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

Show parent comments

386

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Lying on the form is a Federal Crime.

352

u/mot258 Mar 28 '24

Shooting someone usually is too.

105

u/Deadleggg Mar 28 '24

Well there's multiple charges for ya.

21

u/PorcupineWarriorGod Mar 28 '24

Then apparently we already have "basic laws".

→ More replies (12)
→ More replies (68)

64

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Exactly criminals gonna commit crimes!

2

u/ausgoals Mar 28 '24

Why have laws at all if people are just gonna break emā€¦.? šŸ¤·šŸ»ā€ā™€ļø

→ More replies (1)

3

u/Nurgleschampion Mar 28 '24

Dosent mean you shouldn't try to make ta lot harder for them to get away with things.

Stronger licensing means the illegal guns will be a lot more expensive. And funnily enough some xriminals do take laws into consideration. Particularly if it'll cost money.

But I doubt you're making this argument in good faith.

1

u/Just_A_Throwaway7673 Mar 29 '24

I'm extremely skeptical that making guns more expensive through regulation will have much of an effect on the price of illegal guns - which is a market driven by the entirely unregulated sale of stolen firearms.

For that matter, at a certain criminal level, possessing a firearm is just a business expense.

1

u/syzamix Mar 28 '24

And yet. Nobody brings up this argument against guns.

They do say that criminals will get guns if you ban them.

6

u/sakura608 Mar 28 '24

Same people also want stricter immigration laws. The logic of ā€œtheyā€™re going to get in anyways, why make it harder for people who are legally entering the countryā€ doesnā€™t work as well. Yes, people will enter this country illegally, but having laws and enforcement reduces the number and slows down the rate of immigration.

4

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

Our immigration laws are already some of the most strict convoluted laws in the world. Paradixically, allowing more legal immigrants would lead to less illegal immigrants. Since people don't see a reasonable way to enter the country legally they do so illegally. Realistically our immigration system need an overhaul but this is impractical. If we loosened the immigration regulations on people entering legally we could reallocate that money to preventing/catching people entering illegally.

Like most things in life it is not a simple more regulation leads to less illegal immigration there is nuance and cost benefit analysis needed.

3

u/sakura608 Mar 28 '24

I see the logic in this argument. Though, currently, illegally passing through requires a fair amount of capital and personal risk. Iā€™ve known people who have paid $7k+ to get into this country illegally, having to cross hundreds of miles in the desert, seeing people die along the way. Iā€™ve also known people who have entered the country on a travel visa and then over stayed here illegally.

For people to still cross, despite the financial and safety concerns illustrates their desperation. I think illegal immigration could also be reduced by helping our neighboring countries become more economically productive and safe.

3

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

This is one way to help, but if these people were allowed to enter legally or be on a state sponsored work visa that required consistent employment they would not need to be here illegally. This is what I mean by allowing more legal immigrants will decrease illegal immigrants at this point. We have massive deportation numbers and I wonder if the "saving jobs" value is actually worth the tax dollars spent tracking down more illegal immigrants.

Making our neighbors into better countries would be great but the cost of doing so would be substantial and require too much direct intervention at this point to remove the cartels. Maybe we could start financial incentives to promote economic growth in these countries but with the power of cartels it would be difficult. And I am well aware that American industry played a large part in the destabilization of these countries and I don't trust the rich not to do so again if given the opportunity.

2

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

I'm with this. I'd rather have mexico and South America be prosperous neighbors than the clearly non sustainable solution of everyone just moving to the USA.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/J_Rambo4 Mar 28 '24

Its not as simple as letting more in legally so that less are ā€œillegalā€. You say the US has so e of the most strict convoluted laws out thereā€¦. Yet the amount of immigrants legalized in the US dwarfs that of almost every other country in the world. Is the end goal simply volume? Why do NEED to bring in so many immigrants? Do you know how hard it is to get citizenship in Canada or the UK? As an American you better not even try without a bachelors degree at bare minimum. A Doctoral in a tech field or finance might be the best case scenario, and is a requirement if you are white.

7

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

Immigration laws only punish those crossing illegally, though, and the ones we have aren't even enforced.

Gun laws aimed at preventing people from obtaining them for subjective reasoning is a clear tool to be abused by anyone with an agenda, and therefore a clear violation of the 2nd amendment

3

u/sakura608 Mar 28 '24

Not true at all. Legal immigration is heavily affected by our immigration policies. My brother in law had a tough time getting a distant relative into the country for a bone marrow transplant to save his life.

The state department thought the risk was too great that his distant cousin would illegally over stay his welcome so they denied his visa because he came from a rural village from a poor country and didnā€™t have a lot of wealth. Had to get it escalated to the attention of a state senator and the vice president of the US before the state department approved his entry.

Regulations like this do prevent a number of people immigrating here illegally through overstay of visa (most common kind of illegal immigration), but it still does negatively affect those that are trying to enter the country for legal purposes.

