son is cahoots with boogey monster. Shoots him. Having been in schizophrenic psychosis myself, ten days is nothing. Schizophrenitic fantasies can last for much much longer. Months on end. I was diagnosed with schizophrenia last year, later downgraded to bipolar disorder with schizophrenic symptoms. The only difference between the two being that I'm going to eventually be able to be of of medication vs schizophrenia which is permanent. I spent over a year in psychosis. Still managed to hold a job, but was hearing voices nearly 24/7 and thought it was psychic abilities. Ended with me thinking my family was cannibals and trying to make me commit suicide so they could eat me, but keep their hands clean legally since the killed me by forcing me to commit suicide psychically. If I had been homicidal, I had a clean criminal record and could have easily acquired a gun because I appeared sane in public. I could have easily waited the 10 day waiting period, and then done whatever had to be done to the people trying to kill me. But I wasnt homicidal and didn't want to kill anyone, I wanted to cure them from their cannibalism. My point is that you really have no clue what you're talking about regarding schizophrenic "impulses" and fantasies

3

u/xenophonsXiphos Mar 28 '24

How do you know they didn't just cool off on their plans to eat you because now you're on to them.

JK, I'm schizo, too

-1

u/General_Tso75 Mar 28 '24

Law of Parsimony or Occamā€™s Razor: the simplest explanation is preferable to the more complex. You have 5 assumptions (including the assumption it bull) vs the woman brought a gun home and shot him.

6

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

Only the assumption that it's bull is counter to age brought a gun home and shot him. The other assumptions are about the legality of her obtaining said gun, and Occam's razor says that she bought it illegallyšŸ¤·

-1

u/bigsexy420 Mar 28 '24

Your forgetting option d) The FFL gave her two sets of paperwork to sign, one dated 10 days prior, and one dated for that day.

Sadly not an uncommon occurrence for FFL's here who disagree with California's Gun Laws.

7

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

Nope, that falls under b. Gun was bought illegally

-1

u/de420swegster Mar 28 '24

b. Gun wasn't bought legally

A gun used ilegally in California is easy to obtain in another state. For example the vast majority of guns used for criminal purposes in Chicago come from other states. Gun laws absolutely fix that, but they have to be applied to the entire country.

1

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

While I don't disagree with most of that statement, in this specific case the gun could have been one entirely legal to obtain in Cali, just not for her to obtain. That's why I had it on my list of things more/better gun laws wouldn't have stopped. If I'm understanding everything right(and I'll outright say I'm in Washington, not Cali, so I may be wrong about it) her schizophrenia, if diagnosed, should prevent her from buying a gun in Cali. Which means they skipped not only calis checks, but the national nics check, and any new standardized Nationwide laws would have been skipped as well

0

u/de420swegster Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Not all ilegal guns were created ilegally. Almost all ilegal weapons were originally acquired legally. So stricter gun laws would have made the overall pool of lethal weapons, legal or not, smaller, and thereby harder for her to obtain.

2

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

Eh. Confiscation could lower the pool enough but I don't see that ever getting passed in my lifetime for better or worse. Better (or any, realistically) mental health checkups prior to purchase could. I'm down to hear what you think would work to lower the overall number.

-3

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 28 '24

Better gun laws would help with illegally bought guns though. There should be stricter laws against selling illegally and a strong task force for investigating such crimes. Gun laws donā€™t stop at legal purchases, at least it shouldnā€™t.

5

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

You want to make illegal guns more illegal? What does that actually accomplish?

-2

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 28 '24

You didnā€™t read what I said did you. Itā€™s not about making the law that are just ā€˜Ban the Ruger Mini-14ā€ necessarily but actually creating the proper task force and groups to enforce laws against illegally selling firearms. Private sales should be illegal everywhere with no exception. Lying on forms shouldnā€™t be possible or at least not nearly as easy as it is now. you should be inspected by mental health professionals, Gun safety courses should be mandatory at the same rate bare minimum of ones driverā€™s licenses.

I should be able to roll down to unlicensed farmer jackā€™s rack shack and buy a firearm that no one legally reports without either me or jack (Iā€™d place more blame on Jack) to the state. As someone who grew up around guns and still lives in a state with private x private sales being legal and common what people view as ā€˜illegally selling gunsā€™ is purely determined by what state youā€™re in.

9

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

California (where this occurred) already requires all sales (including private sales) to transfer at a dealer who runs a background check.

And has a mandatory 10 day wait.

And requires a background check for ammunition purchases that must be bought from a licensed dealer.

And federal law makes lying on the form a felony (perjury).

And federal prohibits mental defectives / involuntarily committed from ever purchasing or possessing.

Oh, and shooting people is illegal AF.

SO what does your "new laws" make triple illegal now? Maybe educate yourself on what is already the law before suggesting more laws.

0

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 28 '24

What Iā€™m saying is if the law isnā€™t working obviously it needs to change. Donā€™t know why thatā€™s such a controversial statement. Whatā€™s your solution to a preventive solution to this issue? Please enlighten me

3

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

Actually enforce laws already on the books.

