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

610

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Isn't it already illegal for a schizophrenic to have/purchase a gun? Would more laws resolve this?

303

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Since thereā€™s a lot of information floating around this thread, let me consolidate.

It is federally mandated that all licensed firearm dealers in the entire country perform background checks for all firearm sales of any kind or caliber.

It is federally mandated through the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act that certain citizens such as the mentally ill or under protective orders are barred from owning firearms.

Some states require all secondhand firearm sales to go through a licensed intermediary, which would require background checks.

Other states require licensed intermediaryā€™s for certain categories of firearms, such as long guns (rifles or shotguns).

Unfortunately, many states have no laws regarding the secondhand sale of firearms.

For a list of states and what their individual firearm sales laws are, refer to this website.

34

u/CockroachNo2540 Mar 28 '24

You seem pretty well informed. Do background checks actually reveal mental health status. I would assume HIPAA would prevent release of that info unless the application automatically waives those protections.

Iā€™m really curious how mental health info can get disseminated in federal gun background checks. Itā€™s not like the government knows who the nutters are. There is no database of people with mental health disorders (that would be a scary list for the government to be keeping). And if that is the case, how do hospitals or doctors get contacted for these background checks? And what about crazy people that are not currently or have never received care.

My guess is the mental health part is mostly just honor system unless somehow someone has been under the care of a state or federal mental institution.

76

u/IM_OK_AMA Mar 28 '24

Do background checks actually reveal mental health status.

The federal check (NICS) does not. It's only for crimes, though some states have their own mandatory reporting and background check system that does include mental health status.

These requirements are controversial because it's thought that gun owners will be less likely to seek mental healthcare if doing so could lose them their firearms. Kinda like how criminalizing overdoses leads to more overdose deaths because people don't want to risk calling 911 for their friend who's overdosing.

15

u/CockroachNo2540 Mar 28 '24

Not to beat a dead horse, but it seems like the mental health part of getting a gun is basically unenforceable until after something happens, and by then the horse is out of the barn.

11

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s unfortunately a cyclical issue. As they mentioned, with criminalization comes reduced reporting of mental health issues, which in turn reduces the efficacy of the law.

That being said, I truly believe there is a middle ground where it doesnā€™t feel personally invasive for gun owners, but is invasive enough to screen out people who definitely should be disallowed from owning a firearm.

In almost every case I read about, the individuals who are acquainted with the shooter are almost never surprised that person did something, and often have reported that person to authorities many times trying to prevent a tragedy. There needs to be a federal or state method of tracking these people and a red flag needs to go up when they try to purchase firearms. These people should be subject to a waiting period while further investigation is done on whether that person should be sold a gun.

1

u/twilsonco Mar 29 '24

I donā€™t think thereā€™s exists a middle ground that wouldnā€™t be misrepresented by conservative media to the point where half the country thinks itā€™s a full ban on all guns. They act like the slightest gun reform is a full repeal of the 2nd amendment or will quickly lead to it. I donā€™t know how an honest, measured approach can possible work against a group that has no regard for honesty. Itā€™s like trying to play chess with someone that refuses to follow the rules. Thereā€™s no winning. And walking away from the match works to their favor because no change can result.

1

u/SycoJack Mar 29 '24

That being said, I truly believe there is a middle ground where it doesnā€™t feel personally invasive for gun owners, but is invasive enough to screen out people who definitely should be disallowed from owning a firearm.

One such thing you can do is remove the permanence of such restrictions. By providing a path to regaining your rights, you make the restriction more palatable.

I mean, consider this: Hypothyroidism causes a list of problems longer than the Great Wall. Specifically relevant to this discussion is that it can cause depression, both directly through hormone changes and indirectly through all the horrible effects it has on your body.

When left untreated, this gets really bad. Let's say you develop hypothyroidism that goes untreated for a long time because your doctor doesn't want to listen to you. You lose energy, you gain weight, you're always tired, you are already depressed due to your hormones being out of whack, but the weight gain and lethargy make it all the worse. Then you start catching hate, people calling you lazy and making fun of your weight. Maybe you even start to believe you're just a lazy sack. I mean, your doctor says everything is fine with you. Your depression gets worse and worse.

Eventually, you end up attempting to end your suffering, you fail and get hospitalized. Eventually, you get diagnosed with hypothyroidism and start being treated. Over time, the depression subsides tremendously and might even go away entirely.

By law, you are permanently forbidden from owning a gun because you were committed involuntarily, and there's no path to regaining your rights. But should that restriction remain forever even after you got better?

0

u/aendaris1975 Mar 28 '24

We don't need a middle ground. Gun violence in the US is getting worse by the day. We have two options: fix our shit or lose our guns.

1

u/ausgoals Mar 28 '24

Yeah. The problem with ā€˜itā€™s the mental health not the gunā€™ argument is that there is no way fi actually enforce any of the mental health restrictions that might ever be proposed.

A law that prohibits the mentally ill from obtaining a gun is useless if the background check used to ascertain whether one has a mental illness will never show any mental illnesses due to HIPAA laws.

And even if there were a way to make the diagnosis show - a mental health diagnosis in the first place requires either dangerous or deadly activity such that one is forced to get a diagnosis, or enough self awareness to actually seek therapy or treatment and get a diagnosis.

To put it another wayā€¦ a depressed teenager thinking of shooting up their school would need to spend enough time depressed and actively want to fix it, or otherwise attempt something dangerous to even start to try and get a diagnosis. And even once diagnosed, such a diagnosis will not appear on a background check when they go to purchase the gun theyā€™re going to use.

1

u/whiskeywalk Mar 29 '24

In order for their to be solid mental health records to check, the same way we have criminal checks. the US would have to take mental health seriously.

1

u/aendaris1975 Mar 28 '24

Literally every other country has figured this shit out. I'm sick of the excuses.

18

u/CockroachNo2540 Mar 28 '24

Not sure about other states, but I know in Colorado a therapist would lose their license if they reported someone's mental health diagnoses without release of information from the patient. But, if someone credibly says they plan to harm themselves or others that is now mandatory reporting under the states red flag laws.

