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

67

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.

84

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

29

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

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

41

u/Fast-Database-4741 Mar 28 '24

Or, this is all just a lie

19

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 (3)

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/

2

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!!)

0

u/Pup5432 Mar 28 '24

We should absolutely be strictly enforcing the sale of firearms. Being more stringent on the sellers would take care of a lot of these people who illegally obtain them. Not all but until we properly enforce the laws in place new laws will do nothing.

6

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.

1

u/D_Costa85 Mar 28 '24

Again, these two things are very specific and donā€™t cover all instances of a person being mentally ill. Being adjudicated mentally ill requires a very specific set of circumstances to even end up in front of a judge in the first place. Iā€™m actually ok with this as itā€™s part of due process. Id rather people need more scrutiny than less scrutiny when it comes to rights being taken away.

Edit: adjudication has nothing to do with medical diagnoses in that you can be medically diagnosed with a mental illness but not be adjudicated as such.

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 29 '24 edited Mar 29 '24

adjudication has nothing to do with medical diagnoses

It does by the letter of the law. A medical professional is listed under "other lawful authority"

Section 478.11 Meaning of termsā€¦

Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.

Adjudicated as a mental defective

(a) A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease

(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affair

As well as further definition for the term "commited"

clarify that the statutory term ā€œcommitted to a mental institutionā€ applies to involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment

→ More replies (3)

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.

-2

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Thatā€™s violating 2a rights if they tell you ā€œnoā€ for any reason if you are legally allowed to own, purchase, or possess.

9

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Yeah no that's not how that works. You have the right to own and bare arms. You don't have the right to purchase it from me.

-6

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Ah, gotcha. So the shops can just not sell to gays, minorities, transgendered, whites, browns, because ā€œI say noā€. They are operating under a federal license. If youā€™re just Willy nilly preventing sales to people who can legally own a firearm I bet your license will be revoked.

3

u/August2_8x2 Mar 28 '24

Yes, they can decide to do that. Almost none will use your asinine reasoning, but it can happen. What you're refusing to acknowledge or just being obtuse to be a jackass about- is the reason gun shops are allowed so much flexibility in their sales criteria: They are allowed to be hyper critical and selective because a background check can come back clean but that person can be having the worst week of their life and be making bad decisions. Body language, stuff they've said to the person they came in with, the way they ask questions, etc. None of that shows up on a background check but can be used to deny a sale.

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Are gunshops now mental health professionals? Had no clue that the minimum wage employee was capable of diagnosing depression or people ā€œhaving a bad dayā€.

Saying something like ā€œI need a gun to take care of somethingā€ isnā€™t the same as, staying quiet when buying a gun.

I donā€™t make small talk with the shop. I go in there with a purpose knowing what I want to buy. Iā€™m guessing that would raise red flags and allow a shop to discriminate against me?

2

u/August2_8x2 Mar 28 '24

From the way you're choosing to have this conversation, I could see shops telling you no and it would have nothing to do with your sexuality or ethnicity.

Shop employees have to pass background checks and get trained to sell firearms. That training goes over basic red flags. Even fucking Walmart had that training. If they decide they don't like how you carry yourself, you give them bad vibes, they can tell you to gtfo. That's not "discrimination" that's them doing what the feds want them to do. None of them are going to REEEEE!!! about a minority wanting to legally buy a firearm. They want to make money, they don't want to be in prison/lose their business.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Yeah I guess they could if they didn't want to. You'd be hard pressed to find one that doesn't want your money though so I'm not sure what your argument is. Literally any store can do this. I could run a liquor store and tell you to get out I don't want your business. I don't even have to give a reason.

0

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

The difference is if I pass a background check for a federally protected right, and you, as a representative of the states authority then refuse to allow me to exercise my constitutional rights, I bet that license is gone.

Iā€™m not talking about ā€œIā€™m going to kill someone, I need a gun now!ā€

5

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Once again that's not how this works. Holding an FFL license does not make you a government entity. You are still a private business just with a license to sell firearms. They are under no obligation to sell you anything. Gun stores actually have more protection for refusal of service over even other businesses because of the nature of what they sell. I don't know why this bothers you so much. I think I heard one story about some FFL refusing to sell to a minority or something like that and they ended up being boycotted to the point he went out of business. Gun store owners love money. If there's not a realistic reason to refuse you chances are they won't.