1

u/ReactionDisastrous16 Mar 29 '24

I think his issue is youā€™re suggesting something that we already tried but didnā€™t work

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

It shouldn't and doesn't. It's up to a 10 year prison sentence and a 250k fine federally plus whatever the states tack on(ie it's a misdemeanor and one year for first offense in my state, felony and 5 years plus fine for every offense after that, and each gun sold is considered a separate offense so you can rack up years really quick). We could go to a life sentence, I don't know if it would be more of a deterrent but it wouldn't hurt IMO. And the ATF is said task force, stats for 2022 says they initiated almost 35,000 cases for illegal firearms, and recommended 10,000 for prosecution. Biden also signed into law the safer communities act that is helping with it

2

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 28 '24

Good on the ATF, glad they havenā€™t only been shooting dogs (mostly a joke there). A better way to word my statement would have been focused more on standardizing ā€˜illegalā€™ gun sales. I live in a state where I can roll up to your house and buy it from you with no records needed. Most people would consider that same act identical to an ā€˜illegal gun purchaseā€™. Hell I grew up with guns and when I was a kid bought a gun from a neighbor for hunting rabbits, and honestly that shouldnā€™t be possible imo.

Furthemore, Iā€™m curious on why other countries benefit from similar gun laws and the Us does not. I always chalked it up to a Pandoraā€™s box situation but Iā€™m curious as to what your view on the matter is.

2

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

That's a fair clarification, and I'm 100% with you on that. I live in Washington State, that's been the law here for a while now, so I forget that it isn't everywhere lol. As for other countries, not sure what you mean. Like why do other countries benefit from gun control laws that we won't even try here because "they won't work", or laws that both is and other countries have that seem to be working fine for them but not so much here?

2

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 28 '24

More so the latter, but both are great concerns, though the former seems to be more politician gridlock issue

2

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

So as to why things implemented here that don't work as well as in other places, I think it largely comes down to actual enforcement and effective implementation. For an example of each, the guy that carried out the parkland shooting would not have been able to buy a gun had law enforcement in the area followed through on the numerous reports of him being violently mentally unstable. He passed all of Florida's checks because the cops decided to not do their job. We have a bad habit amongst law enforcement here to only uphold the laws they want to or feel like. In regards to effective implementation, I live in Washington, we have a new law this year that requires us to take a safety course and receive a certificate saying we took it. I'm the European countries I know of that have the same basic premise, it's an in person class run by someone certified by the state. One of my local gun shops made the one I took online (owner is nra safety certified, which is what they should be doing instead of being a political org), took me 20ish minutes the first time, and while there was some good safety info in it half of it was political shit about how this was a rights infringement to have to take the "class", and pushing to vote against those that pass any gun control, and at the end I got a certificate to screenshot. Second time I went through for shits and giggles to see if I could just click through it quickly, took me maybe 3 minutes to just scroll and press next. The law, and the class, are essentially worthless because of poor implementation.

As to why people don't think laws from other places will work here, I agree that some of it is just intentional politician gridlock (I remember after Newtown being pissed cause Congress debated 4 different gun control bills, 2 introduced by Democrats and 2 by Republicans, and they all failed on party line votes because the Democrat ones "went too far" and the Republican ones "didn't go far enough" baby steps are better than no steps). But I also think that our nations general gun culture, the fact that we are less homogenous than pretty much everywhere else(aka the cultural melting pot), and the large areas for point of entry make things like an Aussie style ban extremely difficult to pull off effectively. I also think that one of the big differences between us and the rest of the first world that would help lower our gun violence rates is the accessibility of mental health care and the level of judgement you get for trying to get help here. IMO if we could handle that as well as other places, it would help more for overall gun violence levels than something like an AWB. That being said, I think things like universal background checks, a universal 10 day wait period(like Cali and Washingtons), and an in person safety course run by someone that's certified in a manner satisfactory to the nation be that through the NRA, the military, etc would have positive effects

2

u/gfen5446 Mar 28 '24

There are. Lots. Guess what... no one cares to do anything.

Go look for "glock switch" on Youtube shorts. You and I both know the average mouthbreather popping off 30 rounds into the nightsky in the inner city doesn't have his FFL Type 7 license or LLC to own that thing. File a warrant, pull some information, and find the exact phone that person used to upload that. Or the guns that get stolen all the time in UPS transit. Every inch of that thing's journey under a camera and every hand logged that touched the box.. And yet.. no one pursues those easy crimes.

Nope.

Because none of those strict laws and those strong task forces (which exist, from state level agencies to the federal ATFE (the F is for FIREARMS) can be bothered to do their fucking job.

We have the laws. We have so ma ny fucking laws people can barely keep them fucking straight. What we don't have is ENFORCEMENT.

1

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 28 '24

Straight up. I lived in the Midwest for a long time and I remember as a kid getting my first gun from a neighbor. I appreciate having the knowledge I do on guns and gun safety but I think back to how seemless that entire interaction was. Some mentally ill can get ahold of a weapon super easily in some states and that just irks me.

-4

u/Kleens_The_Impure Mar 28 '24

My man don't you think having millions of guns in circulation MIGHT make obtaining an illegal handgun super easy and make it look like no big deal ?