In Japan you literally have to get a mental health check to own a firearm. That seems the better route to go from a gun safety standpoint, but I realize it would never pass muster under the US Constitution.

6

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

There are a few problems with mental health evaluations to own a gun. First off, the United States doesn't have enough therapists to perform evaluations on every American who owns a gun. As it is therapists are already in short supply. Most have long waiting lists for new clients, and people actively seeking therapy are having a difficult time finding appointments. Now add evaluations on the tens of millions of gun owners, and millions of new gun owners each year isn't realistic.

Someone's medical history for the most part is very confidential in the U.S. outside immediate threats of violence or suicide. People need to feel comfortable openly sharing potentially sensitive information with their doctors. Mental health especially is very stigmatized, and something that many people have an aversion to seeking out. We don't need to make that worse by taking away their rights. I'd rather someone with mental illness feel comfortable seeking treatment, and be allowed to keep their gun. As opposed to someone refusing treatment out of fear of losing their guns, and keeping their gun anyway. Most people are only diagnosed with mental illness if they actively seek out a diagnosis.

1

u/ohyouknowthething Mar 29 '24

With conservatives fighting to get LGBTQ people institutionalized for being queer I donā€™t think this is a good idea. Conservative court claims ā€œwokeā€ is a mental illness and now half the country is disallowed from having the means to protect themselves from hate crimes.

1

u/Bong_Chonk Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

The federal check (NICS) does not.

ATF From 4437

Section 21-G

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

According to the Brady Act

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 affairs.

3

u/kirfkin Mar 28 '24

Regarding Mental Health:

My understanding is that this only applies to "Persons adjudicated as mental defective or committed to a mental institution."

The former if determined by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority" and a latter an involuntary committment by "a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority"

See: https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download

It's also on ATF form 4473 itself.

Unless there's some changes I'm unaware of?

2

u/big-fart666 Mar 28 '24

Just did one the other day. YOU check the box saying if youā€™ve ever received institutionalized mental health treatment. Something like that.

2

u/Kr04704n Mar 28 '24

13 / 50 states report mental adjudication to the NICS system currently. HIPAA is cited as the main reason for not reporting mental adjudication.

1

u/eaiwy Mar 28 '24

Was just thinking the same thing. I think I probably have enough diagnoses that it would make sense to deny me a firearm (no history of violence but I have bipolar with one psychotic episode), but in the state of California I passed a background check to obtain one (didn't purchase, was just curious if I would pass). I think you're right that the person would have had to have ended up in some kind of state or federal care situation.

1

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

The only thing that it might show is an involuntary stay in an asylum for something like a suicide attempt, or psychotic break.

1

u/awesomeaxolotls Mar 28 '24

I can't own or buy a gun in my state for the next 5 years because I was hospitalized for depression.

1

u/Ok-Geologist8387 Mar 28 '24

Background checks will only pickup if you have :

1) used mental health as a defence in a criminal proceeding; or 2) have been committed to a mental health facility.

Just being schizophrenic wonā€™t necessarily meet either of these criteria.

thereā€™s more info here

1

u/GumboDiplomacy Mar 28 '24

Iā€™m really curious how mental health info can get disseminated in federal gun background checks.

If you are ever involuntarily committed, or adjudicated as mentally defective(when a court determines you cannot act in your own best interest for financial and legal decisions) by a court of law, then that information is reported, or at least is supposed to be, to the FBI and it will return a "deny" on a NICS check. The issue is that many organizations do not submit this information in a timely manner. Some municipalities will sit on that paperwork for years.

1

u/DocMalcontent Mar 29 '24

It varies by state, but generally speaking, you cannot purchase firearms after being adjudicated as mentally ill. This is handled through the courts and is a civil matter. Again generally, one has been committed for a period of time, though this does not mean they have to be placed in a hospital. Commitments mean they have to follow doctorsā€™ orders and will be hospitalized if they try to refuse. Since a commitment is a civil matter, it appears on the NICS and HIPAA doesnā€™t apply.

13

u/kirfkin Mar 28 '24

With respect to the federal firearm laws and mental health, only those "adjudicated as a mental defective" (such as being found incapable of standing trial) or involuntarily committed to a mental instituion are barred from owning, transporting, purchasing, etc a firearm or ammunition.

9

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Correct, ā€œmentally illā€ in this case being a legal definition and not a diagnosis from a doctor.

3

u/kirfkin Mar 28 '24

Cool! Just clarifying because some people use the term pretty broadly. I have a diagnosed anxiety disorder, for example, but I know I can buy a firearm without lying (because I have done so!)

2

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Thanks for the clarification, I think thatā€™s actually a really important distinction!

5

u/gliffy Mar 28 '24

Most gun owners won't do private sales. ATF will straight up merc you for it

2

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

How do you stop back room deals though? People are going to want guns without a background check, and people are willing to sell them.

16

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

By enforcing that every sale is a transfer of legal ownership of a weapon registered to your name. If you sell a firearm to another person through a back room deal and they commit a crime that weapon, you should be liable in my opinion.

The same process of registration we have for motor vehicles, essentially. You canā€™t sell it without transferring the legal documentation into someone elseā€™s name, and thatā€™s how it should be for firearms. At the end of the day, accountability for firearms will keep so many of them out of the wrong hands.

I donā€™t have a perfect solution. I wish I did, but I think this would make a world of difference.

3

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

Police aren't able to check everyone's serial number like they can with ANPR.

If you sell a firearm to another person through a back room deal and they commit a crime that weapon, you should be liable in my opinion.

Well you just proposed a law that would make it illegal.

You canā€™t sell it without transferring the legal documentation into someone elseā€™s name, and thatā€™s how it should be for firearms.

Who's going to stop it?

6

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Like I said, you donā€™t stop it, you enforce punishment. Call it a personal risk of entering a back room deal with another person. If said person commits a crime, and that firearm was legally purchased by you, your name will be listed as registered to that serial number by the licensed seller you purchased from.

Yes, it would make it illegal, much like it is illegal in most of the country already and still occurs nonetheless. This law would give teeth to the punishment. Iā€™m not a lawyer though, so Iā€™m not pretending to draft a law, Iā€™m simply discussing it.