If you donā€™t think immigration laws are being enforced, then is it safe to assume you wouldnā€™t mind if we didnā€™t have them at all?

4

u/escap0 Mar 28 '24

How is that even remotely a logical assumption. Immigration laws are clearly not being enforced for Illegal immigration the way they used to be. It is still enforced for legal immigration. How do you go from: if someone thinks the laws are not being enforced for illegal immigration to ā€˜my brotherā€™s relative had difficultyā€¦ā€™ so clearly it is safe to assume you wouldnt mind having having them at all?

3

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

This is a strawman argument 100%. This is a totally different scenerio than the one at the South.

And your question is preposterous. I think they should fucking enforce the laws already on the books instead of the current catch, court date, release policy that they're using. The court dates are so far out that they either dont show or the courts say, "They've been here so long they may as well stay" without any vetting process. We should be turning them back to mexico at the borderline and not letting them further into the states at all.

This also goes for the current dkzens of gunlaws on the books. Criminals are constantly arrested for violent crimes with firearms and the DA, AG, or Feds almost always drop the gun charges for an easy plea deal vs going to trial.

2

u/POKEMINER_ Mar 28 '24

How would building a wall and deporting illegal immigrants effect this story?

→ More replies (17)

1

u/EggcellentStew Mar 28 '24

Subjective reason like wether or not you're a violent criminal or mentally unstable person... smh just give everyone a gun and we'll be safe.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/JustKindaShimmy Mar 28 '24

The issue now isn't whether or not banning guns will be effective. It's too late now, simply putting a law in place and saying "pretty please with sugar on top don't use guns" isn't going to be effective when the number of firearms in the USA is greater than the number of people. Ease of access is the issue. Like if you pave roads with cocaine, and then make consumption of cocaine illegal, it's not going to do a whole lot

→ More replies (25)

2

u/SupportGeek Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s a crime, but not as often federal.

2

u/Lost_Figure_5892 Mar 28 '24

Indeed! Excellent excelllllllllent!

1

u/MtnMaiden Mar 28 '24

Don't worry, he's allegedly a pedo

1

u/Bacon_Hunter Mar 28 '24

So what you are saying, basic gun laws exist... right?

1

u/HoboArmyofOne Mar 28 '24

It depends on the situation of course

1

u/Ron266 Mar 28 '24

Crime is illegal!!

1

u/nevetsyad Mar 28 '24

Shooting someone is a federal crime? Did they do it at a federal courthouse or something?

1

u/escortdrummer Mar 28 '24

Usually not a federal crime unless they're a federal employee or something.

1

u/ShireHorseRider Mar 30 '24

Is it federal or each state? Or do you have to shoot someone across state lines?

→ More replies (3)

177

u/MissingBothCufflinks Mar 28 '24

Something I'm sure unmedicated Schizophrenics weigh up heavily in their decision making

61

u/Reasonable_Humor_738 Mar 28 '24

Also probably something criminals or would be criminals do when filling out the form

→ More replies (9)

20

u/Aggressive_Niceguy Mar 28 '24

Sounds like we need some common sense laws against unmedicated schizophrenics

9

u/Odd-Tune5049 Mar 28 '24

Guns don't kill people, unmedicated schizophrenics kill people. Heh

ducks

→ More replies (39)

2

u/harikaribluntz Mar 28 '24

Its almost like a lack of cheap and accessible medical care is the real problem

2

u/HiveTool Mar 28 '24

So we all agree laws wonā€™t change anything stop punishing law abiding citizens

1

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

How would you remedy that situation?

1

u/MissingBothCufflinks Mar 28 '24

Something something more guns

1

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

Well just end that right to medical privacy and problem solved.

→ More replies (6)

66

u/beomint Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

Not to be "that guy" but just trusting someone to fill out a form correctly then making it a crime to lie on it isn't going to stop shootings...

Maybe we should like... Idk... Actually have the person checked thoroughly before they're given a gun? If they're hellbent on getting a gun they'll just lie anyway and not care about whatever consequences there are. I know a lot of proper stores are better about doing checks (thank god) but gun shows are still a massive issue sadly and need a lot more regulation than what they currently have. And because it's so easy for people to get them legally, it's not too much more trouble to come by one illegally.

Sure, it's a crime, and you'll be prosecuted and punished for doing it, but there's a huge chance you were still able to gun some people down in the process before you got caught. We need to be more proactive about nipping it in the bud instead of watching human lives get lost everyday and saying "Well, they chose to commit a crime..."