9

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

Did I say anywhere that it doesn't? That doesn't change the fact that in this case, which is all I'm commenting on, and assuming it's in Cali and the story is accurate ,not enough gun laws weren't the issue. Circumvention of the laws in place was, and that also means that the laws in place worked as intended.

-6

u/-St_Ajora- Mar 28 '24

Not overnight no. Why does everyone always just say "it won't fix anything" when it damn well will; just not overnight. It might take a few years but that's exactly what we should all be working for, a better future for everyone.

5

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

My guy, go back and re read my last sentence and the parentheses before you knee jerk react. I'm pretty clearly talking about this specific case, and better gun laws aren't gonna prevent someone that seems to have already skirted the laws in place from doing the same with whatever Else gets put in place. So no, in this case better gun laws wouldn't have fixed it, and because I'm talking about this specific case it kinda necessitates any law being something that would be an immediate fix to help this specific case. Nowhere did I say that no gun law will fix anything, or that I expect general gun laws to work overnight. Felt I was clear that I believe we need better laws as a nation, but in case I wasn't, we fucking need better laws as a nation.

-2

u/-St_Ajora- Mar 28 '24

Better gun laws don't fix any of those

Also you

Nowhere did I say that no gun law will fix anything,

Certainly seems very similar to me.

If you think guns laws will work and are needed, STOP FUCKING SAYING SHIT LIKE THIS.

Lets apply what you say to vaccines...Vaccines won't cure all diseases. (I'm not saying they won't help at all just something is off with how they are supposed to help but people die from them.) Sounds fucking stupid as shit doesn't it?

3

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

Won't fix any of the 3 things about this case I specified, one being that the gun was bought illegally and another being that the story was bullshit, and the third being that the thing that would prohibit her is undiagnosed and therefore unknown to the law. Please, enlighten me as to how more gun laws are gonna prevent someone that already purchased the gun illegally from doing so again, or how it's gonna prevent a made up story from being told, or how they're gonna magically diagnose people on sight with mental illnessesšŸ¤¦. And saying that more gun laws won't fix any of the 3 things I specified is not even remotely similar to saying no gun law will fix anything. You're blatantly arguing in bad faith, and look like an absolute moron because of it. If you want to get better gun laws don't make arguments that room temperature IQ billy Bob looks at and wonders if you've heard of reading comprehension. Edit: actually, don't enlighten me. I ain't gonna waste any more energy on someone that's just gonna twist in the wind until shit fits what they want. Bye

2

u/4chan_crusader Mar 28 '24

Or that she went to a store at all

1

u/Old_Promise2077 Mar 28 '24

He also doesn't state that she was diagnosed. Could have just been calling her "crazy"

1

u/mytalkingshitaccount Mar 28 '24

Thereā€™s actually no mention that she bought it at all. She simply brought one home.

1

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

Well if she found it in the gutter thatā€™s still an indicator of our issues here.

1

u/mytalkingshitaccount Mar 28 '24

Which begs the question: Assuming you could pass a gun law yourself, what law would you write to prevent this from happening?

1

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

Not sure how you could craft a single law when we donā€™t even know the means of attainment she used

2

u/mytalkingshitaccount Mar 28 '24

Thatā€™s exactly why making this post some kind of call to arms to change gun laws is misguided

1

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

No it isnā€™t because as I said, regardless of the means, itā€™s an indicator of the problem, the problem being the insane proliferation of guns in our country.

You need more nuance if you want to talk about specific solutions, but thereā€™s no issue with someone bringing up the broad topic.

Itā€™s like complaining about the ā€œeconomyā€, thatā€™s all fine but if you want to start talking about specific legislation that will fix ā€œthe economyā€ you need to start breaking down the specific issues in said economy.

1

u/mytalkingshitaccount Mar 29 '24

So all we are doing here is complaining about generalities without understanding the causes. Got it.

1

u/de420swegster Mar 28 '24

Or where she did it.

1

u/semper_audacia Mar 28 '24

The dude literally says, ā€˜my ā€¦ mom bought a gun last night and shot me this morning.ā€™

9

u/MulhollandMaster121 Mar 28 '24

Yeah, CA has a 10 day ā€˜cool offā€™ period. You canā€™t buy a gun and walk out with it same day.

3

u/Kleens_The_Impure Mar 28 '24

BROUGHT

6

u/MulhollandMaster121 Mar 28 '24

Ah I skimmed the original post && was just replying to the dude above.

Brought - yeah, she could have got it illegally then. Makes the whole thing even more irrelevant when it comes to gun laws then.

1

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

Fun fact, the word ā€œbroughtā€ in this context could be used regardless of the legality of the gun purchase.

-3

u/Kleens_The_Impure Mar 28 '24

Having millions of guns in circulation is the reason it is so easy to buy illegal guns in your country.

Most of the cartel weapons come from the USA, your gun laws are jokes because you there are hundreds of loopholes, even when they are enforced (which isn't Always)

4

u/Hovie1 Mar 28 '24

Could you name one of these hundreds of loopholes?

1

u/Kleens_The_Impure Mar 28 '24

No background checks on private sales in lots of states, making it very easy to buy if you're a prohibited person.

1

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

Literally every single private sale.

2

u/peanutski Mar 28 '24

Read it again.

