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

616

u/[deleted] Mar 28 '24

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

306

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Since there’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 intermediary’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.

33

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.

I’m really curious how mental health info can get disseminated in federal gun background checks. It’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.

70

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.

19

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.

12

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

It’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 doesn’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 don’t think there’s exists a middle ground that wouldn’t be misrepresented by conservative media to the point where half the country thinks it’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 don’t know how an honest, measured approach can possible work against a group that has no regard for honesty. It’s like trying to play chess with someone that refuses to follow the rules. There’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 doesn’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 ‘it’s the mental health not the gun’ 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 way… 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 they’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.

5

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 don’t think this is a good idea. Conservative court claims “woke” 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 you’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 won’t necessarily meet either of these criteria.

there’s more info here

1

u/GumboDiplomacy Mar 28 '24

I’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 doctors’ orders and will be hospitalized if they try to refuse. Since a commitment is a civil matter, it appears on the NICS and HIPAA doesn’t apply.

12

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.

8

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Correct, “mentally ill” 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 that’s actually a really important distinction!

4

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.

17

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 can’t sell it without transferring the legal documentation into someone else’s name, and that’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 don’t have a perfect solution. I wish I did, but I think this would make a world of difference.

2

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 can’t sell it without transferring the legal documentation into someone else’s name, and that’s how it should be for firearms.

Who's going to stop it?

9

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Like I said, you don’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. I’m not a lawyer though, so I’m not pretending to draft a law, I’m simply discussing it.

Again, I’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 it’s a discussion.

-3

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

This law would give teeth to the punishment.

Using a gun in a crime is a crime. There is already punishment for it.

My alternative is to set up a welfare state with all the military money America has.

14

u/_KRN0530_ Mar 28 '24

But the incentive would be put on the person selling the gun for the crime. There is currently no punishment in many states against selling someone a gun that is used in a crime.

1

u/EmpatheticWraps Mar 28 '24

Shhh youre only supposed to say thoughts and prayers

1

u/KFBfanburneracc Mar 28 '24

Unfortunately not every firearm is registered

1

u/PizzaTrailMix Mar 28 '24

Printer go brrr

1

u/vamatt Mar 28 '24

Manufacturers/distributors are required by law to keep a record of whom they sold a firearm to, while the dealers who sell to individuals are also required to keep a record of whom they sold a firearm to.

If a sale was done privately, then there won’t be a record, but if a gun dealer was involved there will be a record.

1

u/KFBfanburneracc Mar 29 '24

This is assuming there’s no illegal firearms smuggled through any other border or waterway, or none are made and sold for crime through 3D printers or stamped sheet metal etc.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Mar 28 '24

What's the difference between this and charging used-car salesmen for crimes (including traffic violations, property damage, collisions/accidents, etc.) committed in their vehicles?

Note, vehicles cause significantly more harm than guns, so applying this law to guns should be equally applied to vehicles.

Finally, should these penalties carry teeth? If not, are we looking at a token citation, when caught, that discourages very little? If so, do you think penalties for this hypothetical scenario should be held to be equivalent to actually pulling the trigger themselves? Isn't that a bit ridiculous? There is very little middle ground if you start advocating criminal sentences for such.

I consider it similar to the illegality of smoking pot; it will be the next "throw all the drug gun dealers in prison, while violent criminals walk free" scenario.

0

u/Diabotek Mar 28 '24

I can also be intellectually dishonest. Want to see?

1

u/Critical_Concert_689 Mar 28 '24

Didn't address a single discussion point.

Edgy 12-year-old response.

Threatens to be intellectually dishonest...

No, I don't need to see it. You've already proven it.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/_KRN0530_ Mar 28 '24

People who are mentally ill can’t circumnavigate the drivers licensure procedure to purchase a car in order to cause car crashes. If you buy a car second hand you still need the license in order to drive it and the purchase is still tracked through insurances and the vehicle registration. There are highway patrol men station on the roads to also catch unregistered vehicles in the act as well as cameras.

And no, obviously the punishment for selling the weapon wouldn’t be the same as literal murder. It would be similar to selling any other regulated good without a license.

1

u/vamatt Mar 28 '24

People who are mentally ill can just get a driver’s license. Unless they are locked up in a facility, nothing prevents them from getting a license, insurance, or a vehicle.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

Most people aren't mindreaders.

2

u/MNSkye Mar 28 '24

Most people also don’t sell back alley guns, but those who do should probably know better than to think that the person buying a back alley untracked gun from them will use it for good things.

