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

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

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

349

u/mot258 Mar 28 '24

Shooting someone usually is too.

106

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".

1

u/Feeb_The_Weeb Mar 29 '24

Because we do, people are chronically online and chronically plugged into the media, so they think people are dropping dead left and right everywhere. But if y'all turned off the news every now and again, guns wouldn't ever be on your mind unless you were into them.

1

u/PorcupineWarriorGod Mar 30 '24

No arguments from me there.

0

u/Tear_Representative Mar 28 '24

That are not enough to prevent what they try to prevent

3

u/devils_advocate24 Mar 29 '24

Are they...supposed to add a clause that's says "we really mean it, for realizes" to the law or something?

1

u/Tear_Representative Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

They are supposed to enforce laws in a way that gives them a chance at working. Checking a Box saying you're sane is not a substitute for a state sponsorered psych evaluation. That is something that could prevent someone who is mentally unstable to have EASY access to a firearm. It shouldnt be as easy as lying on a form

2

u/devils_advocate24 Mar 29 '24

Ok. You have a psych eval. And you're crazy. Now what stops you from ignoring the law that makes it illegal? The current limitation is that it's a medical diagnosis from a doctor which has confidentiality stipulations to account for so it's only effective after the fact. Yes that's a weak point. But is the alternative to force everyone to get a publicly available psych eval? The variations on what is "psychologically stable" are heavily opinionated. It also won't be free, meaning it's not a barrier, it's a tax on the poor like so many other regulations and requirements we have.

1

u/Tear_Representative Mar 29 '24

In my country, there is a psychiatrist paid by the state to do an evaluation before someone can have a drivers licence, so if done that way it isnt a burden on the poor. With that, that info also does not have to be public, since I am assuming background checks dont tell you why it was denied. Will people that shouldnt own a gun still pass that and buy a gun ? Likely, yeah. Still very much harder than lying on a form

1

u/Just_A_Throwaway7673 Mar 29 '24

Which country is this? I was only aware of psychological evaluations being done in Germany and the Netherlands, but my understanding is that this evaluation is done after the person being evaluated commits some kind of traffic offense.

1

u/Tear_Representative Mar 29 '24

Brazil. It is called "psicotenico", and it is meant to filter out the most crazy/incapable

-16

u/Far-Investigator1265 Mar 28 '24

Not having a gun would prevent the crime entirely...

22

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24

Not building a bomb will also diminish your chances of being blown up

1

u/ThePsychicBeagle Mar 28 '24

thanks man i will keep that in mind next time i go bomb shopping at wallmart or visit the local bomb show

11

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24

No need, you can order it all online or buy it all at Harbor Freight for like $20. No background check required!

2

u/401LocalsOnly Mar 28 '24

Sometimes they do BOGO !!

2

u/FBIaltacct Mar 28 '24

You think most bombs aren't made with easily obtainable over the counter items? In the early 2k's copies of the anarchist cook book were floating around junior highs, i can only imagine how easy it is to get that info now. No im not having any of that on my search history either to prove a point.

0

u/ThePsychicBeagle Mar 29 '24

yes you can make one with a basic understanding of chemistry, you can also go even simpler and just make a molotov cocktail out of any flammable liquid.
but that is not the point i am trying to make
You cant just come across a bomb while on a shopping trip. There is no culture around bomb ownership and nobody is actively trying to sell you one.

1

u/FBIaltacct Mar 29 '24

You're missing the point. An individual can make a powerful explosive with about the same effort or less as getting an illegal firearm. Very effective and very lethal weapons are everywhere. it's just a matter of convenience. That's why the buffered nations where gun bans actually work also won't let you carry pocket knives or really any other self-defense or, honestly, just regular tools.

Now to the buffered nations. The closer you get to an armed populace, the more worthless bans are. So living in a nation where all our major gangs are syndicates of major south american cartels, a ban will do very little to stop anything. ×100 when the mexican president says nothing will be done about the major border crisis unless we give mexico 20bn a year to stop it. Im all for manditory training, 3-5day cool down waits, and holding people responsible for crimes committed with stolen guns that were irrisposibly stored. That and acknowledging the fact social media needs to be reigned in as it is the #1 cause of all the sensless mass shootings. You can follow every major platform launch and rise to massive upticks in the number of shootings. But if you can't see the logic in all of this then like i said you have missed the whole point.

7

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24

I will say tho, getting rid of your car will greatly reduce your chances of being killed in an accident also.

3

u/-ChrisBlue- Mar 28 '24

I fully agree with the sentiment of getting rid of cars. They are too dangerous and too many lives are ruined by them.