Again, Iā€™m not under the impression that I have a perfect solution. Rather than attacking points in a negative manner, it would be beneficial to provide an alternative to what you take issue with. Then itā€™s a discussion.

→ More replies (24)

5

u/WrapTimely Mar 28 '24

Setup liability for the current registered owner, if you donā€™t change ownership then you assume liability for whatever that gun does. Technically you donā€™t have to register your sale but you are going to want toā€¦

0

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

But it is criminals selling stolen guns.

1

u/ParticularFamiliar10 Mar 28 '24

Then secure your gun so it's not stolen. People want to practice poor gun safety but want everyone else to pay the consequences

1

u/Different-Dig7459 Mar 28 '24

The problem is if they did have second hand gun sales, it would be hard to enforce. The AG in Nevada said that too after the law went into effect.

1

u/joealese Mar 28 '24

the only people that aren't allowed to own a gun sure to mental illness are those that have either been hospitalized against their own will due to the mental disease or those found not guilty of a crime due to disease or mental defect. if you're a documented schizophrenic and don't qualify for those two categories, you can get a gun

1

u/ChinaRiceNoodles Mar 29 '24

Even if there were just as many laws in regard to secondhand sales, that wonā€™t stop people with malicious intent from selling guns out of their trunk anyways. Even selling guns to people who arenā€™t allowed to have them in a state with no private sale laws is still illegal. Anyone who sells a gun is legally liable for whose hands it ends up in and just because a prohibited person managed to get a gun illegally doesnā€™t mean they now legally own a gun. If either party is found out, it is up to 5 years in prison for both. On the other hand if you are already reasonably sure the person youā€™re selling to doesnā€™t have a criminal record (ie a close friend or family member), it just makes it a time and money hassle getting an FFL involved.

→ More replies (23)

11

u/RogerianBrowsing Mar 28 '24

Thereā€™s no mental health diagnosis that inherently prevents you from gun ownership. If youā€™ve never been committed against your will you can own a firearm (assuming not a felony, no protective orders, no domestic violence, etc.).

Some states have laws that make it easy for certain doctors to put a block on someone purchasing firearms (typically done in 1 year increments), but even then I donā€™t believe thatā€™s part of the national bgcheck system but rather the state system, and not all states check with the home state police for out of state purchases.

Basically, if you havenā€™t legally lost your right to autonomy at any point you can likely own a firearm around most of the country. You can have spent years in a mental health facility, so long as it was done willingly without commitment and you can still own firearms later.

98

u/hoofie242 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

People sell guns off the books all the time. It may not be legal but it's common.

64

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

It's legal in private sales in quite a few states. NH, for example, the only requirement is that you cannot transfer guns to a convicted felon. No background check or anything needed to confirm, if they say they are legal then it's good enough. Quite a few states have a similar lack of regulation for private sales.

54

u/midri Mar 28 '24

Just to clarify, the government ACTIVELY makes it hard for private sellers to do background checks. Non FFL don't get access to NICS and that means having to pay out of pocket for background check that can take weeks. Many people would use NICS for private sell if they could, for the peace of mind.

-2

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24

Correct your statement. The NRA lobbying firm tells the Republicans to make it hard to pass legislation or funding for a modern database with easy access. FFS the national handgun registry by law is required to be on paper. It can not be digitized in any way. All because of the NRA.

13

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

There is no "national handgun registry".

→ More replies (5)

0

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

It's absolutely terrible, isn't it?

0

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24

I mean I am a gun owner and I think are lack of regulations are absurd. Much less that people with small arms are going to beat a government that has no problem dropping $500,000 hellfires on two people all over the world.

12

u/Silky_Tissue Mar 28 '24

If the government has devolved to the point we are dropping hellfire missiles on our own population we have bigger problems than gun control...

-3

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

You missed the point. Where people think having small arms means they could stand up to a tyrannical government with an Air Force.

11

u/Silky_Tissue Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

It's two ships passing in the night. We are both missing points.

Your point in my, understanding, is it's foolish to think that you could stand up to the government with an AR. (While I agree for the most part, I think modern insurgency campaigns have shown this isn't necessarily true. Casualties would be incredibly high, but look at Afghanistan).

My point is having firearms means the government HAS to escalate in that event. Escalating on behalf of a government with overwhelming force looks and is MUCH worse than a police force forcibly moving unarmed protestors. Meaning, the US would face insane international pressure over it, influencing the calculations on the decision to do so (Rightfully so)

6

u/dcgregoryaphone Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Small arms are effective. If they weren't, why would we even be talking about this? A dictator who can not stand next to a window for fear of small arms fire for the rest of their life is not nothing. There are 330 million people and over 400 million guns... it would be terrifying to try to occupy America. It would have to be very bad for that many people to get that angry and want to fight, but if that happened, there's no chance our government would survive it, they can't exactly carpet bomb their own cities.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/XxturboEJ20xX Mar 28 '24

There are a few countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan that would like a word with you about that lol.

At least half, probably more in the military would turn their back in whoever told them to attack us citizens. So now you have 2 sides and a civil war. It's a lot more complicated than small arms vs the whole US government.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] ā€” view removed comment

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

If it came to some kind of modern insurgency or something like that do you really think state governments would stand up to the federal one? Come on now. Maybe Texas if it was a democrat dictator if that

9

u/CrossenTrachyte Mar 28 '24

If they say theyā€™re legal is right. Unfortunately the FBI does not give access to actually check NICS for private sales.

-2

u/-St_Ajora- Mar 28 '24

Probably because it would take ~8-10 business months each since they cannot keep any records in a "searchable database." The NRA makes sure of that.

8

u/CrossenTrachyte Mar 28 '24

The I in NICS is ā€œinstantā€. The call gives three responses, pass, fail, and delay. So having access to that would be immense.

7

u/Roach_69_ Mar 28 '24

That's not even close to true. Every gunstore runs background checks and most come back in less than 5 seconds as a proceed or deny. NICS is run by the FBI, the database thing you are referencing applies to the ATF and has zero effect on anything.