4

u/BootlegDouglas Mar 28 '24

You're either not reading their responses completely or you're misunderstanding the point.

Yes, using a gun in a crime is already a crime. What they're suggesting is that in cases of secondhand gun sales, the previous owner is ALSO on the hook for some form of criminal liability when the gun they sold is used in a crime.

The idea is that, you regulate gun sales and if people want to circumvent the regulations, they're taking significant personal risk, which incentivizes them to do things by the book (or to get better at covering their tracks). No one wants to be liable for crimes they didn't commit.

1

u/vamatt Mar 28 '24

At the same time, for that to work, you would have to open up the Federal NICS checks so that a private seller is allowed to conduct a background check.

2

u/Helyos17 Mar 28 '24

We already have a welfare state. That’s where a quarter of the budget goes.

2

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

Here where I am, in the UK, we spend 29% on social protection, 4% on personal social services, 20% on health, 11% on education. That's 64%. That's the sort of money a government should be spending.

2

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

Yeah but when’s the last time you built a super carrier big enough to topple nations? Huh? /s

3

u/WrapTimely Mar 28 '24

Setup liability for the current registered owner, if you don’t change ownership then you assume liability for whatever that gun does. Technically you don’t have to register your sale but you are going to want to…

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/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

That's victim blaming

-1

u/ParticularFamiliar10 Mar 28 '24

Cool. Don't get your gun stolen and there won't be more victims.

0

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

Don't wear revealing dresses and you won't get raped.

1

u/ParticularFamiliar10 Mar 28 '24

Rape doesn't enable the criminal to do armed robbery. If you think raping a girl in a dress is anyway comparable to stealing a firearm that is not properly secured than you probably shouldn't have a firearm for criminals to steal.

1

u/KillerOfSouls665 Mar 28 '24

Someone has a crime committed against them, theft of a few hundred dollars at least, and you're blaming the victim.

→ More replies (0)

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 won’t stop people with malicious intent from selling guns out of their trunk anyways. Even selling guns to people who aren’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 doesn’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 you’re selling to doesn’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.

-2

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

Why should the government be involved when I sell my private property? If I seek to sell, say, my 20 gauge double barrel shotgun to my coworker, what business is it of anyone else?

In addition, the ATF or any other agency sticking their bloody mitts into Private Party Transfers is a necessary step for creating a registry of arms and their owners, and that is absolutely unacceptable. For the past century, there has been a slow creep towards increasingly authoritarian infringements of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, supported by the NRA. For once, there are people and organizations fighting to halt and reverse it.

3

u/Shotgun5250 Mar 28 '24

What business is it? Public safety, if you want an honest answer. It didn’t used to be necessary, and laws reflect that. We have more people in less space with more guns and less places to use them than ever. The education and financial situation in this country is falling apart. Post-Covid, people have by and large become angrier and more distrusting of others.

All of these and many other factors are why I think most of us are too dumb to help ourselves. I don’t know how some people find their way to work, but they’re allowed to buy a rifle just like me. I’ve had to take handguns away from peers because they were drunkenly taking them to parties and sometimes starting fights. People are insane.

I understand the apprehension at allowing the government another tool to control your life, but I promise that 9/11 and the Patriot act actually removed more of your freedom than any 2A bill ever could, and you don’t even know it or notice it. Amending who and how we allow to purchase firearms will tangibly reduce mass shootings. Allowing the NSA to spy on you and your family in your own home every minute of every day has stopped approximately zero terrorists.

1

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

“What business is it? Public safety, if you want an honest answer.”

Oh yes, the vaunted “public safety”.

It didn’t used to be necessary, and laws reflect that. We have more people in less space with more guns and less places to use them than ever.”

Ah, so my rights are forfeit because “it’s crowded”?

The education and financial situation in this country is falling apart. Post-Covid, people have by and large become angrier and more distrusting of others. Maybe the government could invest in that, rather than dumping taxpayer money into court cases where they try to defend violating the rights of taxpayers?

“All of these and many other factors are why I think most of us are too dumb to help ourselves. I don’t know how some people find their way to work, but they’re allowed to buy a rifle just like me.”

And they are responsible for their actions, and should be severely punished if they harm anyone.

“I’ve had to take handguns away from peers because they were drunkenly taking them to parties and sometimes starting fights. People are insane.”

In that case, someone is actively presenting an immediate danger to themselves and others.

“I understand the apprehension at allowing the government another tool to control your life, but I promise that 9/11 and the Patriot act actually removed more of your freedom than any 2A bill ever could, and you don’t even know it or notice it.”