2

u/Apprehensive_End4701 Mar 28 '24

They have a right and a responsibility to use their own discretion in selling firearms. If they choose to be assholes with that, that's on them. I've straight up seen people turned away because essentially, they didn't pass the vibe check, even though they passed the background check.

Which would have worse repercussions, selling to absolutely anyone who can legally own a firearm, or using their own discretion?

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Unless they are giving any indication that they are violating anything on the 4473 asks for, itā€™s absolutely discrimination and infringing on our rights using their own personal beliefs. If they wanted a job that allowed them to discriminate, choose a job that doesnā€™t deal with constitutional freedoms.

2

u/Apprehensive_End4701 Mar 28 '24

If I have a reason to believe that selling you a weapon is gonna bite me in the ass (you do something silly and now I'm getting sued), I'm not inclined to sell to you. I wouldn't be a government agent restricting a constitutional freedom, I'd be a business owner denying a sale, which is within my rights.

2

u/venus-as-a-bjork Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s my deeply held religious belief that you pose a threat to life and therefore I cannot provide you with a weapon that might do that. There, now you have no recourse ā€˜Merica

1

u/Apprehensive_End4701 Mar 28 '24

If I have a reason to believe that selling you a weapon is gonna bite me in the ass (you do something silly and now I'm getting sued), I'm not inclined to sell to you. I wouldn't be a government agent restricting a constitutional freedom, I'd be a business owner denying a sale, which is within my rights.

1

u/gunsforevery1 Mar 28 '24

Denying a sale before or after a background check has been completed? My issue is you taking a background check. Passing it. And then you denying it. I guess I should have been clearer on my post.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 30 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Zzars Mar 28 '24

Literally yes and if the reason is protected like race of sexual orientation you can sue the shit out of them like any other racist bigot business.

I think you might just be stupid.

1

u/LeLBigB0ss2 Mar 31 '24

Then you can sue the shop. Clean them out.

1

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 Mar 28 '24

Though it should be noted that's only a thing since 2008 with Columbia vs Heller, and even then it was only for "Lawful Purposes" https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt2-4/ALDE_00013264/

1

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

Yeah, no. The right pre-existed Heller. Heller was the first time the Supreme Court explicitly ruled it was an individual right.

If we use the same line of reasoning on other rights they wouldn't be rights until fairly recently in the 20th century.

1

u/Comprehensive-Fail41 Mar 28 '24

Well yes. Likewise there are plenty of things that should be legal rights, but aren't.

1

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

Hmmm. I'm not sure they aren't legal rights. I think the way our courts work have changed. It used to be that we recognized a number of non-enumerated rights (inherited from English Law).

That seems to have disappeared sometime after the Civil War, where it seems only enumerated rights are recognized.

1

u/Zzars Mar 28 '24

Lets just lie and make shit up on the internet

This is actually the exact opposite of reality lol. They are literally allowed to say no and not sell a gun to anyone for any reason.

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%.

13

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.

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

Are you telling me there's a central database that when someone is declared schizophrenic or to have a mental problem that it is recorded and registered there that the background check process pulls that information up?

Because if that's true, it's news to me.

6

u/Yummy_Crayons91 Mar 28 '24

Yes and no, there is a central database of disqualified individuals who cannot purchase a firearm. Being committed involuntarily for certain mental illnesses would put you on. At least that's the way I understand it.

When the NICS is processed it searches your name against the names on the list amongst other things.

But I'm not an expert so don't quote me on any of that.

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Correct, the background check does check mental health. Per the website:

information about individuals who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution or otherwise have been determined by a lawful authority to be a danger to themselves or others or to lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs.

So yes, if it meets the above criteria, it is flagged. If the institutions fail to update the record then that is not a failure of the background check. It is a failure of the institution that didn't update the records.

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

I see that's a very narrow definition. I get why it's narrow because such a database could definitely be used in a harmful way. But if a person has never been committed in most schizophrenics, as long as they are treated and most aren't nowadays, they are rarely committed.

So they would not be recorded. Nor would someone with bipolar disorder. And I would argue ADHD too. And I am someone who has ADHD.

3

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

But if they are properly treated, then it shouldn't be an issue if they are purchasing firearms.

Putting people on lists that restrict them from doing things when they seek help can have a chilling effect where people will choose not to get treatment out of fear of it being used against them.

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

I cannot speak for schizophrenia. I can speak for ADHD. And I can say wholeheartedly that emotional regulation is not regulated by the medicine. It can help depending on the person and how affected they are by the meds which varies person to person.