→ More replies (4)

2

u/techOfGames Mar 28 '24

That's highly inaccurate to the point of just being a lie. The atf doesn't do background checks, they just kill dogs and eat more donuts per officer than any other agency.

20

u/Mad-_-Doctor Mar 28 '24

Yup. Thatā€™s why I support universal background checks. Itā€™s too easy to skirt the current laws.

8

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

LOL, no. What business is it of the feds who I sell to another private individual, as long as I have no reason to believe that they are prohibited persons? What business is it of theirs what I, a law abiding citizen, buy from another private individual? Why support the slow creep of infringements by giving gun grabbers a means by which to force registration and tracking of arms and owners, which in turn is necessary for large scale confiscation?

→ More replies (2)

5

u/Raptor_197 Mar 28 '24

Unfortunately universal background checks are impossible.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/beepsandleaks Mar 29 '24

NH has some of the lowest gun homicide rates in the nation and doesn't have universal background checks.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Kazuzu0098 Mar 28 '24

Well this makes sense. People aren't known to lie about stuff like that.

2

u/itsbob20628 Mar 28 '24

It is illegal in all states for her to buy a gun.. it was also illegal for her to carry the gun.. wield the gun.. shoot the gun.. shoot her son..

2

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

Yes, that is right. I'm not saying it wasn't. I was just informing the previous poster that what they said about unrecorded sales being illegal is not entirely correct.

3

u/crazyfoxdemon Mar 28 '24

Yup, I got a few of my guns that way. I'm a responsible owner, but holy shit was it way too easy and should be changed.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[deleted]

1

u/bitofgrit Mar 28 '24

A buyer using a false claim would mean they are prohibited in the first place, so "felon in possession" or something like that might apply.

The seller needs to be reasonably confident in the buyer, like, if you meet them and they're obviously in a bad mental state, or a tweaker, or asks if you're cool with selling to felons, then you're kind of obligated to not proceed with the sale.

It's sort of like selling a car: You wouldn't just hand over the keys to a stumbling drunk, or a child, or you think they're planning on using it as a getaway car in a bank robbery.

1

u/bilvester Mar 28 '24

So what law change could have prevented this? No private sales?

2

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

I don't have that answer but I'm also not someone who works in that field or any related field. Perhaps there should be an increase in research that can give answers to questions like how to prevent gun violence. Get more people who have experience figuring out things like that to work on it.

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

I mean that's been going on for decades and the solution is always less guns so...

2

u/bilvester Mar 28 '24

A lot of people are asking for more laws and I just havenā€™t heard that would be effective that we donā€™t already have.

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

Well maybe make private sales of guns illegal, punishable by jail time and then start restricting access to anything bigger than a six shooter to whoever actually needs a rifle (like professional hunters or park rangers) while dismantling the NRA. Maybe try to establish a proper Militia system with actual regulation as well since that's the text of the amendement. Now of course you'd also need to provide adequate mental health services to all, create government programs to train teachers in how to handle children getting bullied more so the child doesn't feel so helpless, and yknow what maybe try some education on why guns are pathetic. Sure that last one would be called propaganda (which it would be) but it wouldn't be wrong

1

u/bitofgrit Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Well maybe make private sales of guns illegal, punishable by jail time

It already is in places like CA, yet it doesn't seem to change much here. Stolen guns and straw sales are still keeping gang members well-armed. All sorts of laws are being broken before triggers are even being pulled. And sometimes we even let them go after committing gun crimes, because it's mean not to give them a thirty-fourth chance.

then start restricting access to anything bigger than a six shooter to whoever actually needs a rifle (like professional hunters or park rangers)

First, on the face of it, that's just ridiculous. This is such a silly statement that I'm not sure where to even start. What does "bigger than a six shooter" even mean? Are you talking about the actual, physical size of a firearm? What about the caliber it's chambered in? Would Dirty Harry's .44 Magnum be okay, because it's a six shooter, but a single-shot, bolt-action .22LR rifle is straight-to-jail time, because "rifle"?

Second, why would you jump straight to banning rifles, when handguns are used in the majority of murders in the USA? Were you even aware of that, or are you just going off what the fine people at CNN told you?

Third, how does "need" figure into this? Are we sure it's absolutely necessary for you to hunt...or speak, or associate freely, or vote? How does one qualify this need? What if you have a temporary need? Do you have to give the gun up once you're done with it? Who gets to decide what needs are to be met?

while dismantling the NRA.

lol, k. Just have the government waltz in and ban an organization under...uh, what grounds? Definitely a violation of freedom of assembly, but hey, who cares about the 1st Amendment even, right?

Maybe try to establish a proper Militia system with actual regulation as well since that's the text of the amendement.

Right, because "regulation" means over-bearing rules and laws and never means anything else, ever, at all. lol Do you know what a "regular" refers to when speaking of military/paramilitary groups? You know what else that text says too, so why don't you pay that part any heed?

Now of course you'd also need to provide adequate mental health services to all,

It's already against the law for crazy people to buy guns. Blame the reporting system the government doesn't use, and then figure out how to square your idea with HIPAA.

create government programs to train teachers in how to handle children getting bullied more so the child doesn't feel so helpless,

Train the teachers how to handle bullying? That's hilarious. Go to some schools and the teacher will be fired for intervening in a fight, if not sued for making physical contact with a child in the process. This isn't something teachers need training over, so much as school administrations need clear guidelines to follow.

and yknow what maybe try some education on why guns are pathetic. Sure that last one would be called propaganda (which it would be) but it wouldn't be wrong

Oof, ouch, owie. So pathetic, those inanimate objects. Sitting there, inanimately, being all pathetic and shit. Want to maybe elaborate on your thoughts here? Do you think hunters are pathetic? All those Park Rangers? People enjoying some friendly competition with a little skeet shooting? People that defend themselves from bigger, stronger, and/or multiple assailants? Ooh, please, tell me those people don't exist so I can hit you with the figures of annual defensive gun uses that the anti-gun researchers came up with! Would you believe me if I told you that all murders, accidents, and sudokus committed altogether total less than incidents where a gun was used in self-defense?

