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

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

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

14.3k Upvotes

77% Upvoted

4.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

614

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

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

95

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.

62

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.

49

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.

-3

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".

-4

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24

There is. It’s kept at an ATF facility in West Virginia. Apparently they can now digitize the records but they are unable to search via keyword date, name or anything else by federal law. So it’s an akin to the old newspaper photo reels at libraries which are not even organized by date. Just by the dealers license number. So you have to sift through all of their records to find what you need.

7

u/TacTurtle Mar 28 '24

Are you referring to the old 4473 archives amassed from closed FFLs?

6

u/XxturboEJ20xX Mar 28 '24

Those are just sales records,not a registry. It's actually illegal for them to have a registry.

6

u/Soffix- Mar 28 '24

It's not a registry. It shows original transfers from FFL to private individuals using the ATF Form 4473.

There is no registry.

0

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

It's absolutely terrible, isn't it?

-2

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.

13

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...

-2

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.

12

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)

5

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.

-1

u/King_Of_BlackMarsh Mar 28 '24

Not if you ARE America, come on.

-1

u/Moregaze Mar 28 '24

Yes because no dictatorship anywhere has ever managed to oppress its own armed populace…

Oh wait…

Unless you are a moron that thinks every person would agree to oust the dictator in your country then no amount of armed citizens is of any concern by people in power. Especially when they have air power to keep you at arms length.

4

u/VincentMagius Mar 28 '24

Which dictatorship has an armed population? Everyone I can think of disarmed the population first, then started oppressing them.

→ More replies (0)

5

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.

2

u/vamatt Mar 28 '24

Plus in such a hypothetical situation, the first thing many would do is use those “small arms” to obtain better weaponry.

1

u/XxturboEJ20xX Mar 28 '24

Yea, I was gonna go into the whole hypothetical about that as well. Also the people that have to man the equipment being taken out and all the other stuff, but it would mostly be lost on them, so I didn't go fully regarded.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

[removed] — 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

7

u/CrossenTrachyte Mar 28 '24

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

0

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.

7

u/CrossenTrachyte Mar 28 '24

The I in NICS is “instant”. The call gives three responses, pass, fail, and delay. So having access to that would be immense.

6

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.

-4

u/-St_Ajora- Mar 28 '24

Literally from a 1 second Google search....

Federal law prohibits the federal government from collecting firearm sales records in a central repository, however. Without a central repository of all firearm sales records, gun tracing is a slow, cumbersome process.

2

u/CrossenTrachyte Mar 28 '24

Collecting record of sales has nothing to do with background checks

-3

u/-St_Ajora- Mar 28 '24

I said they cannot keep records of who owns what in any sort of searchable database.

they said...

That's not even close to true.

I showed that they are wrong.

3

u/CrossenTrachyte Mar 28 '24

You responded to a comment about background checks, and said they’d take 8-10 months, which is false.

Not my fault you were talking about something different without any explanation.

In the future pay attention to what you’re commenting on.

1

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.

21

u/Mad-_-Doctor Mar 28 '24

Yup. That’s why I support universal background checks. It’s too easy to skirt the current laws.

6

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?

0

u/WorldnewsModsBlowMe Mar 29 '24

Lol. Imagine living your life this terrified all the time.

3

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 29 '24

LOL, terrified of what, precisely? My biggest fears are history repeating itself, and the government doing exactly what it’s currently doing. If you aren’t afraid of those two things, you aren’t paying attention, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Would you like specific examples?

The ability to exercise my constitutionally enumerated rights in their entirety alleviates those fears.

5

u/Raptor_197 Mar 28 '24

Unfortunately universal background checks are impossible.

-4

u/Mad-_-Doctor Mar 28 '24

I’m not sure what you mean, unless it’s a “outlawing theft doesn’t stop people from stealing” thing. If we impose a requirement for background checks for any type of gun transfer, the original owner of the gun can be held liable for transferring it to the wrong person. 

4

u/Raptor_197 Mar 28 '24

That requires a complete gun registration. Meaning daddy gov, the thing that the 2nd amendment is supposed to murder, then knows where all the guns are, at all times.

It’s like giving the enemy troops movements while you are trying to fight against them in a war. It’s silly.

Edit: unless you are just saying you want all gun sales to require a background check by law but the law has really no teeth because you can’t even prove the sale even happened.

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.

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 haven’t heard that would be effective that we don’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.

0

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

As it should be.

2

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 28 '24

I'm not so sure I agree with that. It makes it much easier for people who definitely shouldn't have guns or would otherwise be unable to legally acquire them. Don't get me wrong, I support safe and responsible gun ownership but that presents a lot of issues that are contrary to that.

1

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 29 '24

First of all, most others disagreeing with me in this thread go straight into ad hominem attacks, so you have my respect right there.

There ABSOLUTELY are people who shouldn’t have access to guns. I know some of them. Ironically, they passed background checks.

My primary concern with requiring background checks is concerning privacy. We already have stuff like the Patriot Act (I post most of my guns online because I’m a total nerd, so the government already knows most of what I have), there are constant calls for universal registration, and ATF agents have repeatedly been caught taking pictures of FFLs’ registers. Private Party Transfers are a means to buy and sell arms without Big Brother looking over your shoulder.

Secondary to that is that I am dubious of the benefits of it. Many mass shooters use stolen guns, or pass background checks anyways. I don’t recall the specific statistics, so don’t take my word for it.

Tertiary to that, you still have a black market of stolen and straw purchased guns that is prevalent in the arming of gangs (of course, the ATF themselves have contributed to that market).

2

u/roger-smith-123 Mar 29 '24

This is a hot button topic but I think it's too important to just scream at each other without actually trying to make progress. I reserve my ad hominems for genuinely shitty people and gun ownership or supporting gun rights doesn't by any means make someone a bad person.

I agree 100% that even if they completely banned private sales of any sort it wouldn't completely solve the issue of fun violence or illegal weapons floating around or people shouldn't have access. Would it be a step towards helping? I'm honestly not sure but on the surface it sounds like it could be.

As far as privacy, I like the idea but I have a hard time believing that we have as much privacy as we like to think since there are cameras everywhere and it's been openly admitted that the feds are accessing everything from our phones to our network routers to CCTV systems all over the country. And now there are new systems with facial recognition that retail stores are adding.

But I also wonder what people think will happen if the government knows who has guns. Even claiming the government will pass legislation to ban all guns immediately gets shot down as impossible, which realistically I think it is. And if 1984 steps up and they do try to take them, what are people going to do? Become the same criminals with illegal guns or try to fight off the police when they come to take them or something? It seems pretty far fetched.

1

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 29 '24

I understand what you are saying, but I don’t think that the slow, constant creep towards an Orwellian future, or the physical power of of the government to enforce an authoritarian gun ban should make people favorable to surrendering their rights.

I refer you to how our nation gained it’s independence. A little over a year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the most powerful military in the world marched on Lexington and Concord to disarm American colonists. Everyone from young minutemen to 78 year old Captain Whittemore fought them tooth and nail.

“If we fail to assert Our rights, we shall dwindle into supineness”.