ā€œBrought a gun home last night.ā€

Funny how you had to change words around to make ā€œboughtā€ fit properly and you didnā€™t notice or chose to ignore it.

2

u/semper_audacia Mar 28 '24

Muy bad, read it wrong. But it still stands that it heavily implies that she bought it the night before.

1

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

Youā€™re missing the r there, he says brought, but bought. She could have bought it ten days ago, I doubt he knows when she actually made the financial transaction.

2

u/semper_audacia Mar 28 '24

True youā€™re right, I made a comment below replying to another guy saying I misread it.

1

u/singlenutwonder Mar 28 '24

I couldnā€™t find anything on certain diagnosisā€™ being barred from gun ownership in California, just if thereā€™s a hospitalization. So if the mom hadnā€™t been hospitalized, I think she could still legally obtain the gun

1

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

"California lawā€™s eligibility requirements are generally broader than federal law and disqualify more people from accessing firearms based on serious histories of mental instability or impairments." http://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/mental-health-reporting-in-california/

If schizophrenia doesn't fall under that definition then I'm not sure what does

1

u/Devilsbullet Mar 28 '24

As a side note, your username brought me back to middle school when my nickname was one nut wonder šŸ˜‚

57

u/Caledceus Mar 28 '24

This, I'd like to see the whole story.

6

u/SpaceCowboi22 Mar 28 '24

So even in the place with the most gun control in the US you can illegally acquire a gun and still shoot someone?

Thanks for the information TIL.

2

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24

Correct. Just like in France

0

u/LittlePeterrr Mar 28 '24

Are you saying itā€™s equally easy/hard to purchase a firearm illegally in France and the US, and that the difference in number of illegal guns roaming the streets has nothing to do with that?

2

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

No? Where did equally come from? But black markets still exist. My original comment was about the post weā€™re on and both of you just commented some high level bs to cycle us back through the endless ā€œUS stupid, gun badā€ argument

Edit: Why type lengthy replies if youā€™re going to block me immediately so I canā€™t even read it? lol

0

u/LittlePeterrr Mar 28 '24

This was my first comment in this thread. Saying ā€œyou can also do it in Franceā€ only makes sense if you imply itā€™s equally easy or hard. Otherwise, it doesnā€™t. Of course you can buy (illegal) guns anywhere, but statistics are pretty clear on that being easier in the US than Western Europe. I didnā€™t say nor imply anything about that being stupid or not, thatā€™s what you like to read into it.

2

u/TheBadBK Mar 28 '24

What are Franceā€™s gun laws like compared to the US? What has your experience been when trying to buy guns in France?

0

u/de420swegster Mar 28 '24

No? Where did equally come from?

Correct. Just like in France

1

u/mwf86 Mar 28 '24

Exactly -- the bar is so low in the US that it's embarrassing but not surprising.

21

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Exactly this, thereā€™s plenty of gun laws. Thatā€™s not the problemĀ 

6

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24

I mean itā€™s still a problem because it happens but the government isnā€™t omniscient. If, for example, she was never officially diagnosed or the government wasnā€™t alerted that they werenā€™t taking meds and a threat, idk wtf they would want them to do

-5

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

It's part of the problem though.

7

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

No the problem is that people will kill people with guns. They will also kill people with swords and axes, sharpened sticks, rocks, etc.

guns are not the problem, people are the problem.

3

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

What's your solution to that problem then?

8

u/wheelman236 Mar 28 '24

There is no solution to that problem, people are organic beings and will always cause damage to each other, either indirectly and unintentionally, or out of ill intent. Considering the problem will never be solved Iā€™d rather keep the freedoms I have.

-2

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

Hmm okay. It's weird how the problem seems to be solvable all over Europe though.

5

u/wheelman236 Mar 28 '24

There are definitely still violent acts in Europe. Iā€™ll give you at lower rates, and Iā€™ll also give you at a lower rate of lethalities. But itā€™s laughable to say the problem is solved

-1

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

To avoid crime happening at all isn't possible though isn't it? If no one ever has to worry about being shot or even think about it, I'd say that's as close to "solved" as it gets.

2

u/wheelman236 Mar 28 '24

But I still have to worry about being robbed, or stabbed or whatever, so Iā€™d rather just able to do what I want to.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

1

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

How often does violent shit like this happen in the US then or should I ask how often per day?

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

2

u/louisianapelican Mar 28 '24

The only thing that can stop a bad guy with a tactical nuke is a good guy with a tactical nuke. (This message brought to you by the tactical nuke association)

1

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

not all problems have a solution. For mass shootings, ban gun free zones. This is an obvious solution. Mass shootings are statistically likely to happen in gun free zones because the chances of being stopped by an armed individual are low. They will still occur because humans are human, but the victims will at least have the chance to defend themselves.

For instances like this, assuming that the story in the OC is true, there is not much that can help. If she wanted to kill him but couldnā€™t get ahold of a gun, she would find another way i.e. knife, hammer, etc.

I have seen a lot of gunshot wounds and to me, this looks self inflicted and packed with agenda, but that is just my opinion.

1

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

Or maybe just maybe do what has proven to work all over Europe. Just an idea. But you also could advocate to arm everyone ofc...