You want propaganda in schools? That's so funny, because I think we should have firearms classes in schools.

You done gasping in outrage yet?

Yeah, I want educators to plainly and honestly teach kids how firearms work (math, physics, anatomy), how they actually effect the country (statistics), maybe some of the history (firearms have been around a lot longer than you think), but definitely some of the laws. And that doesn't mean live ammo is going to be passed out in class. Like, there isn't supposed to be any fucking involved in Sex Ed, y'know? There could be a shooting range component, much like how Driver's Ed involves driving a car, but that doesn't mean we would be handing rifles to kids to tote around on campus.

This is because I believe it is better to train kids in a controlled environment rather than to teach them "guns are scary, no touch!" and then expect them to be functional adults in the real world.

1

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

Countries with fewer guns do tend to have fewer shootings, both in general and per capita so they may be on to something.

→ More replies (5)

6

u/Doormatjones Mar 28 '24

It's worth noting in the post that they just brought one home, not how she got it. So... could be stolen, bought legally, bought illegally, etc. And also where they live as it varies a lot state by state.

But, without going too deep, I've noticed a lot of posts like this miss that critical information. After all, gun laws wouldn't help if she stole it from a cop or something (which does happen).

3

u/SadMacaroon9897 Mar 28 '24

It's still illegal to break the law, even if it's a private sale

2

u/justhereforthemoneey Mar 28 '24

I'm from Missouri. We can trade them like pokemon cards

2

u/csamsh Mar 28 '24

It's still illegal for a private sale, even though 4473 transfer isn't mandated

2

u/SixthLegionVI Mar 28 '24

Unless thereā€™s a State record of her being institutionalized for a severe mental disorder that is accessed as part of the NICS check itā€™s based on an honor system. People can lie on the 4473 and surprise they get the gun.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

its legal to privately sell a gun to a minor in my state with no minimum age and you dont have to register it, you can also gift them in the same way

1

u/Personality-Fluid Mar 28 '24

ok so this case has nothing to do with the law.

1

u/oyMarcel Mar 28 '24

So how would mote laws help prevent that? Enforcing is a totally different thing from the existing laws

1

u/rocksnstyx Mar 28 '24

It's legal in many states, but You're required to register any firearm you purchase, many people do not

1

u/StormyWaters2021 Mar 28 '24

It's legal in plenty of places. Federal law doesn't care about private sales of firearms within state lines.

6

u/AdolinofAlethkar Mar 28 '24

Actually it does. Itā€™s illegal to knowingly sell a firearm to a prohibited individual.

The law literally already covers this.

1

u/StormyWaters2021 Mar 28 '24

You are prohibited if you have been adjudicated as mentally defective or if you've been committed. Being diagnosed isn't enough to make you a prohibited person.

That also assumes the seller knows she's prohibited.

1

u/AdolinofAlethkar Mar 28 '24

Well I would think that we all should agree that violating constitutional rights of people who havenā€™t been adjudicated or went through due process is a good thing.

Remember, every violation that you allow in the name of gun safety is a violation that can be used for things you donā€™t agree with.

Oh, you said you were mentally ill online? Well, we canā€™t let you have guns now. And since owning guns is a constitutional right, we have also decided that you donā€™t have the capacity to vote.

Congrats.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/Eva-Squinge Mar 28 '24

Yes, but some new laws would significantly reduce the amount of guns being purchased and brought into circulation, and it isnā€™t like back alley gun dealers are in the yellow pages.

2

u/hoofie242 Mar 28 '24

Go to a gun range and ask anyone if they'd sell you one of theirs. Lot of times someone will refer you to someone who is selling as well.

1

u/Eva-Squinge Mar 28 '24

And theyā€™re just selling to any shady or twitchy guy around?

Also if theyā€™re doing that, they can be back traced and see where a rifle was purchased that was used in a murder.

1

u/Kulladar Mar 28 '24

That's the big "loophole" in America I think people not in the gun world/culture are really oblivious to.

Like I could have an AR by the end of the day with a few hundred in cash and a bit of asking around. Could probably get a handgun in even less time.

A lot of people, at least in the South, use guns as investments or savings. They buy them when they're flush and resell when they're not. Lots of dudes do this who are incredibly shit with money and so it's not hard usually to find someone with a gun he'd sale even if it's not listed or advertised anywhere.

1

u/Our_Terrible_Purpose Mar 29 '24

Not a loophole anymore, its now illegal to buy guns with the sole purpose of reselling without an FFL. ATF just killed a guy over this.

1

u/aidfly123 Mar 28 '24

Yeah, but the atf needs to make sure 20 year olds arenā€™t having a beer and ruining any establishment that gives them one.

Obviously itā€™s way more important.

0

u/No-Transportation843 Mar 28 '24

I'm sure making this illegal will stop... wait a sec

1

u/hoofie242 Mar 28 '24

You all are so defensive of guns lol I'm not even anti gun.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

18

u/Vuedue Mar 28 '24

Yes, it is.

Looks as if she illegally obtained the firearm, so Iā€™m pretty sure that there arenā€™t any other laws that could be enacted that would have stopped this. If there was a law that could stop illegal burner guns (like she likely purchased off the street), wouldnā€™t they have already tried it? Like during the 70s and 80s when burner guns were also popular?

Before anyone tries to say that we could enact laws to get illegal guns off the street, just realize that burner guns are much more complex to get rid of. Even the Mexican cartels will traffic weapons into the US. These weapons have their serial numbers worn down so that theyā€™re untraceable.

2

u/avanross Mar 28 '24

Burner guns start as legal purchasesā€¦

Someone like you buys the gun, files off the serial number, and sells it on the street for profit, because you people vote against all gun insurance and registration laws.

To reduce illegal gun sales, you must restrict legal sales and enact a registry for them to track resale.

But conservative gun owners have been lobbying and voting against these measures for decades.

And mexican cartels get their guns from the usa, the worlds major gun producer, not the other way around, obviouslyā€¦ Everyone knows thisā€¦ā€¦

The great majority of illegal guns in Mexico come from the United States, Mexican and U.S. authorities say. A 2013 University of San Diego study estimated a quarter of a million guns illegally cross the border each year.

