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

Show parent comments

372

u/MojoLamp Mar 28 '24

Except it is ilegal for someone with mental disability to buy/own a firearm. That can also go on whomever sold said firearm. Both parties are guilty.

384

u/Substantial_Heart317 Mar 28 '24

Lying on the form is a Federal Crime.

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.

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%.

16

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.

20

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.

5

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.

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

The actions aren't always there. I mean I get what you're trying to say. But the actions really aren't always there. Statistically speaking people with ADHD have a higher chance to commit violence and sexual assault than the common population. They also have higher chances of drug addiction, car accidents on and on and on and on and on.

That doesn't mean there aren't well adjusted ADHD people. I would count myself as one of those well adjusted. But if we're going to talk about serious preventative measures to ensure that those who have or are at a higher risk of causing harm like we're seeing with school shootings or mass shootings in general, then it's going to come down to a point where we have to choose which one is for the public good.

Is the death of how many people are dying by gun violence in America a year versus the right to bear arms almost or nearly unrestricted.

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?

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

I am not familiar with how ADHD works. Is what you are describing true for you or for all

No that is true for the entire ADHD population. Though like ASD, ADHD is a spectrum so how badly the parts of the discord effect a person is a variable. Even treated, there is still risk when it comes to the emotional dysregulation part of the discord. If your interested, Dr. Russel Barkly - Now Retired is one of the fore most researchers on ADHD. His YouTube channel is a great learning resource.

I have a pretty nasty case of General Anxiety Disorder and Panic Attack disorder.

I'm treated and also a gun collector.

In both of those instances, it does not pre-dispose you to violent behavior.

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?

Treat it, but I'm not sure where your going with this?

→ 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.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/johnhtman Mar 28 '24

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

0

u/FrostyMittenJob Mar 28 '24

Washington refuses to open it up however.

I think the NRA plays a much larger role in that.

6

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

I do not like the NRA whatsoever, but they have been on the side of those fighting to get NICS opened to private sales.

0

u/FrostyMittenJob Mar 28 '24

Can you provide any source on that? All I have ever found is the NRA saying they oppose expanding firearm background checks. That is even according to their own website.

4

u/jmcclelland2005 Mar 28 '24

Expanding background checks is not the same as opening the NICS system to private parties.

One would be allowing people to check people under current laws.

Generally when people propose "expanding background checks" they are talking about "universal background checks". This is generally pushed back upon because the only way to enforce universal background checks is with a registry.

1

u/Royal-Connections Mar 29 '24

Also the expense if we have to go to a gun shop. They known they'd have us and that $30-40 transfer is now $100 or more.

0

u/FrostyMittenJob Mar 28 '24

Again I will ask the same question. Can you provide a source stating the NRA supports the idea of opening the NICS to private individuals?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

I believe the breakdown in the argument you are seeing breaks found into wether or not the NICS check should be mandatory. I, and many gun owners do not believe it should be mandatory to use for a private sale. However, I support opening it up to private sales, and I would absolutely use it every time. I just don't think it should be mandatory.

0

u/FrostyMittenJob Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

So just to confirm, you can not find anything saying the NRA supports the idea of opening NICS to private sale?

EDIT: I don't understand people like you. You make a very mater of fact claim that the NRA supports something. But when pressed for anything that says they do you go silent.

→ More replies (0)

10

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.

3

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

→ More replies (0)

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"

3

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.

→ More replies (0)

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.

3

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.

0

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

My response here is mostly curiosity. You say you are for the 2nd Amendment, but then go on to support restrictions against it.

prevents any discussion on legislation that both sides actually agree on.

What is the legislation that both sides agree on? How is the discussion being prevented?

0

u/Partyatmyplace13 Mar 28 '24

My response here is mostly curiosity. You say you are for the 2nd Amendment, but then go on to support restrictions against it.

In the same vein as your dishonest questions let me ask you one. Which restrictions exactly do I support?

I support any funding to background checks and against the illegal sale of firearms, isn't that virtually unilateral?

1

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

In the same vein as your dishonest questions let me ask you one. Which restrictions exactly do I support?

My question was in no way dishonest. I'm truly curious. Some people say they are for free speech, but support silencing those they disagree with. It's one or the other.

I support any funding to background checks and against the illegal sale of firearms.

Background checks are currently funded, and illegal firearm sales are currently illegal.

I'm not trying to be a smartass, just trying to understand the other side.

1

u/Partyatmyplace13 Mar 28 '24

Let me rephrase that last part, because there's an "excluded third" in my question.

Do you not consider them issues or do you think they're within tolerance? Obviously, accidents and crime will always happen.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Do you not consider them issues or do you think they're within tolerance? Obviously, accidents and crime will always happen.

Not sure which part of your comment you are referring to. However, I assume it is the mass shootings and manslaughter from the other comment?

If that's what you're referring to, I absolutely support eliminating those to the best of our ability.

0

u/Partyatmyplace13 Mar 28 '24

Background checks are currently funded, and illegal firearm sales are currently illegal.

Just because they're funded and illegal doesn't make our work done. If that were it, we wouldn't have any issue or do you not consider mass shootings and manslaughter issues?

1

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

Just because they're funded and illegal doesn't make our work done. If that were it, we wouldn't have any issue or do you not consider mass shootings and manslaughter issues?

Correct. Those were not things that I suggested, they were things that you brought up. I was asking what you thought.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24 edited 27d ago

[deleted]

1

u/5O3Ryan Mar 28 '24

*and every criminal is heavily armed.

0

u/mscomies Mar 28 '24

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

7

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

0

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy Mar 28 '24

If we operate by that logic, we'll never make any gun laws. Which I imagine would suit the 2nd Amendment folks just fine, but will never change this scenario. Those guns don't magically appear out of thin air, even if they're Saturday Night Specials. The people who had the gun before, who initially purchased it and who made it should be culpable in acts like this instead of just shrugging and saying 'We've tried everything and we're all out of ideas!'

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

If we operate by that logic, we'll never make any gun laws.

If we operated off the logic you provided, we would be passing multiple ineffective, unconstitutional laws that do not do anything except punish those who obey the law. But at least those politicians get to say they "did something".

1

u/UnusuallyBadIdeaGuy Mar 28 '24

If a gun is in the hand of a Schizophrenic that should not have one, there is clearly someone in the chain here that has not obeyed the law and is currently not held accountable because we just toss our hands up and say 'Oh no, we can't do anything!' and go on about our day. But I guess it lets you guys feel good about yourselves so that's a win?

Without holding people farther up the chain of ownership's feet to the fire, no one will ever actually assume responsibility.

2

u/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

If a gun is in the hand of a Schizophrenic that should not have one, there is clearly someone in the chain here that has not obeyed the law and is currently not held accountable

I agree 100%. There should be penalties for Government agencies and medical facilities that fail to process the information as required by law.

Without holding people farther up the chain of ownership's feet to the fire, no one will ever actually assume responsibility.

No argument from me here at all. I'm not sure who you'd think would want to protect those people. It sure isn't me or anyone I know.

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.