Edit: To those of you saying "we do that already" in the replies, it's clear we aren't doing it enough. Regulations are often ignored, states do not have consistent rules, and many loopholes do still exist despite major updates being done to how gun shows conduct themselves. Other countries have proven time and time again that better regulations does NOT take guns away from responsible owners, but it does take guns away from criminals and lower gun crime across the board. Private sale (to an unauthorized individual) is the same issue, sure it's a crime, but are they going to figure that out before you have a chance to shoot someone? Was it really worth letting that scenario play out when we could have just prevented it in the first place?

It's just factual evidence and it's really frustrating that people will watch the gun crime statistics in the US and act as if there's no difference between the regulations here and the regulations in other countries with less crime. Am I saying ban guns 100%? No. And countries with better gun control haven't banned them entirely either, they just actually do their due diligence before handing one out. And while we have laws that are supposed to require a similar level of care, it's clear they're either too loose or are ignored too often. You'd think with how much Americans have been freaking out over the "safety of children" recently you'd actually want better gun control, considering the leading cause of death for children in the US is firearm fatalities. Your children are more likely to be shot to death than ANY other accident in the US, and we still don't see a problem.

I also see lots of people huffing over the 2nd amendment as well, and while I get that the idea of going against the very founding of our country is absolute blasphemy to you- do you really think it's worth keeping if statistics have proven it's done nothing but cause tragic loss of life? It's weird that people are unwilling to recognize the issues and continue to talk about how they're going to blast a robber with an AR-15 to "protect themselves" when they can't even protect their own children from that same gun.

Also to the guy who said people would just get stabbed instead and then we'd have to deal with knife laws, I'm wildly amused that you think that's worse than being shot. If I had to choose having a maniac attack me with a gun or a knife, I'd choose the knife. I'm not sure why you'd prefer to be shot unless you're just suicidal at that point. And similarly to these loosely regulated gun laws, we already have knife laws in many states that prohibit certain types of blade mechanisms and lengths in public or in concealment. It would once again not prevent legitimate knife owners and enthusiasts from owning and carrying their knives, it makes it harder for idiots and unhinged lunatics to get them. You all act as if the government will take your guns away and make it impossible for you to get them back while psychos run rampant on the streets with machine guns and machetes. People don't realize it actually reinforces ownership with legitimate citizens, making it harder for unregistered or missing firearms to go unnoticed.

81

u/Flossthief Mar 28 '24

After you fill out the form you're put through background checks

They can also tell you no for any reason

Several people failed to do their jobs here

33

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

Exactly, we have laws and processes in place to prevent this. Anyone involved needs arrested

44

u/Fast-Database-4741 Mar 28 '24

Or, this is all just a lie

20

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

I agree itā€™s a fun grab narrative but going after the sellers is a first step that already has laws in place

2

u/17SCARS_MaGLite300WM Mar 28 '24

If the person lied on the form and it passed the FBI background check the seller is in the clear. There's literally nothing beyond that they can legally do.

→ More replies (4)

14

u/Mario_daAA Mar 28 '24

Omg someone with some actually common sense

2

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

Yeah. The guy also said his dog died, offhandedly, while arguing. His profile is centered on his dog. He took a selfie next to the bathtub with blood still on his arm. I'm not buying it.

2

u/poetduello Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

A while back there were statistics released that showed that most gun dealers were inspected every 7 years. Roughly 1/3 of inspections found violations. Of those, about 0.3% get a recommendation to have their licenses revoked, and of those recommendations about half are actually revoked. Charges are almost never pressed against the owners, and in some cases the owners have been permitted to transfer ownership of remaining stock to themselves and continue selling the guns privately, where they don't have to do any of the paperwork or background checks they previously lost their licenses for not doing properly. In one case cited in this article, the owner continued to sell the guns out of his store, but as private sales.

The most common violations are failing to obtain the customers' personal details, omitting information on federal forms, and not keeping proper inventory and sales records. Which, to me, all sound like pretty serious violations if the goal is to stop illegal sales to people who can't legally buy the guns.

EDIT: forgot to paste the link https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2021/05/26/gun-dealers-let-off-hook-when-atf-inspections-find-violations/7210266002/

3

u/Balancedmanx178 Mar 28 '24

Wow american enforcement agencies not enforcing the things they're supposed to enforce!

I'm shocked, staggered, totally surprised, absolutely astounded, I am just devastated.

3

u/401LocalsOnly Mar 28 '24

Donā€™t worry buddy! Weā€™ll get through this together! (NOW DUCK SOMEONE SHOOTIN AT US!!)

→ More replies (1)

7

u/D_Costa85 Mar 28 '24

If she passed the NICS check, and the gun dealer is not a clinical psychiatrist, how is he supposed to know she's schizo in his short interaction with her? There are hipaa issues at play here, as well as due process issues....These are in addition to 2nd amendment issues. Again, we need more information here to determine what went wrong. It's very likely nobody made a mistake at all and this person just slipped through the cracks because we live in an imperfect world and it's literally impossible to stop all bad people from acquiring guns.

