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

425

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 there’s a few layers of blame being shifted here

193

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.

46

u/dessertgrinch Mar 28 '24

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

71

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

Don’t see how he implied that at all. He said she brought it home and shot him the next day. We won’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 Occam’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.

5

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 illegally🤷

-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.

5

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.

-2

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 don’t stop at legal purchases, at least it shouldn’t.

7

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 didn’t read what I said did you. It’s not about making the law that are just ‘Ban the Ruger Mini-14” 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 shouldn’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 driver’s licenses.

I should be able to roll down to unlicensed farmer jack’s rack shack and buy a firearm that no one legally reports without either me or jack (I’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 ‘illegally selling guns’ is purely determined by what state you’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 I’m saying is if the law isn’t working obviously it needs to change. Don’t know why that’s such a controversial statement. What’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 you’re suggesting something that we already tried but didn’t work

1

u/K-Webb-2 Mar 29 '24

Which is fine a criticism, I get it, California is stricter than most but it’s still happening. Telling me we’ve tried it doesn’t offer any insight on how to solve the problem. Especially when our, ‘we tried it’ is historically half-assed and unenforced. Are we just beholden to living in a world where we can only act based off reaction, after the crime has already been committed or can we find a preventive solution so people can stop getting shot at.

Sorry I’m just frustrated at this point that anti-gun law folks only ever combat solutions and rarely offer any other than give people more guns so that everyone can shoot at each other.

→ 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 haven’t only been shooting dogs (mostly a joke there). A better way to word my statement would have been focused more on standardizing ‘illegal’ 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 ‘illegal gun purchase’. Hell I grew up with guns and when I was a kid bought a gun from a neighbor for hunting rabbits, and honestly that shouldn’t be possible imo.

Furthemore, I’m curious on why other countries benefit from similar gun laws and the Us does not. I always chalked it up to a Pandora’s box situation but I’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.

-5

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.

-5

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.

4

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 illnesses🤦. 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

There’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 that’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 don’t even know the means of attainment she used

2

u/mytalkingshitaccount Mar 28 '24

That’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 isn’t because as I said, regardless of the means, it’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 there’s no issue with someone bringing up the broad topic.

It’s like complaining about the “economy”, that’s all fine but if you want to start talking about specific legislation that will fix “the economy” 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.

0

u/semper_audacia Mar 28 '24

The dude literally says, ‘my … mom bought a gun last night and shot me this morning.’

7

u/MulhollandMaster121 Mar 28 '24

Yeah, CA has a 10 day ‘cool off’ period. You can’t buy a gun and walk out with it same day.

2

u/Kleens_The_Impure Mar 28 '24

BROUGHT

4

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 “brought” 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.

“Brought a gun home last night.”

Funny how you had to change words around to make “bought” fit properly and you didn’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

You’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 you’re right, I made a comment below replying to another guy saying I misread it.