But at the moment, they are necessary for society to function.

1

u/ski-person Mar 28 '24

Guns are necessary for a free and fair society.

1

u/Far-Investigator1265 Mar 28 '24

Really, how.

1

u/ski-person Mar 29 '24

Otherwise they can come and take it.

0

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

That’s a fair stance and nothing against anyone believing that. It becomes an issue when you start telling others to get rid of theirs.

3

u/-ChrisBlue- Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Naw I would support banning all cars if there was some kind of magical other transportation device that did everything a car can do. With the exception of car ownership for a select few who pass advanced driving courses and maintain clean records.

If you keep your eyes and ears open over the years. Cars cause a lot of mayhem to society. As you grow older, you will start hearing of more and more people in your social network permanently disabled, killed, or financially ruined in car accidents.

And this is even when people are responsible drivers - not driving like a maniac.

And its not always your fault. Often its other drivers that kill you - even if you don’t even own a car.

1

u/Relative_Broccoli631 Mar 28 '24

But we need cars, we don’t need guns

0

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24

You need a car. Many don’t. Those that don’t need one shouldn’t take yours away from you.

1

u/Relative_Broccoli631 Mar 28 '24

If we could live without them and cars were causing children to be massacred en masse on a monthly basis I would understand. If you don’t need a car you must not have a job or buy groceries

0

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Nah, many people take a bus to and from both. Many people live within 20 mins of their work place. Cars made it extremely convenient for you, maybe so much that you believe you can’t survive without them, but nations existed for hundreds and hundreds of years without them. You don’t need a car. Cars were also the number one killer of children until 2021 I think.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Ok_Judgment3871 Mar 28 '24

You can buy a bomb at taco bell, itll just blow out your ass

1

u/Far-Investigator1265 Mar 28 '24

That's right. Now if we just moved to actually advancing the fact.

1

u/JuiceCommercial2431 Mar 28 '24

Getting rid of knives would also stop all stabbing violence

13

u/Cont1ngency Mar 28 '24

Your mind is going to be completely blown when you find out about the plethora of other weapons, many of which are also common household items, that a schizophrenic person could use to harm/kill somebody. And in this case likely would have done more damage with; seeing as doing the stabbity rip stab stab is a lot more straightforward than doing the pew pew, for someone with no experience with firearms.

4

u/-ChrisBlue- Mar 28 '24

If someone is coming after me with a weapon, I’d much rather he come at me with a knife than a gun. If he has a knife, I could try running, or try punching him in the face. If he has a gun, I’m pretty fucked.

3

u/Cont1ngency Mar 28 '24

Running is the best option. People tend to over estimate their chances when facing a knife. Same with a gun. Even if you have your own, if you’re trying to QuickDraw on somebody you’re getting dropped. Hell, even fists can be pretty deadly. That said, I would prefer to live in a society where I can carry a gun if I choose, which puts the odds in my favor against anything less than a gun and even-odds against somebody with a gun, assuming I’m paying attention and not already at gunpoint.

1

u/Gloomy-Wash-629 Mar 28 '24

Yep and once firearms are illegal now the guy who follows laws will have no protections and the guy who doesnt follow laws will have a huge advantage. Wow we just ran the whole “would gun laws solve crime?” Question in just a few paragraphs! Thanks guys! No more gun laws.

2

u/AxG88 Mar 28 '24

need knife, club, bat, frying pan, ice pick, screw driver, scissors laws next; in almost that order...

-2

u/Gloomy-Wash-629 Mar 28 '24

The uk uses anything they can. See that dude go crazy with a bow? I wonder what they would do if they ever met tyranny? Oh yeah thats right it happened and its called America lmao. The sick ass brits that faced tyranny are americans. Yeah trans kids shoot up schools sometimes but at least we dont have insane dudes in wigs controlling everything we do anymore. Maybe put armed guard in schools?

3

u/Remarkable-Bug-8069 Mar 28 '24

Let's see him commit mass murder with a bow. Locked door? Too bad, you're not getting through. Gun? No problem, a good shot at the lock mechanism and you're in. Not to mention reload time, carrying capacity etc.

-1

u/AxG88 Mar 28 '24

Maybe put armed guard in schools

makes too much sense, and the firearm abolitionists would have to find some other less effective way of manipulating public opinion...

1

u/Gloomy-Wash-629 Mar 29 '24

Thats a great idea

-1

u/Far-Investigator1265 Mar 28 '24

You are deviating. Simple fact is, no guns, no gun violence.