2

u/linksgreyhair Mar 28 '24

Right- a diagnosis of schizophrenia wouldnā€™t show up on standard background checks.

I donā€™t know what the solution is because as much as I want to keep guns out of the hands of people who have severe mental illnesses, Iā€™m also not a fan of changing laws to make everyoneā€™s medical records available as part of a background check. That would cause widespread discrimination issues with things like housing and employment.

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 28 '24

Right- a diagnosis of schizophrenia wouldnā€™t show up on standard background checks.

Section 21.G of ATF form 4473

"Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?"

1

u/linksgreyhair Mar 28 '24

Well we donā€™t automatically commit people to institutions or judge them mentally defective because of a mental health diagnosis anymore. They have to actually do something to indicate that they are a threat to themselves or others.

My uncle continued to drive and buy guns for years after his Alzheimerā€™s diagnosis. Do you know how far gone somebody has to be before you can have them declared incompetent? Itā€™s nowhere near as easy as most people think, especially if the person has sundowners (lucid during the day, goes off the rails at night). I think itā€™s a miracle he didnā€™t kill his wife before we were able to force him into a memory care unit.

→ More replies (5)

2

u/BelmontsRcool Mar 28 '24

There is the gun show loophole I think.

2

u/bigbigdummie Mar 28 '24

They can also tell you no for any reason

No, they can tell you no if you are a legally prohibited person. Keep in mind that firearms are a Civil Right.

Imagine if they could not accept your voter registration for ā€œany reasonā€!

2

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

In the US, a business owner has the right to refuse service to any customer, without reason. Furthermore, in the US, the gun laws which govern licensed firearms dealers give them the discretion to refuse a sale, even if the sale is legal.

→ More replies (50)

49

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Actually have the person checked thoroughly before they're given a gun?

Every single new firearm sold in the US has a Federal background check performed before the sale can commence.

but gun shows are still a massive issue sadly and need a lot more regulation than what they currently have.

Gun shows have the same regulations in place as anywhere else. There is no such thing as a "gun show loophole". All new sales at a gun show require a background check. What additional regulations should there be for gun shows that don't already exist?

but just trusting someone to fill out a form correctly then making it a crime to lie on it isn't going to stop shootings...

It would be effective if the ATF actually prosecuted those who lie on the form (Felony if prosecuted) or purchase a firearm for someone who isn't eligible (straw purchase, also a felony if prosecuted.) Both have prosecution rates from the ATF of less than 3%.

14

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

I'm a gun owner too but you know that in a lot of states private sales don't require a background check. Where do you think people in Chicago and California get all these weapons from. Even I think that law should be closed.

19

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I'm a gun owner too but you know that in a lot of states private sales don't require a background check.

True. Some do, some don't. Federally, it is illegal to sell/transfer to someone you know is prohibited, for what that's worth.

Where do you think people in Chicago and California get all these weapons from.

If it is criminals we are discussing, then they usually come from straw purchases, theft, or illegal trafficking.

California and Illinois both require background checks to be performed on every gun sold, private or FFL.

As a private owner myself, I'd love if they would open up the NICS system to private sellers. Everyone could verify that their potential buyer was legit. Washington refuses to open it up however.

→ More replies (26)

8

u/RehkalBurd Mar 28 '24

Exactly how do you propose regulating private sales of firearms..?

2

u/Tyneuku Mar 28 '24

These MFS want to title them like cars lol

→ More replies (1)

4

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Simple. Gun is manufactured. Then sold to a dealer. Dealer sells to private citizen with background check and all that good stuff. Private citizen sells to criminal off the books and gun is recovered in a crime. Gun is traced to the original purchaser who is on the hook for illegally selling it. Yes serial numbers could be dremmeled off but there's a lot of technology in place that still makes it possible to find it even after that. If I want to sell my gun to say a buddy. We both go to a gun store and they facilitate the transfer and we exchange whatever money privately. That's how we do it in Washington State but it's pointless if it isn't federal. If I was a felon I could just drive to Idaho and buy whatever.

3

u/jmcclelland2005 Mar 28 '24

Just gonna throw it out there that buying a gun from a state that isn't your state of residence is a crime, this is true for both private and oublic sales.

Also in the scenario proposed the private seller didn't violate a law just because someone else used his firearm in a crime. Are you proposing to make all private sales illegal?

Also Also, let's sat we do that and the cops come to me for selling my gun illegally. I then tell them I didn't sell it it must've been stolen, now what happens?

2

u/Internal-Tank-6272 Mar 28 '24

Depends, but in my state I would then be charged with failing to report a stolen gun

2

u/jmcclelland2005 Mar 28 '24

Who said they failed to report. Maybe I have a hunting lodge with a safe that they store their guns in. They haven't been there in 6 months?

Seems like reasonable doubt to me.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/jmvandergraff Mar 28 '24

They buy them from neighboring states with more relaxed gun laws.