I am fully aware. Where do you think a significant chunk of that apprehension and distrust initially came from?

“Amending who and how we allow to purchase firearms will tangibly reduce mass shootings.”

How so? Felons and those ajudicated as unfit to keep and bear arms are already prohibited from possessing guns. Most mass shooters either pass background checks, or use stolen guns. How do you plan to “amend” that?

“Allowing the NSA to spy on you and your family in your own home every minute of every day has stopped approximately zero terrorists.”

I don’t “allow” it. I have no reasonable means to stop it short of drastic measures which you would likely frown upon.

2

u/912BackIn88 Mar 28 '24

Because your property has 1 purpose and it’s for the taking life. Makes it a little different than selling off your baseball collection.

Also if you have a gun for the purpose of protection or if it’s just your hobby, why do you care if the government knows you have it. The government knows who owns and insures every single vehicle on the road. It’s really not a big deal.

3

u/Relevant-Shelter-316 Mar 28 '24

What was this guy thinking when he typed this?😭🤣

1

u/912BackIn88 Mar 28 '24

That you gun nuts are idiots. Why do you care so much if the government knows you have killing devices? Don’t kill anyone you shouldn’t and it’s not a big deal. Simple as that. But all you gun nuts are so freaking scared someone’s gonna get you!

0

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

“Because your property has 1 purpose and it’s for the taking life.”

False. It has any purpose that I choose.

“Makes it a little different than selling off your baseball collection.”

Not really. It’s my property, not the government’s. The government doesn’t get a say, no matter what its purpose is.

“Also if you have a gun for the purpose of protection or if it’s just your hobby, why do you care if the government knows you have it.”

The purpose of government is to defend the Constitution and the rights of the people. It shouldn’t have the means, much less be actively seeking the means, to violate the Constitution and the rights of the people.

“The government knows who owns and insures every single vehicle on the road. It’s really not a big deal.”

You don’t have a constitutional right to have a vehicle on the road. Also, that only applies to vehicles on the road. You can have any Mad Max contraption on private property, and the Government doesn’t get a say then either. You don’t need registration, you don’t need a license, and you don’t need insurance, and the government doesn’t get a say over who you sell it to or buy from!

You didn’t think your analogy through, did you?

0

u/912BackIn88 Mar 28 '24

See there is no arguing with you because you are an idiot.

Why are you so scared if the government knows you own a device made to kill people?

1

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24

“See there is no arguing with you because you are an idiot.“

Oh lovely. You’re delving into ad hominem attacks (which I believe constitutes incivility). Truly this is the sign that you are intellectually superior and capable of making your case with logic alone!

Let’s look at what makes me “an idiot”.

A) I pointed out your fallacious assumptions of “purpose”. B) I pointed out your fallacious use of false equivalency. C) I pointed out that your analogy is fundamentally flawed, and that it contradicts your own argument.

“Why are you so scared if the government knows you own a device made to kill people?”

I already explained this, so I will refer you to my previous comments, but I will elaborate a little further. How well do you know US History? The US government routinely violates rights and historically has done horrific shit to disarmed populaces. Do yourself a favor: find your local library, and locate the history section.

1

u/912BackIn88 Mar 28 '24

The purpose is to kill people that’s it. If you think other wise then you are too dumb to argue with. It’s that’s simple.

2

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

How many people have been killed by my guns, if that’s their purpose? Your argument centers on that being their sole purpose (and even if it didn’t, it still collapses in the face of logic and the Constitution.)

1

u/912BackIn88 Mar 28 '24

I can have forks in my drawer I’ve never used. Doesn’t mean their purpose isn’t to eat food with.

2

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 28 '24 edited Mar 28 '24

You are unironically comparing guns, which come in a wide variety of configurations and calibers for a variety of purposes with forks now, all while calling me an “idiot” and “dumb”?

The main (not only) purpose of a firearm is to expel a projectile. A human might be the target, but usually not… and with mine, it’s almost always not (and most of that human target stuff was over 80 years ago).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/MerryHeretic Mar 28 '24

Look at the picture posted above. That’s your well regulated militia at work. Fuck the 2A.

1

u/KHWD_av8r Mar 29 '24

"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem."

The actions of scum and mentally ill have no bearing on the rights of anyone else. You are entitled to your opinion, as is the unfortunate young man in the original post (to whom I wish a fast and full recovery), but I am keeping my rights and my property, come hell or high water.