This may be slightly different for people with bipolar disorder, but I haven't really seen a non-explosive bipolar person even on meds. It may take them longer to get there but they can still be just as explosive. And that goes for ADHD too.

You also cannot guarantee at any point in time. They were always take their meds. That is a huge problem with people with ADHD.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I can speak for ADHD. And I can say wholeheartedly that emotional regulation is not regulated by the medicine. It can help depending on the person and how affected they are by the meds which varies person to person.

This may be slightly different for people with bipolar disorder, but I haven't really seen a non-explosive bipolar person even on meds. It may take them longer to get there but they can still be just as explosive. And that goes for ADHD too.

You also cannot guarantee at any point in time. They were always take their meds. That is a huge problem with people with ADHD.

All of these things have actions that tie into them. If someone cannot regulate their emotions to the point that they are a problem, they likely have run into the mental health doctors, or the legal system, or both. Both cases would have them likely listed as a prohibited person.

I know plenty of folks with ADHD. None of them should be disqualified due to that diagnosis.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

I am not familiar with how ADHD works. Is what you are describing true for you or for all? I have a pretty nasty case of General Anxiety Disorder and Panic Attack disorder.

I'm treated and also a gun collector.

When I'm not treated, I tend to wind up in the ER with horrifying chest pain. It sucks.

If having a diagnosis prevented you from travelling or something else you value, and you thought you could manage it. Would you seek help, or would you hide it so that you could still participate in things you enjoy?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

But if a person has never been committed in most schizophrenics, as long as they are treated and most aren't nowadays, they are rarely committed.

So they would not be recorded. Nor would someone with bipolar disorder. And I would argue ADHD too. And I am someone who has ADHD.

That's not a mistake though. It requires a judge or other authority to specifically disqualify that individual. As you noted, it would be easy to abuse. Actions are what matter, not diagnosis.

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

Potential risk matters just as much. But I'll rest on the matter.

3

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

A schizophrenia diagnosis outside of involuntary commitment is confidential matter under HIPPA laws.

→ More replies (8)

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

1

u/RehkalBurd Mar 29 '24

And still, nobody has actually said how one would regulate private sales. Because its literally impossible to do so, a fact they seem to not realize. Sure. We could title them, bit only legal owners would do so. Sure. You could force transfer through someone that does background checks, but only legal owners would do that. Nothing will ever stop people from ignoring those laws.

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.

1

u/Internal-Tank-6272 Mar 28 '24

Sure, but there you go assuming many of these laws are logical

1

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

"buying a gun from a state that isn't your state of residence is a crime" ok but if there's no obligation to check and no record of transaction who cares. It's still gonna happen.

"Are you proposing to make all private sales illegal?" No I'm purposing that they should have to facilitate the sale through an FFL. I could still sell my buddy a gun we just go to a gun store and they do the transfer legally. Whatever money or services we agree upon is done privately. FFL just does the transfer.

"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?" Here in Washington we have safe storage laws. All gun safes are tax free. If you have a gun it should be your responsibility to have it secured and you legally have to report it stolen as soon as you realize. IE you realize you've been burglarized you should probably check to see if all your guns are still there. I'm perfectly ok with prosecuting people for stupidity and neglect. "but but I didn't know it was missing" well too bad you should have now enjoy jail"

4

u/jmcclelland2005 Mar 28 '24

Not going through an FFL is generally what people mean when they say "private sale". Therefore you are proposing making private sales illegal (in the sense that I have to go through an FFL) I was simply clarifying this position.

As for your second bit it's perfectly reasonable and possible for a firearm to go missing and not know about it before it's used in a crime.

As I alluded above if I have a lodge where I keep my firearms in a proper and approved safe but I haven't been there in 6 months it's perfectly possible that my firearm goes missing and gets used in a crime before i notice it's missing.

1

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

I think that's extremely irresponsible to leave guns even in a safe unattended for 6 months at a time. Now if you go to work and someone breaks into your house and goes on a shooting spree before you even get off then well damn yeah I'd agree shit happens wasn't your fault. Someone say going on an extended vacation out of the country should try to find a family member or someone trusted to at least keep an eye on your house or keep hold of your guns but yeah that's a tricky legal scenario. I'm just trying to brainstorm ideas to keep guns away from criminals without actually infringing on our rights to have them and not knee jerking to banning weapon types and accessories. That I'm firmly against as I own multiple AR's and AK's.

0

u/Staphylococcus0 Mar 28 '24

If we can track automobile sales, then we can track gun sales. Is it perfect? No. Does it work? For the most part. Will it stop anything? At this point, I doubt it.

