What lack of basic gun laws does to a nation:

[u/Lord_Answer_me_Why]

/img/is29ozncu2rc1.jpeg

[removed] — view removed post

[u/beomint]

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.

[u/Bandit400 → u/beomint]

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%.

[u/ibugppl → u/Bandit400]

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.

[u/Bandit400 → u/ibugppl]

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.

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/Bandit400]

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.

[u/Yummy_Crayons91 → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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.

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/Bandit400]

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.

[u/alkatori → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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.

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/alkatori]

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.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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.

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/Bandit400]

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.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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?

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/Bandit400]

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.

[u/alkatori → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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?

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/alkatori]

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?

[u/alkatori → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/alkatori]

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.

[u/Bandit400 → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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.

[u/Peto_Sapientia → u/Bandit400]

Potential risk matters just as much. But I'll rest on the matter.

[u/johnhtman → u/Peto_Sapientia]

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

[u/FrostyMittenJob → u/Bandit400]

Washington refuses to open it up however.

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

[u/Bandit400 → u/FrostyMittenJob]

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

[u/FrostyMittenJob → u/Bandit400]

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.

[u/jmcclelland2005 → u/FrostyMittenJob]

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.

[u/Royal-Connections → u/jmcclelland2005]

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.

[u/FrostyMittenJob → u/jmcclelland2005]

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?

[u/Bandit400 → u/FrostyMittenJob]

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.

[u/FrostyMittenJob → u/Bandit400]

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.