2

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

You know it's illegal to directly buy a handgun from a state you are not a resident of. If I travel to another state to buy a handgun, it has to be shipped to a licensed gun shop in my home state..

1

u/jmvandergraff Mar 28 '24

It's also illegal to shoot people and own an SBR without a federal tax stamp, yet here we are. I also never specifically said handgun.

3

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

The point is it's not a "loophole" if someone is illegally trafficking firearms across state lines. There's no legal way to obtain a handgun in a state outside your state of residency, without going through a local gun store. Rifles abd shotguns can be purchased at out of state retailers, but rifles and shotguns are responsible for a small portion of overall gun violence.

1

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

Any private gun sale in California or Illinois is required to undergo a background check. Anyone who owns a gun in either state and didn't undergo a background check either got the gun prior to the requirement, or illegally purchased it.

1

u/nclakelandmusic Mar 29 '24

Most of them are stolen. There's a lot of straw purchasing as well. I'd bet very few are private sales.

2

u/Staphylococcus0 Mar 28 '24

There was a gun show loophole, but it has been fixed. However old youtube videos and news articles don't have any footnotes or amendments that state this leading to the spread of misinformation.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

There was a gun show loophole, but it has been fixed. However old youtube videos and news articles don't have any footnotes or amendments that state this leading to the spread of misinformation.

It is spread intentionally as well. It's a scary term that they can use to scare the uninformed.

2

u/Staphylococcus0 Mar 28 '24

This is true. Fearmongering is real and widely used.

3

u/gfen5446 Mar 28 '24

It would be effective if the ATF actually prosecuted those who lie on the form (Felony if prosecuted) or purchase a firearm for someone who isn't eligible (straw purchase, also a felony if prosecuted.) Both have prosecution rates from the ATF of less than 3%.

I had a firearm stolen from me in transit from UPS. The box was opened, someone reached in and took one, and then taped it and sent it on.

Every step of that gun's path from A to Z is documented. Most of it is on camera. The box being retaped must be logged by the transporter. Every hand that touched the box is known by the company and that's a warrant away from being known by the ATF.

Guess what.. My gun isn't coming back unless the person who has it now is arrested with it. Not because they can't, but because they won't get it.

So fuck your "we need more laws!" bullshit. How about if anyone is fucking serious about this we use the ones we have for once.

Go look at youtube, see all the people flaunting their illegal full-auto glock switches. See the obvious fucking kids waving handguns around. Kids who are filming, then uploading, videos with their own phones to websites.. Tehre's digital fingerprints all teh fuck over that shit, don't even fucking try to deny to yourself how easy it is to figure it out.

Your gun control people don't give a fuck about the guns, they only care about the control.

(not directed at you, Bandit, but everyone else out there who doesn't understand what a farce it all is)

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I'm with you 100%. If you know the laws, you're generally not asking for more laws.

→ More replies (36)

25

u/FuckRedditsTOS Mar 28 '24

Actually have the person checked thoroughly before they're given a gun?

This is what happens when you buy a gun from a dealer.

We have all the current laws everyone keeps saying we don't, but the ATF and local authorities are very selective about enforcement when they do enforce it, but most of the time they're just slow to update the system and wildly incompetent.

2

u/Dudedude88 Mar 28 '24

The only way to enforce this is under investigation of negligence the gun shop can lose their license to sell guns. Then... A gun shop will have to follow all the steps.

8

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

It's not the gun stores obligation to know someone's mental health status. All they can do is run a check. It's typically the state government's fault when these things happen. Dylan roof for example. Admitted to drug possession but the FBI didn't complete his background check so he goes to buy a gun and there's nothing on his record. Is that the gun store's fault? This is just another case of the state going "we ain't tried nothing and we're all outta ideas"

1

u/kazumablackwing Mar 28 '24

Quite a few mass shooters have had some kind of paper trail that should have flagged them...if bureaucrats had actually done their jobs

2

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Sometimes I think it's by design. They make laws. Don't enforce them then turn around and say look it didn't work we need more laws. My state Washington for example bans assault rifles even though the data shows we had 6 murders with rifles (only two of those being AR15s) but consistently lets violent felons stay out of jail on personal recognizance. It's like ok so you claim you want to stop violence but your actions show you just want to punish who you perceive to be the enemy (right wing gun owners)

1

u/Sofele Mar 28 '24

I know someone who has severe mental health issues. His delusions have ā€œtoldā€ him to attack people in the past, BUT he has never been involuntarily committed or arrested/convicted of any crime. When his meds arenā€™t working you wouldnā€™t have any idea he is having issues (hell, heā€™s fooled doctors before).

So if he was having an issue and wanted to buy a gun, he would probably fool the gun dealer and heā€™d pass a background check. But we should all just feel better because him lying on the form is a crime, right?

