They missed the part where he has a history of mental health issues and had heard voices telling him to kill people. He should have lost access to his guns.
Which is something gun control typically aims at
It’s something current federal law does and has done for decades. A person who is involuntarily committed to undergo inpatient treatment at a mental health facility by a court of law is classified as a “prohibited person” and cannot own or have access to firearms.
Source link: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/are-there-persons-who-cannot-legally-receive-or-possess-firearms-andor-ammunition
The catch is that a person cannot be deprived of any right without due process - typically a literal day in court. Therefore an individual with mental health problems that have not caused enough trouble to land them in front of a judge can’t be declared a prohibited person.
Due process does not always require a hearing before court action. There are emergency injunctions, ex parte protective orders, temporary restraining orders, certain classes of summary process. When a guy owns assault weapons and is hearing voices, due process can wait a couple weeks.
I believe you missed my use of the word “typically”.
Sorry bud, best I can do is ban suppressors and shotgun pistol grips. At least they won’t be able to shoot you ergonomically.
It’s also the type of legislation thats been applied and immediately abused. So the reason most states don’t have it is that the gov can’t be trusted to have discretion of basic human rights.
Nope, get fucked. You don’t get to insist that actual people get murdered month after month just because you’re capable of imagining legislation being misused.
Even disregarding how deeply fucked in the head it is to be more upset at the idea of a gun owner losing their guns than innocent people losing their lives, you could address that misuse through voting, protest or incremental reforms.
A gun owner losing access to their guns is not a tragedy even remotely comparable to a room full of children mutilated beyond recognition by a legal gun owner and “being able to murder anyone at any time with minimal effort” is not a “basic human right”.
Dude was literally in a mental hospital for a while, wasn’t he?
So according to pro-gun talking points, he should have been completely safe to arm. He received the fabled “mental healthcare” that renders people safe to indiscriminately sell guns to.
Yes, and again there was no enforcement, no gun control anywhere can work without enforcement.
The lack of laws and lack of enforcement both have their roots in pro-gun groups – the people arguing that guns are blameless and everything is a mental health problem.
The problems all stem from the same source.
Or you know, we could only give guns to people that really really need them instead of making a hobby out of it
This is how it was for the first one hundred years of American existence. “Purposive open carry.” Only lawless shit holes had what conservatives want today, habitual open carry. If it was a place with law, open carry without an obvious purpose was a breach of peace.
Ehhhh maybe it’s my American showing, but I’ve known lots of hobbyist clay shooters that are responsible, great people. Not to mention that hunting is more than a hobby to many; it’s a way of life. I don’t think we should police hobbies to that degree. Much moreso, we should have initial and updated background checks on gun owners.
Is every hobbyist clay shooter a good person? Is their hobby worth the lives of innocent people? Not to mention how easy it is to snap and turn bad. It sucks for the good hobbyists but idc if it means less dead children, they can shoot clay with bbs.
Background checks simply don’t work well enough to catch everyone. Mental health issues are hard to spot, it’s not like you can just do a blood test.
Honestly, there are soooo many ways to entertain ourselves in our society, people that center their whole lives around guns need to grow the fuck up imo. Fuck the hobby.
I believe the quote goes, “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
I get the essence of that quote but I feel it falls apart under any scrutiny. Drunk driving laws are widely agreed to be a good idea but that would fall until the category of sacrificing liberty.
And there is exactly where a libertarian’s entire argument falls apart. Rational people obviously know such words are idealistic and hyperbolic, and would ostensibly craft laws to balance personal liberties and public safety. The thing is, there’s a cold truth behind it that is important not to forget or ignore. It hints at the slippery slope of regulation into oppression, and that’s a very real danger to us today as much as it was back then.
No one talks about the slippery slope in the other direction where lack of regulation leads to weekly mass murders. Of course there’s no actual evidence of either of those outcomes happening, right? Right?
But we all already sacrifice our liberty for security constantly. I sacrifice my liberty to bite anyone I want, in order to live in a society where I’m unlikely to be bitten.
It is already federal law that any gun sale going through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL) is required to run a check using the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICs). So initial already yes, updated “if they buy more guns,” but still.