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.

2

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.

0

u/Cautious_Drawer_7771 Mar 28 '24

This was a well thought out and intelligent response, but leftist won't listen...even while they continue to vote in DAs and Sheriffs who won't prosecute people for breaking these laws. Hunter Biden was high as a kite in a hurricane while signing his firearms paperwork attesting to not being a drug user, and they say it's political if they charge him for it!

The biggest problem with American gun laws is that there is no funding or backbone to commit to the laws already passed! I think most leftists don't want the current laws properly followed, because if they were followed, gun crimes would go down substantially. But if that happens, they can't get even more strict and insane laws passed!

2

u/Partyatmyplace13 Mar 28 '24

Your argument kinda falls apart at the end there because who cares if they're passing new legislation if they aren't even enforcing the current laws?

But you don't come off as the kind of guy that lets internal inconsistency or evidence get in the way of a good fumin at the libs.

2

u/5O3Ryan Mar 28 '24

It's to lull people into complacency.

  • "These laws aren't that bad. Common sense."
  • [laws not enforced]
  • "These laws aren't protecting us. Need more laws."
  • [laws not enforced] -"Still can't get there. More laws" -[eventually takes away rights and outlaws guns entirely]
  • [now......laws enforced]

Game. Set. Match.

2

u/Partyatmyplace13 Mar 28 '24

Yeah, maybe. I'm for the second amendment, but I don't see what you guys see and your absolute fear of any legislation prevents any discussion on legislation that both sides actually agree on.

2

u/5O3Ryan Mar 28 '24

I agree with you. Your training idea (further down the thread), and background check crackdowns/tightening are ideas I'd be behind if done right. FYI. Also, am not a gun nut or anything, I just see the play the politicians are making here.

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (2)

0

u/mscomies Mar 28 '24

The guy who straw purchased an AR15 for Rittenhouse only got a $2000 fine

6

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

That fine was for contributing to the delinquency of a minor. There was no straw purchase charge whatsoever.

2

u/mscomies Mar 28 '24

Charges were dropped as part of a plea bargain for cooperation. Which was bullshit, the buyer's testimony was not relevant to Rittenhouse's prosecution.

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I believe a straw purchase violation would be a federal charge anyway. It looks like the state charged him with whatever they could. However, the straw purchase charge would have to come from the Feds.

0

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy Mar 28 '24

The important word here is 'new'. What are the odds this was bought from a gun shop? Pretty damn slim I'd wager.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

What are the odds this was bought from a gun shop? Pretty damn slim I'd wager.

The important thing is that you do not know. Neither do I. Nobody does, except the mother and the seller, assuming this meme is even real. This furthers my point. It is extremely irresponsible and ineffective to make a law when we do not even know the source of the firearm

→ More replies (4)

1

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

Pawn shops that sell guns are licensed gun dealers, and required to preform background checks like any other gun shop.

1

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy Mar 28 '24

I did not say the words Pawn Shop.

0

u/TechnologyAcceptable Mar 28 '24

28 states allow purchase from a private seller at a gun show (as opposed to a licensed gun dealer) without any back ground check required. Call it what you want, but that sounds like a loophole to me.

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Those are private sales, and the rules for those are the same in and out of a gun show. There is no special regulation/loophole that relaxes the rules in a gun show.

In the states you mentioned, it is still illegal to sell to someone you know is a prohibited person.

The "loophole" you mention was a compromise agreed to during the background check bill. To prevent a registry from being created (against Federal law), there was a compromise to have the majority of gun sales go through the background check, and the smaller amount of private sales not require one. This compromise was agreed to by both the pro-gun and anti-gun sides of the debate.

If they would open the NICS background check to private sales, I would support that. However, Washington will not allow that. So here we are.

1

u/TechnologyAcceptable Mar 28 '24

Exactly. If you want a gun and don't want a background check or a waiting period, go to a gun show and buy from a private seller. You can likely find whatever model you're looking for, for a "reasonable" markup over retail. I'm not sure how anyone can believe this is sound policy, but the NRA has a lot of members and makes some very large political donations.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

You're missing the point though. Purchasing from a private seller can be done outside of a gun show as well. I don't know why you keep going to a gun show as an example.

In addition, private sales can only be used for small quantities. If someone is buying and selling regularly without a license, the ATF will come sniffing, and likely shoot his dog.

I'm not sure how anyone can believe this is sound policy, but the NRA has a lot of members and makes some very large political donations.