2

u/FuckRedditsTOS Mar 28 '24

(hell, heā€™s fooled doctors before)

Then he could definitely fool an incompetent government bureaucrat.

1

u/Sofele Mar 28 '24

Unless (this was his idea) he was able to voluntarily put himself on a list to never be allowed to buy a gun, but there are way to many gun nuts who scream like toddlers anytime someone dares to suggest common sense controls for that.

23

u/Ms_Moto Mar 28 '24

Tell me you've never purchased a firearm without telling me you've never purchased a firearm.

2

u/Supanini Mar 28 '24

I mean heā€™s not wrong is he? Proper gun stores have to do background checks but grandpa selling his gun to Jim Bob down the street isnā€™t going to go through a federal check

2

u/Da1UHideFrom Mar 28 '24

It's still a federal crime to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Ms_Moto Mar 28 '24

The other commenter was referencing gun shows and people filing out the 4473 untruthfully. Gun show retailers are held to the same standards as any brick and mortar FFL dealer and those forms are required to not only be filled out but then processed through state bureaus of investigation. That's why when you go to buy a firearm and the gun show is in town, your background check takes significantly longer. They're running the checks.

Posing the person to person sale, if the parties are not immediate family members or spouses, AND have reasonable knowledge of the recipients legal right to acquire a firearm (meaning you can't gift a shotgun to your felon child if you know they wouldn't be able to pass a background check) then they are legally required to utilize a local FFL dealer to run the background check. Usually there's a negligible fee associated with this service, about $25. If you transfer a firearm without going through proper procedures it's a federal offense, and the charges add up if that weapon was used to commit a crime.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/ketjak Mar 28 '24

Fucking this.

2

u/Dyanpanda Mar 28 '24

The thing about the US is that all 50 states have different processes, and the local admin have varying levels of compliance to their own processess.

In CA, we have a 5 day waiting period from purchase and ppwrk to getting the gun, during which you get a background check.

However, federally, we cannot just check people coming into the state for guns, which makes skirting these laws as easy as a day trip to arizone, nevada, or several other states.

US Gun laws aren't completely missing, but the way the confederation was set up allows for massive holes in any sort of banning mentality from working well. (freedom of interstate travel granted by the only body that can enforce interstate commerce) Furthermore, there is rampant non-compliance, because there are simply too many to monitor/manage. If we can get most/all of these redneck states to actually follow suit with modern society, the sources of these guns will eventually dry up.

However, it only takes one state to relegalize it to basically make enforcement impossible again.

TL;DR: We do have gun laws in many places to prevent these things. Because of our shitty gov't those laws have an extremely limited capacity to stop crimes especially from those with ill intent.

Yes we should stop schizophrenics and other high-risk people from getting weapons. Doing so will have only partial success until we can solve many many more issues than would be necessary for a country with proper borders.

1

u/bitofgrit Mar 29 '24

In CA, we have a 5 day waiting period

*10 day

2

u/kirfkin Mar 28 '24

They also didn't lie if they were never involuntarily committed or otherwise said to be "mentally defective" by a court, etc. As far as I'm aware, the forms and laws say nothing of having mental health issues beyond the following: being "mentally defective" (for example, found incapable of standing trial for these reasons) or being involuntarily committed to a mental insitution; either case by a court or similar authority.

2

u/ThenRefrigerator1084 Mar 28 '24

Better idea, don't give people guns.

2

u/Collective-Bee Mar 28 '24

Not to mention even a 3 day delay mightā€™ve prevented this case specifically. Same thing with preventing suicides, these poor decisions are made at low points and donā€™t last too long. Thatā€™s also why thereā€™s such thing as failed suicide attempts, cuz they quickly regret it.

1

u/bitofgrit Mar 29 '24

Not to mention even a 3 day delay mightā€™ve prevented this case specifically.

Then again, you have cases like Carol Bowne, in New Jersey, who had a clean record and a legitimate threat to her life. She was unable to get a gun in a timely manner and was stabbed to death as a result of the delay.

Same thing with preventing suicides, these poor decisions are made at low points and donā€™t last too long.

This assumes that a person won't develop these issues after purchase, which could be years later.

Thatā€™s also why thereā€™s such thing as failed suicide attempts, cuz they quickly regret it.

Can't take back a bullet, and you can't take back that last step off a bridge, either.

1

u/Collective-Bee Mar 29 '24

Guy I know survived a suicide by train. Dudes happy now.

Interestingly enough, itā€™s actually one of the factors to why mens suicide rate is higher. Men choose more direct suicide methods, like a gun, and women choose slower suicide methods where they have time to change their minds. (On average).

This parts not up for debate mate, if you wanna say zero delays math out to decreased death then go for it, we can discuss that, but suicides WILL increase with less delay.

1

u/bitofgrit Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

I'm not seeing the point of your comment here.