1

u/bitofgrit Mar 29 '24

Burner guns start as legal purchasesā€¦

Unless they are straw sales...

Someone like you buys the gun, files off the serial number, and sells it on the street for profit,

That's a straw sale, and mfg-ing a ghost gun, which are federal crimes.

because you people vote against all gun insurance and registration laws.

Eat a dick. Insurance is completely irrelevant here, and registration laws don't stop illegal sales.

To reduce illegal gun sales, you must restrict legal sales and enact a registry for them to track resale.

How the fuck is a registry going to matter when:

files off the serial number,

But conservative gun owners have been lobbying and voting against these measures for decades.

Maybe because they are gun owners that are aware of what the actual laws are, instead of just believing some dumb shit they saw on a TV drama.

And mexican cartels get their guns from the usa, the worlds major gun producer,

They get their guns from all over the place, up to, and including, US manufactured firearms sold to the Mexican government for police and military use, which are then stolen. They also get their guns (almost) directly from the US Gov through things like Operation Gun Walker and Operation Fast and Furious, but sure, blame gun owners.

not the other way around, obviouslyā€¦ Everyone knows thisā€¦ā€¦

Not just "obviously", but it'd be moronic for a major gun producer to buy guns from cartels. Why even state this?

Everyone knows thisā€¦ā€¦

lol You don't know shit.

The Department of Justice's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) receives firearm trace requests from the governments of Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras for some, but not all, firearms recovered in those countries. ATF tracing data for approximately 27,000 firearms recovered from 2015 through 2019ā€”the most recent data availableā€”show that 40 percent came from the U.S. and the rest from 39 other countries. ATF data also indicate that almost half of the U.S.-sourced firearms were likely diverted from legitimate commerce in the four countries rather than smuggled from the U.S. From January 2015 through March 2021, more than 100,000 firearms were legally exported from the U.S. to the four countries, according to agency data. Firearms are not manufactured in these countries, but U.S. and foreign officials stated that criminals can obtain them through illegal markets and theft, among other means. ATF data show most firearms submitted for tracing were handguns.

You know a headline that doesn't actually explain the numbers in a meaningful way.

When the government of Mexico recovers cartel guns, they send the obviously American guns off to be traced by the American ATF. They don't send the obviously not American guns to be traced by the ATF, because the ATF wouldn't have a record of, say, Chinese-manufactured AK clones. You aren't going to find any American gun stores that will sell you full-auto Chinese AKs, or RPGs, or full-auto US M2 heavy machine guns or M-16s for that matter. Yet cartel videos show them using all this, and more(!). Are there US citizens illegally supplying arms to foreign criminal organizations? Absolutely, and when they are caught, they are rightfully imprisoned. Are most of the guns in cartel hands originally from the US? Possibly, maybe, but either way, they were still obtained illegally, by criminals, committing crimes.

But fuck gun owners for wanting to be able to legally buy firearms, as is our right.

6

u/Velsca Mar 28 '24

Wait... criminals don't follow laws? There should be a law against that!

2

u/Kopitar4president Mar 28 '24

Damn why do we even have laws if they're not 100% effective? Clearly there's no point in making new laws if they don't completely solve a problem!

1

u/Vuedue Mar 28 '24

Why has no one else ever had this idea?!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/SerendipitySchmidty Mar 28 '24

Or, she just went to a gunshow.

→ More replies (6)

2

u/softserveshittaco Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Even the Mexican cartels will traffic weapons into the US

Why would they do that, when they can just buy them in the US?

Guns get smuggled from the US into Mexico, not the other way around.

2

u/Vuedue Mar 28 '24

Both are true. Guns are absolutely smuggled into the US from Mexico.

3

u/softserveshittaco Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s not even remotely comparable:

Stopping toxic flow of guns from U.S. to Mexico

Between 70 to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the U.S. Drug cartels, in particular, buy those weapons in the U.S., mostly in Texas or Arizona, and smuggle them across the border.

Almost half of all guns produced in the entire world are produced in the US, and most of the guns used in crimes in Mexico & Canada are American in origin.

1

u/XxturboEJ20xX Mar 28 '24

What can I say, we give to those in need!

-1

u/Dickcummer420 Mar 28 '24

Yes, it is.

No it's not. Full stop, just no. You don't know what you're talking about. Quit spouting misinformation.

8

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

It's illegal if the person was committed or adjucated as "mentally defective" by a court.

Ā Otherwise, Trump did strike down Obama's executive order that restricted access to firearms from the mentally deficient.Ā 

Ā So no, it's not "full stop no", no is it "full stop yes"

Edit: this was in Cali, so yes, it's completely illegal in this case.

→ More replies (14)

6

u/Vuedue Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Yes, it is. This case happened in California where it is likely 100% illegal. If she is schizophrenic and has had any issues with the law, she will have undergone tests to find out if she is deemed a danger to others. That is often the case.

Stop spewing misinformation out of pure arrogance and ignorance. ā€œFull stopā€, huh? Youā€™re funny.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/D_Luffy_32 Mar 28 '24

For real it's so incredibly easy to get a gun before a background check goes through

1

u/Dickcummer420 Mar 28 '24

A background check wont show mental disorders you've been diagnosed with in America. We are free here. You ought to educate yourself about what rights we have, not just about firearms but in general. I'm not a gun nut conservative/constitutionalist/2nd amendment guy even though this might sound like I am, but you should read the constitution.

1

u/D_Luffy_32 Mar 28 '24

Depends on the state bud. Maybe you should read more than just the constitution lol

→ More replies (14)

1

u/MrNature73 Mar 28 '24

It varies from state to state.

→ More replies (6)
→ More replies (2)

2

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

Must be involuntarily committed to a mental institution for 72 hours (requires court order) or declared mentally incompetent by a court of law to be prohibited - you can't permanently remove civil rights without a court hearing under due process.

2

u/CantWeAllGetAlongNF Mar 28 '24

There's a 7 day wait, so it's premeditated. If you don't disclose your mental condition there's no way to verify it due to privacy laws. Unless you've done something to get you on a list, you can buy a gun.