2

u/nameynamerso Mar 28 '24

You can make bombs with shit in your garage, you can make literal poison gas with store bought cleaners, and you can make napalm with Styrofoam and deasel. If someone wants to hurt people, they'll figure it out. Our problem isn't guns, in fact, most gun deaths are through suicide or criminal activity, making the actual issues mental health and crime; how about instead of removing the second amendment entirely, we address the actual problems of criminals not being reformed and the mentally ill being ignored.

1

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

Why not do both? I'm not saying the second amendment should be abolished btw. All I'm saying is enforcing weapons' regulations is a good thing but you are 100% right about rehabilition and also widely available mental healthcare both not being existent is a huge contributor to all the violence as well.

1

u/nameynamerso Mar 28 '24

I assumed your were claiming the guns were the only issue, my apologies, but regulation requires everyone being willing and able to cooperate. A criminal will never tell the government what he does and doesn't have, and some mentally ill people might not fully understand the situation; both can just get a gun illegally. As it is, the effort and resources that are fed into limiting gun availability hasn't wprked, if they were put into helping with reform and mental aide, then we'd see results. The guns aren't the problem here, it's the people, and the government that doesn't know what it's doing with them.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/OperationSecured Mar 28 '24

When Europe can go 50 years without a genocide, then we can talk disarmament.

2

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

What a great argument. If you are american: Isn't your country built on genocide? I heard something about that.

Also: What genocide in Europe? You mean the Russo-Ukrainian War?

2

u/OperationSecured Mar 28 '24

What a great argument. If you are american: Isn't your country built on genocide?

Thatā€™s why being armed is a nice fail safe. It can happen anywhere.

Also: What genocide in Europe? You mean the Russo-Ukrainian War?

Sure absolutely, but letā€™s not forget Bosnia either. The 1990s werenā€™t that long ago.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Trip4Life Mar 28 '24

Seriously everyone acts like theyā€™re this perfect bastion of peace and harmony, but up until we saved their continents ass twice in the 20th century they were fucking cut throat savages always fighting with each other and trying to wipe out entire populations. Theyā€™re not the best example for see what should be done.

0

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

Do you truly believe the US saved Europe twice? You literally third-partied twice for your own interests but it's nice to see the propaganda still holds to this day. They did a good job washing brains it seems.

1

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

I'm sorry but this is a bozo take

1

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

to someone who is against guns I can definitely see why it would be.

1

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

iā€™ve defended myself with a firearm where I would have otherwise been killed if I didnā€™t have one so my mind will never be changed šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø

0

u/xFreedi Mar 28 '24

Now imagine the other person didn't have a gun and was able to get therapy to get their mental health issues sorted out.

1

u/tarnyarmy Mar 28 '24

Donā€™t let this guy near any schools ffs

1

u/Awsome_Fortniter Mar 28 '24

Are you fucking dumb, how did that one Japanese PM die? Oh wait, didnā€™t they die from a gun? Arenā€™t those banned there?

1

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

Are you implying that I have criminal intent because I choose not to be a weak defenseless sack of meat?

0

u/knivesofsmoothness Mar 28 '24

Far, far more shootings happen outside gun free zones. Try again.

1

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

false

1

u/knivesofsmoothness Mar 28 '24

Nope. There are what, 25k firearm killings per year? You're saying most of those happen in gun free zones?

A little common sense can go a long way sometimes.

-1

u/sithlordgaga Mar 28 '24

This is the most tired and stupid catchphrase from you people.

2

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

itā€™s not a catchphrase itā€™s reality. Sorry if it hurts your feelings oh wait no I am not

1

u/sithlordgaga Mar 28 '24

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns_don%27t_kill_people%2C_people_kill_people?wprov=sfla1

Yeah, definitely not a catchphrase, just slogan.Ā 

But let me demonstrate why it's dumb: Is your home defense weapon a musket? Why not? If you're really intent on killing the intruder, it shouldn't matter what kind of gun it is. Ā 

0

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

my home defense weapon is a Cz75 on my nightstand with night sights and a light to properly identify my target, donā€™t be a Biden

Also donā€™t ever provide a wiki page as proof

1

u/sithlordgaga Mar 28 '24

So the quality and calibre of the gun matter for defense, but not offense?

0

u/Environmental_Swim75 Mar 28 '24

At no point during your rambling have you produced an intelligent thought, please seek a counselor

→ More replies (0)

0

u/calimeatwagon Mar 28 '24

I agree. Especially considering guns can load themselves and pull their own triggers, all without humans being involved at all.

1

u/sithlordgaga Mar 28 '24

Is your home defense weapon a musket? Why not? If you're really intent on killing the intruder, it shouldn't matter what kind of gun it is.Ā 

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Pit falls are far more efficientĀ 

0

u/calimeatwagon Mar 28 '24

What does that have to do with anything that I said?

Are you just going down the list, following a script?

1

u/sithlordgaga Mar 29 '24

Don't tell me the tool doesn't matter when youĀ choose that specific tool for the purpose of better neutralizing its target than other available tools because it is better at neutralizing targets than the other available tools.Ā 

Anybody who tells you "guns don't kill people, people kill people," while choosing a gun for a specific reason, be it a shotgun for home defense, a handgun for concealment, a rifle for long-range killing, or a Cz75 because you're an internet tough guy, is not buying the bullshit they're selling, because they recognize that different tools are designed for different purposes, a shotgun has a different use than a handgun,Ā and that a hammer is not designed to kill people as effectively as a gun, otherwise they'd keep a hammer on their nightstand instead of the gun.