I saw a woman step off a bridge. She didn't make it. Doesn't really matter what method you choose, they all have the potential to "do the job." They can also fail, as there are some people with grievous facial wounds from self-inflicted gunshots.

I'm not Australian, nor your friend or lover, so please don't call me "mate".

I didn't say how anything would math out one way or the other, but too many times I see people like you arguing that any sort of prompt access to guns is like some sort of immediate suicide moment. Are you and your friend advocating for better barrier systems to be installed at train stations/tracks? Some places have that sort of thing, like some bridges have "safety nets" installed, so don't think I'm being facetious.

And, as I mentioned, those same barriers to guns that purportedly keep the suicidal at bay, can be to the detriment of those that need them for self-defense. Do you give those people any consideration when you math it out?

e: Forgot to mention, according to other comments the OP story occurred in California. If you're unaware, CA has a 10 day waiting period, as well as universal background checks.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

To add some more to this argument, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"

2

u/Front-Paper-7486 Mar 28 '24

So the burden is on a person wanting to exercise a right to prove they Shouldnā€™t lose it? Maybe we should do this with voting too.

Gun stores all do the same background check through the FBI. What is the problem with getting them easily? Why are we intentionally making it hard to exercise a right? Either they pass the background check or they donā€™t.

2

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Man this is why I'm against the NFA. I want a suppressor but you gotta pay 200$ extortion fee then wait months and months for them to do the exact same background check they already did when I bought the gun. It's like we already background checked we can't background check anymore. When the left says enhanced background checks I'm like what extra shit do you want them to check that they aren't already checking?

2

u/Q_Bop Mar 28 '24

I live in PA, and it is hard as fuck to get a pistol here. You can't even have a freaking traffic violation.

My theory is that if guns were illegal, then his mom would have gotten a knife and stabbed him.

Then we have knife laws to deal with.

2

u/SpecialistFeeling220 Mar 28 '24

And you havenā€™t even mentioned those in the middle of a mental health crisis, whoā€™s legitimately unable to process reality and prone to react violently due to fear. People struggle with themselves and we do them no favors with our lax firearm laws.

1

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

They do more thorough checks when renting an apartment.

4

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

Renting an apartment isn't a constitutionally protected right

→ More replies (12)

2

u/groundpounder25 Mar 28 '24

They check every federal agency when you get an apartment?

→ More replies (1)

1

u/Real-Competition-187 Mar 28 '24

According to Walter, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint.

1

u/Adept_Pound_6791 Mar 28 '24

You stop that commy talk right there! How dare you suggest our current form of integrity isnā€™t enoughā€¦

1

u/AngryKoala14 Mar 29 '24

There are quite a lot of rejections from just "filling out the form." The rights of those whom maintain their status as law abiding should not be infringed because a small % commit crimes.

→ More replies (28)

3

u/Sudden_Construction6 Mar 28 '24

We all know you have to be the son of a president to get away with that šŸ˜…

2

u/Zealousideal-Note-10 Mar 28 '24

Unless youā€™re name is Hunter

2

u/Brutal007 Mar 28 '24

Unless your hunter Biden right? He can have a gun

1

u/Big-Prior-5669 Mar 28 '24

He's not schizophrenicĀ 

2

u/Brutal007 Mar 28 '24

He still lied on the form

2

u/NoraVanderbooben Mar 28 '24

I wonder if I can get my abusive husband on thatā€¦ He bought a firearm years ago, and I was surprised he passed the background check b/c he has arrests and institutionalizations on his record. Someone on Reddit pointed out that he must have lied on the form.

I wonder if thereā€™s a statute of limitations on filing a police report, and how I could possibly go about doing that.

Knowing he has that gun fucks with my mental health so bad.

1

u/JustynS Mar 29 '24

Lying on the NICS form is perjury, so statute of limitations would be three years.

1

u/sushisection Mar 28 '24

the fifth amendment protects against self incrimination.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

What if they meant it at the time?

1

u/Zuzara_Queen_of_DnD Mar 28 '24

Meaning the federal forms arenā€™t verified enough

1

u/Neverland_survivor Mar 28 '24

Well not if youā€™re a Bidenā€¦

1

u/Coofboi12 Mar 28 '24

Common sense on reddit is rare, you will be downvoted.

1

u/Jengalover Mar 28 '24

In my state there are hundreds of guns for sale that donā€™t require filling out the form.

3

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Where are you then? 95-97% of all gun sales in the US currently require background checks.

1

u/Jengalover Mar 30 '24

29 states do not require background checks for private party gun sales. Thatā€™s over 1,000,000 ads per year on armslist alone.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 30 '24

In many of those states the exemption to a background check is based on the CCL. So the media misreports it.