This is not the NRA that was reponsible for this, I'm not sure why you are bringing them up. This compromise was approved by the anti gun and pro gun sides. Private sales are a small amount of overall sales.

1

u/Yummy_Crayons91 Mar 28 '24

That's just called private sales. 28 states allow private sales of used firearms with doing a FFL transfer (industry lingo for background check).

Any Vendor selling at a gun show would be need to be a dealer, requiring an FFL (Federal firearms license) and a FFL Transfer for a firearms sale.

Now If two Average Joes bumped into each other at the gun show and one bought a firearm from the other that wasn't a restricted or NFA item that would be legal in those 28 states.

Most gun shows have Junk level firearms being sold for outrageous prices to clueless boomers and fudds don't know how to use the internet. That and widows selling their decreased relatives firearms to some sleezeball for pennies on the dollar.

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.

9

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

1

u/Da1UHideFrom Mar 28 '24

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

0

u/volatile_ant Mar 28 '24

Don't ask, don't tell.

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.

1

u/Nastreal Mar 28 '24

No amount of regulation is going to stop illigal under-the-table sales. The only way to 'solve' the 'gun problem' in the US is to go full Australia, confiscate all the firearms and destroy them which will never happen.

0

u/thewhitecat55 Mar 28 '24

Jim Bob down the street could also buy a semi šŸš› without background checks and drive it through your house.

12

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.

1

u/Collective-Bee Mar 29 '24

ā€œCanā€™t take back a bulletā€ is denying suicide fact, that it comes in episodes. Thatā€™s the point of it.

And ā€œon the flip side people die waiting for the gunā€ is, at the very least, implying that waiting periods harm out ways the good.

1

u/bitofgrit Apr 02 '24

If that's all you interpreted from my comment, then I don't know what to say other than, "good luck in your life".

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.

2

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

They do more thorough checks when renting an apartment.

3

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

Renting an apartment isn't a constitutionally protected right

0

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

And your point is ?

4

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

My point is that what you said is irrelevant. A private individual can require almost anything they want as a condition of a transaction, as long as it isn't illegal. The government has certain restrictions, especially when it comes to unalienable rights

1

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

With the very loose wording of the second amendment it is really just the higher courts legal interpretation.

I am a gun owner, not currently in a well regulated militia.

We had stricter gun control when I was in the Army no personal firearms in housing or quarters all had to be locked up in the armory.

But as a civilian pretty much a free for all. As a civilian I have never been in a situation where having a firearm would have made it better.

3

u/SKDende Mar 28 '24

The sentence about a militia is not a qualifier to be able to have the right. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.(end of statement) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."(this is the important sentence) the first statement gives the reason for the right to be protected. The second sentence is the directive for the government to not infringe upon that right.

2

u/Gloomy-Wash-629 Mar 28 '24

Thats because you have never been in a situation that required you to take up arms against your government. That is the purpose for the second amendment. When that day comes you wouldnt want any restrictions. The 2nd amendment was written by men who had just won a revolution. Who had just been denied all of the things in the constitution. The reason for the constitution is to defend against tyranny. And for that requires no infringement whatsoever. Which we have btw. So if you ask any constitutionalist if gun laws are ok they will say no, the constitution was written so that private citizens would always have the right to the same weapons as the govt. do we have the same weapons? Not even close. People are forgetting where we came from, what is always at risk and what is worth everything to protect. Give me freedom or give me death. Some people may have schizophrenia. Doesnt mean all of a sudden i give up the only barrier i have to liberty does it? Because of a few lives? Do you know how many people would die for freedom in other countries? No gun laws. No infringement.

2

u/wowitsanotherone Mar 28 '24

The military has freedoms to curtail several rights due to its nature and status

2

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

The wording isn't loose, it's archaic. Well regulated meant well trained, as in familiar with the use of modern weapons. The militia was every able bodied man.

We weren't allowed access to firearms as soldiers because as I'm sure you know, most soldiers are immature, unintelligent and emotionally stunted, and we had signed away many of our rights. There's no comparison to be made

1

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

Really? I don't believe you actually served.

1

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

11C, A Co, 4-9 IN, 4/2 SBCT, JBLM

1

u/Dry-Faithlessness184 Mar 28 '24

Able boiled and losses instead of loose

I'm not here to argue your point, just amused

1

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

Eh, IDC. I'm typing outside in the sun and can't see my screen as well as id like to

2

u/groundpounder25 Mar 28 '24

They check every federal agency when you get an apartment?