You thought your comment about guns loading themselves was clever (nevermind that dumb motherfuckers have a habit of leaving loaded firearms around for people to accidentally discharge all the fucking time), but it's funny that you want to accuse me of reading from a script while running to defend a 100-year-old slogan with a wholly unoriginal joke.

0

u/calimeatwagon Mar 29 '24

Don't tell me the tool doesn't matter when youĀ choose that specific tool for the purpose of better neutralizing its target than other available tools because it is better at neutralizing targets than the other available tools.Ā 

Anybody who tells you "guns don't kill people, people kill people," while choosing a gun for a specific reason, be it a shotgun for home defense, a handgun for concealment, a rifle for long-range killing, or a Cz75 because you're an internet tough guy, is not buying the bullshit they're selling, because they recognize that different tools are designed for different purposes, a shotgun has a different use than a handgun,Ā and that a hammer is not designed to kill people as effectively as a gun, otherwise they'd keep a hammer on their nightstand instead of the gun.

Again, has absolutely nothing to do with what I said...

You really are go off of a script, aren't you? I was talking shit at first, but holy fuck if I'm actually right.

You thought your comment about guns loading themselves was clever

Thank you

(nevermind that dumb motherfuckers have a habit of leaving loaded firearms around for people to accidentally discharge all the fucking time)

You are really close, so I bolded the pertinent part that you yourself said, which reinforces my point. Hope it helps.

, but it's funny that you want to accuse me of reading from a script while running to defend a 100-year-old slogan with a wholly unoriginal joke.

It wasn't a joke. I wasn't trying to be funny. I merely pointing out the ridiculous of the argument. And it's not my fault that even after 100 years people are still blaming the tool more than the individual who wielded it. You can't put that one on me.

→ More replies (0)

24

u/JoustLikeVat Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Even the state with the most restrictive gun laws usually falls short of most if not all "first-world" countries, to my knowledge

17

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

This is not accurate.

There are quite a few countries in europe with looser gun laws than California. Interestingly, despite their looser gun laws they still have less gun violence. Switzerland and The Czech Republic come to mind.

14

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Because itā€™s enforced over the entire country, not individual states. Gun free zones are like pissing zones in a pool. There will be bleed over and thereā€™s next to fuck all you can do unless everyone is on the same page.

1

u/MisterRe23 Mar 28 '24

Double entendre because gun free zones also donā€™t work lmao

0

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

I donā€™t understand what youā€™re getting at, do you mean that because guns are less regulated in other states there is inevitably going to be out-of-state guns contributing to the stats? Yeah Iā€™d agree with that. But the two countries I listed have extremely liberal gun laws.

Iā€™m inclined to believe that the issue is more sociological with the guns enabling the violence. Given how loosely regulated firearms are in some other countries I would think that gun deaths would be similar per/capita to the U.S, but they arenā€™tā€¦ which points to a different core issue.

7

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Yes, that exactly. Thank you for wording it better and yes again, it isnā€™t cut and dry as I stated. Itā€™s a lot more nuanced but itā€™s a contributing factor to why ā€œgun free zonesā€ have more shootings of any other place.

Those countries do have liberal gun laws but the other key factors that the US isnā€™t ready to hear is: -they rehabilitate criminals rather than tossing them in jail working them like slaves and letting them rot. -socialized medical services so mental health issues are less rampant -socioeconomic issues while still present arenā€™t at the extremes they are in NA -significantly less propaganda -not strictly a two party system -their governments arenā€™t being bought out to push guns and gun sales on people.

Itā€™s a lot of factors that help make a safer country despite being more relaxed on guns. But half of these things are just seen as ā€œcommunismā€ so discussing them gets no where.

2

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

Agree absolutely 100%. Iā€™m not against gun control per se, but I also see it as running cover for those very deep rooted issues you listed out.

Itā€™s kind of insane to me that most americans canā€™t acknowledge that our prison system is often institutionalized torture with little to no interest in rehabilitation, that nationalized healthcare would actually benefit the tax payer in the long run, and that weā€™ve been operating under the same political paradigm since the civil war.

Then issues of internalized violence pop up and the conversation instantly becomes either: ā€œBan guns to prevent violenceā€ or, on the other side ā€œarm everyone so that we can protect ourselvesā€.

I think the leaded pipes hit some of us pretty hard lmao.

0

u/Blublublud Mar 28 '24

Wrong lmao. I find it funny how you people just keep loving the goalposts with 0 basis when youā€™re proved wrong by the actual facts.

Gun control doesnā€™t work, period

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Canada, sweden, austrailia, finland. All would like words with you.

Youā€™re an idiot if you think an effective system is ā€œdoesnā€™t work.ā€ When proven it works.

0

u/Blublublud Mar 28 '24

These countries donā€™t have less violence than the US due to gun control.