Private sales are legal in some states but if you sell to a prohibited possessor you’re in deep shit so most people will only do so with a CCW card to show you’ve been NICs checked and it hasn’t been confiscated.
Dude you need a to pass a test and have a license for loads of hobbies, people still do them. Even just driving a regular car which is considered a near necessity in some places, we acknowledge that it’s dangerous so you need to pass a test and can have your licence taken away if you are a danger to others.
Sounds like you’ve let the gun lobby tell you what gun control is.
For example in Australia, to buy a gun you first need a firearms license that is granted once you’ve established that you know how to safely handle a firearm, are not a danger to yourself or others, are not a known criminal and have been a member of a club or range for at least 6 months without creeping people out.
From there, your new guns must be registered and you must be able to produce them on request. Handguns and semi-automatic guns are more heavily restricted, in line with them being far more dangerous to the public.
So do you know what you do if you don’t have a license and want to go clay shooting? You book a session at the range and show up.
No license, no background checks, no knowledge of firearms required.
Because do you want to know the dirty little secret the gun lobby has been hiding from you? Gun control advocates don’t actually give a shit if people own or use guns if they never kill, maim or traumatise anyone.
Systems like the one above massively reduce the supply of guns to criminals, the number of mass shootings, accidental deaths, suicides, domestic violence homicides.
Meanwhile, in America, the pro-gun crowds ideal gun laws can’t even stop a teenager with a history of death threats, rape threats and animal abuse from legally buying two semi automatic weapons, mere days before he used them to kill a room full of children.
That’s what gun control is trying to stop and what the pro-gun community inadvertently fights to keep.
I wasn’t aware that hunting was a hobby created after the invention of assault rifles. Pretty sure hunting has been a way of life since forever so I don’t think gun control is going to destroy that hobby.
How can you honestly be arguing hobbies are more important than doing something to protect human lives?
There are hunters in every country, gun control laws account for them. They’re rarely the problems though accidents do occur.
I mean, a law doesn’t have to stop every criminal to be useful, if gun control causes any significant reduction in shooting deaths, it will have saved lives, even if some shootings still occur.
Gun control arguments almost always include things like mental health care and annual health reviews to prevent things like this
Edit: had a bit of a stroke in the middle of that sentence
You’re hinting at universal healthcare, and that’s socialism, boy!
Gun control arguments almost never include topics like this. It would be great if they did but you are kidding yourself if you think gun control proponents push for stuff like this on the regular.
Well, might as well allow everyone to drive cars unrestrictedly since some crazy fucks every once in a while decide to DUI or drive without a license. Nothing can go wrong, right?
Cars are generally not used in self defense
Sure they are. Look at the car-jacking numbers in countries with gun control. They literally just lock the doors and drive away.
Sorry if that’s not bloodthirsty enough for you but we’re not obligated to tolerate monthly mass shootings just because you get a hard on thinking about your “get out of murder free” card.
Did you really think people were going to line up to suck you off for protecting yourself from the gun violence you’ve enabled?
Wow. I’m not even interested in engaging in such a vulgar discussion. Call me when you get your shit under control and are ready to have an adult discussion.
You’re in a 4chan community, commenting on a screenshot that almost certainly had photos of the murdered men, women and children just off screen, trying to dismiss their killing because “self defense” and your play is pearl clutching?
I hate to break it to you, but I’m not interested in your tone policing, nor your “adult discussion”.
What a shit take. -E. I miss read the comment. My apologies.
Found the gun nut.
Oh fuck, no sorry I completely misread what you wrote. I apologize for that. Gun regulation is very important!
What I’m getting from this post is that the only way for gun control to work is a complete gun ban. I don’t think that’s what the user was wanting
Lol. Lmao even.
Ridiculously dumb take
Exactly why we need to address the issues that are driving people to the edge instead of just banning stuff like that’ll work.
Banning stuff… like guns? Like every other developed nation has done? Which works?
Many countries have not banned guns but instead have proper mental health.
Canada has neither, but does have more strict laws regarding guns. Could be stricter I some ways though.
But you’re not going with the heckin narrativerino!!! Nvm Switzerland actively encourages gun ownership, or Czechia has the same constitutional right to bear arms we do (to fight off invaders like the soviets and nazis due to historical events, hm sounds familiar) or Norway still allowing gun ownership after taking tests and showing competency!!!