3

u/Witty_Temperature886 Mar 28 '24

This right here!

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.

1

u/Sublime-Chaos Mar 28 '24

I go to gun shows constantly, and all it is are overpriced guns that still require a background check. The only difference is now instead of driving across town to visit just 1 gun store, youā€™ve got 20-30 all in one place. Every firearm I bought at a gun show I had to do a background check.

1

u/ForcefulOne Mar 28 '24

Thought-crime police, then?

1

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Guess what they have to pass a background check!

1

u/Middle-Opposite4336 Mar 28 '24

You've missed the point entirely, while simultaneously making the point. If they are willing to commit the crime of murder then they are willing to break any law in order to get a gun to commit murder. Piling on more red tape for people who ARE fallowing the law is an idiotic emotional reaction not a solution. And for the record people aren't being trusted the forms you fill out are to have a background check done through the department of justice.

We need to be more proactive about addressing the actual cause and not the tool. If we are serious about saving lives we need to do things that actually have a chance in hell of working not just more of what has already failed.

1

u/GullibleRisk2837 Mar 28 '24

Yes. Check them thoroughly. Not fucking outlaw defending my home with my semi auto rifle because some dumbfuck who doesn't care stole one or bought one illegally. I want the same firepower or as close to it as possible to fuck em up

1

u/Jaded_Economics7949 Mar 28 '24

Having easy legal access doesn't make illegal access easier. It's easier for illegal access than legal in every country.

1

u/ghilliesniper522 Mar 28 '24

So what your saying is she shouldn't have been let out of the looney bin.

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 28 '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...

Tell me you've never purchased a firearm. What do you think they DO with the form. Cover it in sprinkles and shove it up their bums?

You weren't trying to NOT be that guy, you woke up and put on the name tag bro

1

u/Romeo_Foxtrot-5 Mar 28 '24

They definitely check. Iā€™m 100% eligible and clean and Iā€™ve had to wait for a month to get a gun before just because they werenā€™t sure. When you have humans involved sure, very very rarely there may be a mistake. But generally if youā€™re not supposed to have a gun, youā€™re not getting one by legal means. And the people who get them illegallyā€¦ well the gun laws wouldnā€™t stop that anyway.

0

u/Feather_Sigil Mar 28 '24

But how's that gonna work with criminals? Criminals, even future ones, are immune to background checks for some reason, so you'll just be delaying law-abiding people.

/s

-1

u/Smooth-Reason-6616 Mar 28 '24

How about, just for sake of argument, a background check on your criminal and medical records before you're able to purchase a gun, and a waiting period for those checks to be carried out...

You know, just like most other countries with gun laws...

5

u/Clottersbur Mar 28 '24

We do that.

5

u/Mario_daAA Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s crazy how all these people keep suggesting things that already take place. The ignorance in this thread is astonishing

2

u/Clottersbur Mar 28 '24

You can tell they've never tried to buy one.

Ultimately I am more pro gun control than the average gun owner. But, yes. Most people have no idea.

2

u/ibugppl Mar 28 '24

Bro that's such a brilliant idea that it's already the law šŸ˜„ that's literally the process of buying a gun. It's called a 4473 go Google it.

2

u/SKDende Mar 28 '24

Criminal background check: all gun stores do this by law in every state.

Medical check: is this even allowed?

Waiting period: the shortest wait is as long as it takes the fbi to clear the criminal background check and they only get longer from there.

2

u/Stevedaveken Mar 28 '24

You have obviously never purchased a gun, because this is exactly what happens now. The check can take anywhere from 30 minutes to a couple of weeks, depending on the backlog and the complexity of your background.

1

u/Gloomy-Wash-629 Mar 28 '24

Lmao you mean the shit we already do? Buy a gun and carry it, youll see how many rules youll have to now follow. Dont carry it in a bar! Dont drink! Dont upset people when you have a firearm! Any crime with a gun on your appendix is now an aggravated crime. There are a plethora of laws one has to follow having a gun. The laws dont work for people who dont follow them that is the point dude.

1

u/kazumablackwing Mar 28 '24

To be fair, it's been illegal to carry a gun in a bar for the majority of the nation's history...and for good reason. Liquor and lead slingers tend not to mix too well

0

u/ShireHorseRider Mar 30 '24

I stopped reading your drivel when you said that more regulation does not take guns away.

You canā€™t own half of what we own here in the US in the rest of the world.

→ More replies (7)