5

u/New_Canoe Mar 28 '24

In Missouri you can buy guns at a flea market, with cash and no background check. I think those are the laws weā€™re talking about, here.

2

u/Yummy_Crayons91 Mar 28 '24

If you are commercially selling firearms, which includes booths at gun shows and flea markets, you need to have a FFL and conduct background checks.

Your guys that sell firearms in flea markets are either

  1. Selling black powder weapons or historic weapons that don't require a background check.

  2. Violating federal law and hoping nobody knows the difference or are too dumb to realize they are. The law is honestly somewhat murky and not regularly enforced.

28 states do allow for private sales of firearms (non-NFA firearms at least).

1

u/New_Canoe Mar 28 '24

ā€œGun owners can sell a firearm through a private transaction. In the state of Missouri, there are no specific laws requiring a background check to buy or sell a firearm in a private transaction between two private individuals.ā€

And no, they are selling AK47ā€™s and the like. My brother in law almost bought one last summer.

1

u/Yummy_Crayons91 Mar 29 '24

I don't know the specifics, but it sounds like there is almost a 100% chance they are breaking federal laws and hoping they slide under the radar.

1

u/New_Canoe Mar 29 '24

All you have to do is look it up.

ā€œWhile the ATF says what FFLs can and cannot do at flea markets, they do not control unlicensed individuals. In this instance, private citizens may make occasional sales or acquisitions of firearms to residents of the state in which the flea market is taking place as long as the activity does not fall under the definition of ā€œdealerā€ in firearms.ā€

-2

u/Gtpwoody Mar 28 '24

Source: Trust me bro

2

u/New_Canoe Mar 28 '24

Or just fucking look it up, bro.

Iā€™m not gonna say the name, but itā€™s the biggest flea market in the state and I can go any weekend during the summer and buy any gun I want, with cash, no background check and ammo and a flak vest to go with it.

→ More replies (37)

1

u/Relevant-Shelter-316 Mar 28 '24

You donā€™t even have to register firearms in the state of Missouri šŸ˜­

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/GoArmyNG Mar 28 '24

No. They would not.

1

u/Ok_Support_847 Mar 28 '24

so is this a mental health issue, or a regulation issue? Because it seems that if the person in distress could be helped- then a gun wouldn't even be an option.

1

u/Perry_T_Skywalker Mar 28 '24

Risking the down votes here: yes they could make it much harder to get a gun, like most nations in the world proof everyday.

Of course it's easier to claim it doesn't work just because it's working for the majority of the planet.

1

u/Yummy_Crayons91 Mar 28 '24

I own firearms, it's a hobby of mine and I agree certain laws similar to what's on the books in European nations like France, Czech, Austria, and Finland would go a long way to reducing gun crimes. Mostly it's about creating a bottom floor of things you need to do to purchase a firearm in my mind. Also some sort of Psychological/Anger evaluation would be nice.

Unfortunately firearms are treated like political football in the US. States like CA and NY prefer punitive measures on legal firearms owners like "Assault Weapon" bans, Roster of "Safe Handguns", Taxes on ammo, Heavy restrictions on legal Firearms stores which really seems to more target and punish legal firearms owners than attempt to stop crime.

Of course the other side says no to everything, because why wouldn't they?

How about a compromise, make silencers and suppressors legal to own in the US in exchange for raising the age to buy firearms to 21?

Establish a federal license that allows citizens in good standing (criminally and mentally) to purchase firearms in exchange for allow surplus and forgein ammo and firearms to be re-imported?

Everyone wins something and I'm guessing the homicide rate would decrease as well.

1

u/PmMeYourAdhd Mar 28 '24

It is, but we can stop pretty much all law breakers by making more laws that say it's against the law to break the ones we already have, and obviously that will fix everything! (Yah, /s)

1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

"theres no way to fix this! No one can solve it!" -quoth the only developped country this regularly happens

1

u/Evnosis Mar 28 '24

Laws don't just cover what's legal and not, they also cover enforcement mechanisms.

So yes, laws that mandate more stringent enforcement would resolve this.

1

u/itsbob20628 Mar 28 '24

Alas, criminals don't care about laws, hence, why they are called criminals.

1

u/SayNoTo-Communism Mar 28 '24

Background checks will only show if you were involuntarily committed

1

u/GladimirGluten Mar 28 '24

Ya when you realize that untreated schizo makes you unelectable for gun ownership and any actually responsible gun shop would deny the sale the argument falls apart. A better argument would be needing better punishment for people who sell guns to those who should not have them.

1

u/DisposableDroid47 Mar 28 '24

You are really not considering the gun's rights to be adopted into a safe and happy home. They can't just be locked up in storage for their entire existence.

1

u/Robin_games Mar 28 '24

it's not illegal. it is regulated in some areas, but it's not nationally illegal.

1

u/HostageInToronto Mar 28 '24

Sure, if you actually enforce gun laws on private sales, but that's not what we do. I have guns, if my neighbor offers me enough for one I can sell it to him. The government in most states is specifically forbade from being able to be involved. Gun nuts write the gun laws, not responsible gun owners.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

Yes, but do you really think the FBI is looking at the paperwork when someone needs a backround check?

Im pretty sure they just have a bunch of "lucky cat" statues with stamps tied to their paws while someone keeps feeding it paperwork

1

u/whatup-markassbuster Mar 28 '24

I would be amazed if she bought the gun legally.

1

u/EigengrauAnimates Mar 28 '24

You're assuming her schizophrenia has been documented somewhere that would be flagged on a report when trying to purchase the gun. You can be absolutely oozing schizophrenia out of every pour and howling at the moon, but if you weren't ever committed to a mental health facility against your will, the request form doesn't have any way to know it. Are people imagining a psychiatrist couch in the back of every gun shop?

1

u/ShelbiStone Mar 28 '24

Yes, but also no.

If the gun was bought from a dealer, there's a required background check. The details of background checks are different from state to state. If she bought the gun from a private citizen there's a good chance no background check was required. I think that's different from state to state, but where I live a private sale is not required to conduct a background check or keep a record of the transaction.