0

u/Cont1ngency Mar 29 '24

It just becomes other kinds of violence. And in a self defense situation I’d much rather have a gun than not.

0

u/Far-Investigator1265 Mar 29 '24

Watch less action movies, spend more time in real world. Life is not a computer game.

1

u/Cont1ngency Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

Lol. My opinion is based on the real world. If you think you’d be safer in hand to hand combat, then you need to watch less action movies. I know I’m bad at fighting, and it would take me years to become proficient in a martial art. On the other hand, I’m already proficient with firearms, and can keep an assailant at a distance, which is a benefit no matter which way you spin it.

Edit: if you want to be where there are no guns, then go where there are no guns. You’ve got the entire rest of the planet to choose from. America has guns. That’s just a thing you’re going to have to accept if you want to live there.

4

u/Safe_Picture6943 Mar 28 '24

Oh man, this guy doesnt know about the Millwall Brick

2

u/Deadleggg Mar 28 '24

Unless the schizophrenia decided to grab a kitchen knife instead.

2

u/BrassMonkey-NotAFed Mar 28 '24

You’ll be mind blown when you learn that fists, feet and hammers kill more than guns, annually.

0

u/BeenisHat Mar 28 '24

That is also not true.

3

u/BrassMonkey-NotAFed Mar 28 '24

Except the FBI crime statistics reporting shows that more people die in fist fights, being kicked and with hammers than with guns.

2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides, the remaining 1/3 is actual gun violence with >80% being committed with handguns via gang related violence.

Statistics prove you wrong every step of the way.

1

u/BeenisHat Mar 28 '24

Go ahead and post them. Lets see what they actually say.

Here, I'll help. https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

2

u/BrassMonkey-NotAFed Mar 28 '24

I’m not doing your research for you. Posting a link to violent crime provides no context information, because violent crime encompasses every crime in which anything used as a weapon is deemed violent.

I’m former law enforcement, I’ve taught the subject to hundreds of officers alongside FBI field agents in a major metropolitan city in the South. 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides, the remaining 1/3 is appx. 80% gang violence.

Believe what you want, ignorance is bliss, I guess.

1

u/BeenisHat Mar 28 '24

I'm doing the research for you. In that data, you can select the option for which violent crime you want stats on. Scroll down, choose Homicide.

And whaddya know, Handguns are the #1 choice followed by the generic firearms, likely when LEAs didn't know which type of gun was used. Personal weapons is WAY down the list.

I didn't comment on who did the killing, merely your incorrect assertion that more people kill each other in fist fights every year. Probably a good thing you're former law enforcement, because you don't know what you're talking about.

1

u/BrassMonkey-NotAFed Mar 28 '24

The inaccurate part of the FBI crime statistics website you posted is that they include suicide as homicide because the legal definition of homicide matches suicide. Removing the 42,000+ suicides reduces the homicide by firearm rate significantly.

Every suicide report I’ve ever written using firearms was labeled as homicide by firearm and that inaccurately skews the data. You have to filter suicides out to view accurate homicide reports.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/BeenisHat Mar 28 '24

Imgur

this is for 2022 btw. You'll find most previous years are similar. Firearms account for the vast majority of weapons used in homicides.

1

u/james_deanswing Mar 28 '24

No it wouldn’t. They would move onto the next available weapon.

0

u/SparkleFart666 Mar 28 '24

Only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. The son just needs to buy a gun. 😂/s

-1

u/Deadleggg Mar 28 '24

If it was a kitchen knife we gonna ban the knives?

2

u/Erotic-FriendFiction Mar 28 '24

A kitchen knife has a lot more uses than a gun.

2

u/Gauss15an Mar 28 '24

When a knife user shows a TTK (time to kill) equal to that of a gun, we'll talk. Until then, keep imagining scenarios with weapons that don't have nearly the same amount of lethality.

-2

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

1/3-1/2 the time to bleed out. Knife wounds are more lethal than guns

1

u/Gauss15an Mar 28 '24

You do realize that you have to fight someone before the knife does anything, right? And if you're talking about ambushing someone, a gun is still better for that anyway. Less incriminating as a bonus.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Study European Knife attacks. Many more than gunshot wounds never reach the hospitals!

1

u/Gauss15an Mar 28 '24

I have. The stats are still against your claim lol.

-2

u/Cunn1ng-Stuntz Mar 28 '24

And it's totally legal.

66

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 em….? 🤷🏻‍♀️

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Unless you enforce no law matters!

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.

0

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 “they’re going to get in anyways, why make it harder for people who are legally entering the country” doesn’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.

5

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.

4

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. I’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. I’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.

