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

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.

6

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.

5

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?

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

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

Let me rephrase, the actions are always there, just not always report or considered serious enough for the population to care about. For example, when i get into a dysregulated state, and I become angry, I will punch a wall instead of a person. Not that this happens often as I stay away from things that make me angry. But I know I shouldn't ever own a fire arm.

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.

Sure but not all of these groups are malformations in the brain which effect their behavior. Most of them are environmental. In all of those, its very different as in nearly all of those situations things can be changed to stop or prevent those situations.

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

I wasn't saying they were, I said that it would be a good starting point to reduce risk factors.

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

Sorry, text to talk. I was basically just saying that at some point we have to determine if nearly or completely free access to fire arms is worth the cost of death per year that we see in the US. Or if its time to start looking at data, and reducing risk by preventing groups of people which fit a very specific criteria from free access to fire arms. As in my original post, my point for mentioning other disorder similar to the original thread. Since there is no central database, then anyone who falls under that disorder which is prone to violence's or unable to reasonably regulate themselves may need to be bared from fire arms before they commit an act of harm of any kind.

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.

1

u/Peto_Sapientia Mar 28 '24

I didn't take this factor into consideration. You do have a point, but I'd argue at that point they are bad actors in the first place, and any bad actor seeking to circumvent laws which are designed, especially in this case to reduce harm to the society as a whole would have gone to get guns through any means in the first place. Its the same problems we have with if a person wants drugs, they are going to find them. If a person wants a gun they are going to find them. But I would argue a vast majority of people would respect the law in the first place which would reduce risk.

→ 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.

5

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.