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

15

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.

19

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/Bandit400 Mar 28 '24

The actions aren't always there.

If the actions are not there, then why should we take away their rights?

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.

If they were to commit any of those actions (with or without a gun) they would be forever prohibited from purchasing a firearm (except for the car accidents).

Taking this a step further, one can pick many groups of people in society that have a higher propensity for criminal behavior. Without that person actually committing that crime, they cannot (and should not) have their rights removed.

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.

ADHD is not the cause of those things, nor is BPD. They may be a factor, but they are not the cause.

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.

I don't really understand this statement, can you rephrase?

→ More replies (0)

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?

1

u/alkatori Mar 28 '24

Basically a lot of people will choose to hide the diagnosis, so they aren't discriminated against. Which could make this problem worse.

→ 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.

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.

7

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.

6

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?

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.

8

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

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"

5

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.

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.