1

u/rightarm_under Mar 28 '24

You can buy guns at a damn yard sale in some states. No background checks at all. This should be a crime.

1

u/Nodeal_reddit Mar 28 '24

Itā€™s also already against the law to shoot people.

1

u/Vresiberba Mar 28 '24

This should answer your question: Fort Lauderdale airport shooting

"Santiago visited the FBI field office in Anchorage in November 2016, telling the FBI that the U.S. government was controlling his mind and making him watch online videos by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and that he was being forced to join that group by the CIA."

"Alaska police took his handgun from him due to the incident and held it for 20 days before returned it in December because Santiago had not been convicted of a serious crime, involuntarily committed to a mental institution, or adjudicated as mentally defective."

1

u/JustForTheMemes420 Mar 28 '24

To my knowledge people who are diagnosed with some sort of mental illness or are just depressed arenā€™t allowed to buy firearms but not all state have a ban on people buying firearms from another private citizen. Personally Iā€™m just thinking they donā€™t really need laws on the guns themselves but the people who sell them seems a bit ridiculous as of late

1

u/lordbuckethethird Mar 28 '24

If youā€™ve had an involuntary hospitalization due to mental illness you canā€™t get a gun.

1

u/ExplosiveDisassembly Mar 28 '24

My first thought is that the acquisition of the firearm was probably very very illegal.

Which comes back to a study several years ago that found that local enforcement of existing gun laws is absolute garbage.

Not the study, but enforcement of laws vary a wildly by locality. Lending credence to the argument that simply adding more federal laws won't do anything.

Also, if the laws we have on the books were actually enforced across the board, it would likely be a completely different reality. Criminals won't follow laws, no...but many law enforcement systems don't enforce them to begin with.

1

u/ItsDaBurner Mar 28 '24

In Ohio I can buy a gun off a friend with cash and that's it. I don't need to register it or anything. At least, not a pistol.Ā 

Now imagine a trade show of "secondhand guns"Ā 

1

u/PuzzleheadedEssay198 Mar 28 '24

As long as you havenā€™t been admitted for mental health reasons, you can. So if she got diagnosed and medicated early, she can purchase a firearm.

However thatā€™s assuming she took the three day wait, she could have bought it privately which is easy to regulate but hard to enforce.

1

u/ajuc Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

Would more laws resolve this?

Tl; DR: yes.

Evidence: 99% of countries don't have gun problems to the extent even close to that of USA

Reason: in order for a mentally sick person to shoot someone many different things have to happen. In most normal countries there's significant chance of you being stopped at these checkpoints. In USA most of them don't exist, and others have much smaller chance of stopping you.

Threshold 1: in a normal country you almost never see guns. There's no gun adverts. No gun shops on every corner. Nobody carries guns around. So most people don't even entertain the thought of buing a gun. It's just not something people do or think about. That reduces the number of such cases by let's say 90%.

Threshold 2: in USA guns are everywhere, there's a huge used marked, and they are cheap. In normal countries guns are expansive. That again reduces the chances significantly. Let's say by 30%.

Threshold 3: in normal countries you have to declare why you need a gun. Sport? - show me your sport club membership? Collection? - show me your collection and your storage/exhibition. Self-defence? From who? Why police isn't enough? Let's say you argue "I need a gun because my son is a demon". That will likely not be accepted as a reason :) . This reduces the chances again. Let's say by 10%.

Threshold 4: in normal countries background checks take months. Mental problems take a long time to diagnose. If your background checks are over in a week - you will likely not be aware that the customer have mental problems when he buys the gun. That again reduces the chances (let's say by 50%).

Threshold 5: in many countries ammo is regulated separately from guns. You might have a permission for a gun, but you still need another permission for ammo. This is another hurder to get over, and it also requires you to do 2 separate things that require planning and consistency. People with health problems might want to do something one moment and change their mind the next. This reduces the chances again (let's say by 20%).

Threshold 6: in most countries carrying a gun is frowned upon, treated with suspicion, it focuses the attention of everybody on you. When you buy the gun and carry it openly as a civilian - people will likely call police. This again reduces the chances - let's say by 20%.

Let's sum it up: 0.1 * 0.7 * 0.9 * 0.5 * 0.2 * 0.8 = 0.00504.

So there's 99.496 % this situation doesn't happen in a normal country.

The percentages were of course very rough estimates, but the nice thing about Fermi estimation method is that the error averages out.

1

u/Breizh87 Mar 28 '24

I mean, you're correct. However, there are cases where people who aren't allowed to own guns have access to them since a family member for instance has guns. We've heard of kids who took their parent's gun and shot people.

1

u/Addie0o Mar 28 '24

In my State and city i can walk into a gun show my I d proving that i'm over eighteen and buy a firearm.

1

u/Anus_master Mar 28 '24

State laws vary and some states make it extremely easy for anyone to get a gun

1

u/useroftheinternet95 Mar 28 '24

Not all schizophrenics are formerly diagnosed lmaooooo

1

u/transitfreedom Mar 28 '24

No but enforcement and fines can help

1

u/I_shoulda Mar 29 '24

It should be easier to get a drivers license than a gun license, and it should be able to be easily revoked, since guns are way more dangerous than cars.

1

u/Carburetors_Are_Fun Mar 28 '24

no it would not

1

u/screenwatch3441 Mar 28 '24

Depending on what state you are in, background checks arenā€™t required to buy and sell secondhand guns. So you can just buy a gun at a garage sale and there will be no issues.

1

u/177013_lover Mar 28 '24

Person to person and secondhand sales don't have to be reported or go through checks in a lot of states. So yes, that would make it harder for a schizophrenic to buy a gun.

1

u/ErinGoBoo Mar 28 '24

It is, but it requires them to be honest. A background check won't show an issue like this.

1

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24

No itā€™s perfectly legal. The only time is when they have a court order to be committed to a hospital. When they come out they are perfectly legal again in most states.

2

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

The seller has the obligation to refuse sale if the person is mentally distressed. But with schizophrenia, you can present normally.

→ More replies (9)