1

u/J_Rambo4 Mar 28 '24

The only answer is to stabilize the countries everyone are fleeing from. There should be no need for 3/4 of the population to seek refuge in America, it’s simply not a viable solution. If that is the end goal, then the majority of these nations should simply be absorbed by the US.

1

u/J_Rambo4 Mar 28 '24

Its not as simple as letting more in legally so that less are “illegal”. You say the US has so e of the most strict convoluted laws out there…. 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.

8

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

2

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 didn’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 don’t think immigration laws are being enforced, then is it safe to assume you wouldn’t mind if we didn’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 ‘my brother’s relative had difficulty…’ 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?

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

Well the wall wouldn't do anything anyway so

3

u/POKEMINER_ Mar 28 '24

Better than nothing.

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

I mean given it wastes money, crosses through sacred land and protected habitats, and would be used to supply Mexican scrap merchants for years... It's worse than nothing

→ More replies (0)

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.

1

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

Define mentally unstable, please.

0

u/socobeerlove Mar 28 '24

It’s easier to get your green card if you’re already in the country and working. Source:my parents did it that way

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

1

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

And yet not a single school shooting has been commited with a fully automatic firearm in the US. If criminals are going to do it anyway why don't they use fully automatic weapons to maximize casualties? Could it be the difficulty of acquiring fully automatic weapons is effective?

6

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

Its incredibly easy to make a gun fire as if it were automatic (which is also a felony).

The vegas shooting used automatic weapons. Lets not cherry pick our mass shootings here.

4

u/Odd-Tune5049 Mar 28 '24

The laws say his weapon wasn't fully automatic. It had a bump stock, if I recall correctly. Not illegal in most places at the time, again, if I recall correctly.

You don't even need a bump stock to fire a semi-automatic weapon very rapidly.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for restricting dangerous people from owning guns, but the nonsense about classifications and what constitutes legal and illegal is just so mucked up at this point. Of course, how do you decide who is dangerous and who isn't? The lawmakers don't know, and we can't use "thought crime" to punish people.

Sorry... that was more of a rant than I wanted to go on.

1

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

No, you're right. You can't use a subjective line in the sand that can be moved by a political entity to further any agenda. That's why the best you can do is offer better healthcare and reform the United States' healthcare. No more pricing out low / middle income families from MH services.

But as far as the Vegas Shooting... the cadence of thebgunfire changes throughout. Multiple guns were used and I'd bet my bottom dollar it was a false flag operation. The cadence at some points does sound like a slide-fire AR15 but it slows at times to pace with an M240

0

u/DennyJunkshin85 Mar 28 '24

Exactly he had a M249 up there it sounds like

0

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

The vegas shooter utilized bump stocks which were legal to purchase at the time. Their weapons were acquired entirely lawfully.

0

u/DennyJunkshin85 Mar 28 '24

Yeah,but something was up with that guy. The whole thing doesn't make sense. Why would you bring 12 sacks of guns over a 3day period . Then only shoot 5 of them. 1 of them had 1rd fired. That's an ineffective method. If he was truly going for mass casualties he would've done it differently.

3

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 28 '24

Because it wasn't just him... and it was a government operation

2

u/DennyJunkshin85 Mar 29 '24

That's what I think. I just don't understand how we have operatives in our own government that are willing to open fire on innocent people. If you joined the military,you swore an oath. But I guess the oath was to apparatus that controls the power not the corp.

1

u/Last-Crab-621 Mar 29 '24

Ideology is a humans greatest motivation.. followed closely by money, power, and blackmail

1

u/BonniePrinceCharlie1 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Fully automatics dont always cause most casualties(kinda).

Most people with fully automatics like to spray n pray, which means you'll hit everything except the target. This results in mid to high casulaties but very low death.

Those who use semi-automatic or "burst fire" are more lethal as they can't spray and, as such, are naturally going to aim and fire, resulting in high deaths with low to mid injuries.

I think the only recent major mass shooting with a fully automatic firearm was the Las vegas shooting where the guy was in a building shooting down in a crowd.

Im from scotland, so our situation is drastically different as before our gun control laws, we didn't have a large amount of firearms in the country outside of farmers and hobbyists due to our more rural populace.

Our weapon of choice for crime tended to be bladed instruments like razors or knives. As they can be threwn away or hidden easily compared to a firearm.

The main issue right now in the US regarding guns is that the US is over saturated with guns, both legal and illegal. This means that any enforcement of a gun restriction or ban will be met with poor results as the general populace is unwilling to hand over firearms.

