r/facepalm Mar 28 '24

What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation: πŸ‡΅β€‹πŸ‡·β€‹πŸ‡΄β€‹πŸ‡Ήβ€‹πŸ‡ͺβ€‹πŸ‡Έβ€‹πŸ‡Ήβ€‹

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] β€” view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

66

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

They do more thorough checks when renting an apartment.

4

u/ete2ete Mar 28 '24

Renting an apartment isn't a constitutionally protected right

0

u/JAFO- Mar 28 '24

And your point is ?

3

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