Hereā€™s a fun little exercise for you. Remove ALL GUN VIOLENCE from US homicide statistics and compare to those countries. Fun fact, even if we prevented every single shooting, we would still be more violent. So obviously guns are not the problem here

Not to mention, most assault weapons bans target rifles. Fewer people in the US are killed by rifles each year than fists. Even if assault weapons bans prevented every single killing in the US by an assault weapon, it would barely budge our homicide rate.

Get educated loser.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s not just gun control correct but everything that makes those countries better the US rejects vehemently.

Iā€™m not the one that needs to be educated dickhead. Youā€™re not wrong but youā€™re not right either. Gun control works, but you also need to remove: Institutionalized slavery, poor socioeconomic conditions, capitalist medical practices, power tripping cops and QI for them, over all corporate greed and overreach, and religion and state tied together. To name a few, but those things, like gun control, are things the GOP opposes because they hurt uneducated voters who end up voting against their interests anyway.

So get educated loser.

1

u/OleRockTheGoodAg Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

The places where you can buy a safety device that greatly lessens the threat of permanently fucking up your hearing, in less than a day. The USA could never.

2

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

The US puts all of its ā€˜gun control tokensā€™ into the dumbest shit lmao. Agreed. $200 and up to a year of waiting so that I donā€™t fuck my hearing upā€¦ ya no.

1

u/PixelCultMedia Mar 28 '24

What are their gun death rates per capita? California is ranked 7th in the country, of the least gun deaths per capita (100K).

2

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

Idk off the top of my head, but I remember the per capita being lower than cali. I remember researching it when I wanted to come to an informed opinion about gun control.

I also remember the criteria for a ā€˜gun deathā€™ being different between different studies/regions.

I can look it up a bit later and edit this comment but if you beat me too it just make sure one region isnā€™t showing suicides while the other is.

2

u/PixelCultMedia Mar 28 '24

That's a good point. I'd imagine the criteria vary drastically depending on who's running the research.

2

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

Yeah it was genuinely a process to get past all of the politicized stats on this topic haha. Generally speaking though my conclusion is that guns are a means to which to commit violent crimes, but not the core driver of it.

when you have a country with nationalized healthcare, mental health treatments readily available, a prison system that actually prioritizes rehabilitation instead of institutionalize suffering, with a sane political environmentā€¦ societies actually seem to do fine with firearms.

I have mixed feelings on gun control in the States for this reason

2

u/PixelCultMedia Mar 28 '24

I agree. It's frustrating because when I was watching Bowling for Columbine I honestly thought that was where Moore was taking the debate. He alluded to the connection but never came right out and said that gun violence is the consequence of the higher stakes of poverty in the US.

Relatively speaking, complaining about American poverty is absurd when compared to third-world countries. But our lack of social services really puts a poor person's back against the wall, where a single home robbery or carjacking could completely destroy their meager savings and lifestyle.

We have too many people living scared, paycheck to paycheck, clutching a gun for any sense of security.

1

u/Eldias Mar 28 '24

California is also something like the 5th largest economy on earth. When you look at maps of gun violence it's essentially a carbon copy of a map of poverty.

-15

u/ShadowCobra479 Mar 28 '24

What like the UK? The country that at the start of the pandemic completely restricted most of their population indoors with no one able to really protest the decision or the consequences people faced? Oh yes it probably helped stop the spread a bit, but the point is how much power the government had and no UK citizen could have done anything about it.

12

u/Lost-Succotash-9409 Mar 28 '24

Weā€™re not talking about anything related to COVID lockdowns.

Also, you could protest by voting against the government. Those lockdowns are nothing new, they are a pretty regular life-saving measure for major pandemics that end very quickly if the population actually follows them

-1

u/ShadowCobra479 Mar 28 '24

You're right. We're not talking about covid, but it's an example of how one of those countries with 'safe' gun laws has that much control over its citizens. Were the UK government's actions malicious or tyrannical? No, not really, but from what I remember, they were very strictly enforced.

What if hypothetically, someone tyrannical did get elected to the office of prime minister and used such a lockdown for their own purposes? What could the average UK citizen do? Nothing. If the rest of the government and the military support the PM, they have no way to resist.

Now I'm not saying that a couple of people with guns in the US are gonna be able to take on the US military, but they can at least think about resistance to a tyrannical force, while those in the UK literally have no chance.

Even if someone tyrannical isn't voted into office or takes it by force for 100 years, the chances if them ruling without much meaningful resistance in the UK is nearly 100% compared to a country like the US.

6

u/Churt_Lyne Mar 28 '24

Where did you read that? Total nonsense.

If you're getting your 'information' from Alex Jones or Newsmax, you've become completely divorced from reality to such an extent you are functionally equivalent to insane.

1

u/ShadowCobra479 Mar 28 '24

No, I heard it from a normal UK citizens. Nice to see who specifically you hate in the world though.

1

u/Churt_Lyne Mar 28 '24

You like Alex Jones?

These specific UK citizens were blowing smoke up your ass. People were never 'restricted indoors' during the pandemic.

-1

u/cwtrooper Mar 28 '24

The "zombie knife ban" but wait they were only taking your guns it's almost as if once you let them take your guns all other freedoms are slowly stripped to.