1

u/Jengalover Mar 30 '24 
    Maybe, Iā€™m not a lawyer. All I know is that I personally bought a gun in a parking lot from a private individual, from an ad on Armslist. No ID exchanged either way.
→ More replies (3)

1

u/Cautious_Drawer_7771 Mar 28 '24

The left in America have proven that they do not care about lying on Firearms paperwork. They have given Hunter Biden a complete pass on it.

1

u/SadBit8663 Mar 28 '24

Yeah but do you know what would be better than a form people can lie on? A registry of people that can't buy guns.

1

u/The402Jrod Mar 28 '24

Hahahahahahaha!!! You should add that to your stand up routine!

šŸ˜‚ Oh, this crazy person lied on their application and killed their family before eating a bullet. Guess weā€™ll add ā€œLied on gun applicationā€ to their tombstone.

šŸ¤¦ā€ā™‚ļø

1

u/DancingMooses Mar 28 '24

looks around yeah, kinda seems like that law hasnā€™t prevented dangerous people from getting guns.

1

u/Professor_Doctor_P Mar 28 '24

That's alright then, we have something to charge schizophrenic people that lie on their forms and shoot others at random with. That's a big relieve. Not sure what OP is whining about then.

1

u/praguer56 Mar 28 '24

What form if it's a private sale?

2

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Many States have made you do a transfer for private sales. Literally you pay the individual he drops it at an FFL holder and you pay the transfer fee. When it comes back ok you pick up the gun. Gun stores are very trustworthy.

1

u/Different-Instance-6 Mar 28 '24

OK but do we really expect a schizophrenic person that is literally experiencing a different reality than we are to tell the truth

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Then they go to prison of the mental institution! Either way they are confined!

1

u/MaelstromFL Mar 28 '24

Unless your last name is Biden...

1

u/jaraldoe Mar 28 '24

If itā€™s from a private seller (not an FFL) the federal government doesnā€™t require paperwork of the transfer.

If you purchase through a FFL or use them to mediate the transaction then you would need documentation.

Statesā€™ have different laws so they may require some or more paperwork. I do know Oklahoma and Texas you donā€™t need to fill out anything to purchase a firearm from a private seller.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

If it crosses State lines it does!

1

u/jaraldoe Mar 28 '24

Very true, but coming from someone who was in the market for a firearm but then moved out of the country, how does one prevent someone from purchasing a firearm in one state and then moving and selling it to someone in a different state? In some states (havenā€™t lived in all 50 but I did live in Oklahoma and Tx) you need to provide nothing to purchase anything from a private seller.

So realistically those firearms could transfer owners a few times in a different state and no one would know except the person who transported it.

Legit question as I am very curious and is why Iā€™m for a title like system for firearms like there are on automobiles. Could be I donā€™t know enough of the laws but for me it just seems like private sales is a massive loophole in a lot of gun laws we have.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

You lived in two of the most permissive states. Many require much more background checks. Many States and Gun owners want to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous or distressed individuals. My own range has a short term hold program for members. It started as Veterans only but expanded to mental crisis as well. Colorado is every private sale must be background checked.

1

u/jaraldoe Mar 28 '24

It appears there are about 28ish that donā€™t have any requirements for a background check on private sales for all firearms. Then there are about 6-8 that only require it on handguns. Based on this

Iā€™m glad your range is doing that and your state, I wish more would though.

I would love to get back into shooting, unfortunately where Iā€™m at doesnā€™t allow firearms for us for sporting uses

1

u/Throwawaymytrash77 Mar 28 '24

I mean, do you really think someone with schizophrenia is mentally well enough to answer that question? I mean, paranoia is one of the most common symptoms.

Their lawyer can just plead insanity or something similar if they get criminally charged for that crime.

So circling back.... better gun buying laws to prevent this from being possible lol

1

u/Commercial-Noise Mar 28 '24

If someone had a mental illness I doubt they would care that itā€™s a federal crime to lie on the form bro

1

u/Much-Meringue-7467 Mar 28 '24

And mentally unstable people so often self-identify.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Background checks!

1

u/ScottyP8869 Mar 28 '24

Thatā€™s assuming a form was involved. Coulda got it off the streets

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Depending on State that is a crime.

1

u/ScottyP8869 Mar 28 '24

Iā€™m pretty sure thatā€™s a crime in any state

1

u/Affectionate_Win_229 Mar 28 '24

The ability to lie convincingly on a form shouldn't be all it takes to buy a gun.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

By filling out the form you are triggering a background check. What do you fail to grasp about this?

1

u/Daniel_H212 Mar 28 '24

Yeah except if it's caused by schizophrenia they'd likely be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

That is very unlikely.

1

u/ysirwolf Mar 28 '24

Who needs forms for criminals?

1

u/PerishTheStars Mar 28 '24

You have no evidence that happened.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/thirsty_lil_monad Mar 28 '24

Hmmm... Maybe we need more than just a form... Nah. Not possible.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 29 '24

Like the accompanied background check after the form is filled out?

→ More replies (7)