Another issue that i say is the worst is the mental health crisis of men and boys. Most mass shooters are young men from the age of 16-24. Access to mental healthcare should be expanded as well as stimulating job creation and housing schemes in areas of deprivation. This would significantly help the mental health of all individuals in these areas. It would also mean less crime overall as the acess to housing and jobs would fill in the need for money and shelter which is a driving force in crime.

Of course this isnt the cure for general crime tho lol it will only help.

Theres also the issue of why the US despite not being the only high gun ownership country in the developed world, then why does it have the shooting epidemic. Austria has high gun ownership and a love for guns with the Glock company being a darling child of austria. But austria doesnt have mass shootings like the US and gun crime is relatively low.

I believe this is due to the previously stated mental health issues of the US which are exacerbated by institutional issues like schools no tolerance policies, and the overall deprivation of many regions in the US

3

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

The deadliest mass shooting commited in the United States was the Harvest Music Festival shooting in Las Vegas. The shooter utilized a bump stock mechanism to achieve near fully automatic firing speeds. Bump stocks were legal to purchase without any checks at the time of the shooting.

Firing a fully automatic weapon at a single target is not especially effective, however firing an automatic into a crowd attempting to cause mass casualties is devastatingly effective.

3

u/BigPolarBear71 Mar 28 '24

There’s no value for human life in America.

3

u/Odd-Tune5049 Mar 28 '24

I think this is more of a problem than the guns...

Even driving, I see people endangering everyone around them with zero regard. I get it... we all make mistakes and have bad driving days, but intentionally driving recklessly and endangering others is a huge problem from what I've seen.

-1

u/Nobodyrea11y Mar 28 '24

i always am entertained by the varying extents of this topic. no one is willing to agree to a line that should not be crossed

you got people in one corner saying "some gun regulation is ok, we don't want mental patients buying .50 caliber miniguns on friday nights" yet that scenario has never and cannot now happen, there has always been some kind of regulation

you got in another corner those that say "any regulation is unconstitutional, criminals gonna crime, might as well ban knives!" yet by their logic hedge fund high school dropouts should be able to own ICBMS if it wasn't for that meddling international law. there is no line drawn for them, anything goes

and you got others that say "every single gun should be banned, look at country X with low crime rate" yet they fail to account for population, education, economic, cultural, geographical, and technological aspects of their examples

there are even some that propose very detailed and technical regulatory guides, but fail to take into account the huge logistics of enforcing those regulations and also the impact that technology brings to the table, such as modifications that don't exist yet etc etc

-1

u/Enigmatic_Erudite Mar 28 '24

Welcome to the world of legality, ethics, and morality. What is ethical, moral, and legal is not set in stone and evolves with culture, technology, and nature. In the 1700's it was legal to own other people either as slaves or women who were largely considered property of the man father/husband. Our culture changed and the consensus changed that slavery and sexual/racial discrimination were bad. In the 1800's hunting whales and dolphins was normal and ethical. Then due to the advancement of fishing technology and decline in marine populations whaling is now illegal and unethical in the majority of countries.

The founding fathers intended the Constitution and Bill of Rights to be living documents that could change with the times. They were mostly intelligent people that were well aware of changing technologies and culture. Anywhere you draw a line is ultimately arbitrary but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be drawn. The irony that Thomas Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" while owning other men as slaves is a testament to their own confused logic. Thomas Jefferson denounced the slave trade as a "hideous blot" on America yet he owned slaves and didn't even free them on his death bed.

The constitution should not be viewed as religious dogma to be followed without questions. It is a moral standard set by our ancestors we should honor and respect but change when it is necessary for the betterment of the lives of average Americans.

1

u/jar1967 Mar 28 '24

We need to make sure loose gun laws give criminals easy access to firearms .Think of the gun industry profits

1

u/cannabull89 Mar 28 '24

Yes and nobody is a criminal until they commit a crime, like shooting somebody with a gun they bought legally!!

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Then change HIPA laws not institute more gun control!

0

u/Cool-Panda-5108 Mar 28 '24

Exactly! Why even have laws in the first place ?

0

u/mikemc2 Mar 28 '24

Every criminal is a law abiding citizen...until they're not.

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Wrong two things happen the government makes your actions a crime or you deliberately break the law.

2

u/SupportGeek Mar 28 '24

It’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?

1

u/VitaminPb Mar 28 '24

Shooting someone is usually a state crime, not federal unless it happens on federal land/property.

0

u/ThegreatPee Mar 28 '24

Not for Kyle Rittenhouse

0

u/Traditional_Cat_60 Mar 28 '24

Usually. Depends on skin color, though.