The heckin narrativerino!!! All social democrat nations have banned guns!!! The UK is a nation we should be mimicking!!!
Fuck these losers, make citizens lives better. Remember they can’t take your rights if they have to take your life first.
they can’t take your rights if they have to take your life first
“The US is turning fascist and the trains come next!”
I know. I’m old, have a fair grasp of history and have seen some scary fucking changes.
“Give us your guns!”
Well, no, I won’t.
“Tough guy! You gonna actually fight back?!”
Well, yes, I’m old. When you’re nearing end of days, it’s not as scary. I won’t seek a fight, I am a peaceful man. I am not harmless.
I agree with everything you said but holy fuck you sound obnoxious
This topic just sincerely pisses me off when people with the understanding of guns is equal to that of a toddler begin speaking. If you want to make something your enemy, at LEAST understand it.
I live in Switzerland and have never once seen any encouragement to buy guns.
I literally can’t figure out what your point is from that incoherent rant
“Hey America, I know you guys are having a domestic terrorism issue: so why don’t we make the people that contribute to society in a positive way less able to defend themselves?”
It’s like you guys willfully ignore that there are literal fascists in this country that will not give up their guns.
On a very minor technicality, since society is a group of people, every person in that group contributes to society. Some of them contribute negatively to society but it is still technically a contribution.
All of that aside, given the recent state of human society, I feel like making property owners into felons for owning property that they legally purchased would only incentivize them to commit more felonious acts.
making property owners into felons for owning property that they legally purchased
I have a .22 “rifle”. Same gun as pictured, but shorter barrel with a stupid “handicap” stock to make it legal. After 14+ million of us bought one, the ATF said, “Nope. You’re a felon.” Aight. Mine stays in the safe at my private camp.
And what did we gain here? We took a .22LR, that constantly jams, and made me a felon for owning a thing I bought legally.
would only incentivize them to commit more felonious acts
Well, I don’t know about that, but I certainly have less respect for gun laws now.
And for you “high-capacity” mag banners; All of my guns, including this one, actually work far better with smaller mags. So… thanks for legislating that my gun makes killing more efficient?
Edited to account for the technicality.
You got a loicense for that knife bruv?
Knoife* FTFY
I’m 52. Guess what we had and didn’t have when I was a kid.
-
Plenty of guns, and even laxer laws (excepting conceal carry!).
-
No mass shootings.
To be fair, I should include the mental health thing. I remember watching MTv as a teen in the late 80’s and they made a big thing of homelessness. I figured it had always been an issue but people ignored it and, as a kid, I was just then finding out.
Yeah, turns out we shut down our mental health centers. Probably a correlation there.
Let’s not forget crushing the middle and lower classes, taking away things for them to live for. That doesn’t cause you to hear voices but it certainly can’t help.
you could have said less mass shootings
No mass shootings though, that’s not true at allDid you look at that link?! Scrolling through this century, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll…
And let’s define “mass shooting”. We have to at least agree that the definition is all over the place, and wildly different. And not, the wildly liberal source Mother Jones is on the far left. :) 6 or 818?
And I’m not hammering a technicality. What we think when we think “mass shooting” is clearly on the left of the chart.
Anyhow, shootings are clearly worse, despite more guns laws. (Excepting conceal carry laws! The gun people won’t admit it, but those laws have exploded!)
What’s your point? I literally can’t figure it out
-
What was he doing with a usable bolt in that weapon? We typically had to sign them out for the one day a week we needed them on-base. And there’s No Way a reservist would have something like that.
deleted by creator
It’s no gun control (read=the absence of gun control), it’s mental health, it’s poverty. It’s not taking care of your citizens.
(self removed)
What ? no, I agree it’s the lack of gun control AND all those other things. Perhaps my wording, sorry.
The states is fucked, but if you think other countries dont have problems with mental health and poverty, but maybe 1 mass shooting in the last 50 years, then I dont know what to tell you
I never said that ?
You said that mental health and poverty was the key reason you have so many spree shootings, its not, its how easy it is to access guns in the states
Yeah I listed that first
You know what, fair enough. Sorry for the combativeness