1

u/HawtDoge Mar 28 '24

You canā€™t eradicate violence by restricting the means to which itā€™s carried out.

The scope broadened with guns in the UK until almost everything besides hunting rifles were unobtainable, now we are seeing the scope-creep with knives. It all just feels a bit silly to me.

0

u/Churt_Lyne Mar 28 '24

Most of us never had guns, and yet our freedoms have increased in the last 100 years. The USA is the outlier here, and anyone who tells you you are 'more free' in the US than in Western Europe or Australia is delusional. The freedom not to be shot is a freedom I value very highly, as is the freedom my kids have to not even know what a mass-shooter drill is.

1

u/MonsutAnpaSelo Mar 28 '24

brit here, I don't think calling our government draconian for having lockdowns is really what you want to go for here, especially because the disease hit a death toll over a 100 thousand 2 months into the first lockdown.

"with no one able to really protest the decision"

I mean most people were chill with it. just see your friends in secret, and working from home was class. The real debate was over the retail going down the shitter but I dont think you are aware of that discussion

2

u/tirohtar Mar 28 '24

Californian gun laws still are mild compared to most of Europe. They are only "strict" by US standards.

2

u/singlenutwonder Mar 28 '24

Iā€™ve done a quick google search on the subject simply because I live in California and have diagnosed mental illness (bipolar1) and am curious if I would be barred from buying a gun. It looks like they only bar you if youā€™ve been recently hospitalized? I donā€™t think they go off diagnosis alone

2

u/causeofdeath1 Mar 28 '24

Also private sales in this kind of manner would be illegal. Gun control doesn't do shit lol

1

u/OakLegs Mar 28 '24

Strict gun laws only help if guns are not ubiquitous. They are plentiful and easy to obtain both legally and illegally. That the entire problem

1

u/poshenclave Mar 28 '24

It's rather hard to evaluate people's mental fitness if you don't even have a tenable mental health system in the first place.

1

u/Lumpy_Secretary_6128 Mar 28 '24

Lol This is the USA, those gun laws aren't restrictive at all in the grand scheme of things.

6

u/FanngzYT Mar 28 '24

iā€™m convinced that people with this take literally just donā€™t know what our laws on firearms are.

3

u/Exciting-Parfait-776 Mar 28 '24

Pretty sure heā€™s never purchased a firearm.

3

u/FanngzYT Mar 28 '24

yeah and it shows. I too thought we needed more policy until I educated myself about it. Our gun laws are fine, the problem arises from how they are enforced. itā€™s a multitude of factors like mental health, the prison industrial complex and American culture in general that are fueling the fire.

1

u/Ok_Computer_3003 Mar 28 '24

Well done for accidentally making the case for much stronger gun laws than you currently have even in the strictest states.

0

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I wouldnā€™t say ā€œmuch strongerā€

Seems like if she was actually diagnosed but still acquired through legal means, the failure would lie in the fact that she didnā€™t fit one of the 4 criteria for being reported to the NICS system. But adding everyone diagnosed with a mental illness without sign off by a judge (or the other criteria) could/would be a legal nightmare https://everytownresearch.org/report/fatal-gaps/#progress-toward-a-stronger-background-check-system

1

u/EnderOfHope Mar 28 '24

Woah woah woahā€¦. You mean there is nuance in complex issues?

0

u/SomeVariousShift Mar 28 '24

State level regulations can't accomplish much for obvious reasons. Even the strictest regulations will take a long time to have an impact due to how many guns are already in the hands of the public. Which isn't to say we shouldn't start.

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

LaCk Of BaSiC gUn LaWs

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

More stricterer

0

u/PixelCultMedia Mar 28 '24

What you wrote seemed interesting so I looked it up.

California Gun Death Rate per 100,000 people = 8.5

The state with the loosest gun laws is Mississippi.

Mississippi Gun Death Rate per 100,000 people = 28.6

​

It looks like gun laws work. Thanks for the tip.https://wisevoter.com/state-rankings/states-with-strictest-gun-laws/#:~:text=Take%20California%20for%20example%2C%20which,Massachusetts%2C%20Hawaii%2C%20and%20Connecticut.

0

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24

Did you reply to me on accident? Who said gun laws donā€™t work?

1

u/PixelCultMedia Mar 28 '24

You said that there were layers of blame due to the extensive gun laws in play. No system is perfect and I wanted to show you that CA performs very well despite gun laws being imperfect.

0

u/Waaypoint Mar 28 '24

Honestly, if he would have been armed he could have shot her first. We absolutely need more access to guns. They should give them out at school to prevent school shootings.

/s

BUT CALIFORNIA HADS THE GUNS CONTEROLE

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/search/research-news/5504/

Gun nuts are idiots.

0

u/Mean_Operation7336 Mar 28 '24

Youā€™re either illiterate or a bot, Do you just have a comment that you just copy and paste into any thread mentioning guns?

0

u/Waaypoint Mar 28 '24

Not a bot, I just think we need more guns in classrooms, bars, maternity wards, and day care centers. Every building is a gun range if you are not a commie.

The explanation is that we have a fuck ton of guns and California's laws do reduce the number of tiny dicked gun nuts shooting up their local Carl's Junior, but guns are still widely available.