this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2023
316 points (83.9% liked)

4chan

4248 readers
109 users here now

Greentexts, memes, everything 4chan.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 185 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Cheems@lemmy.world 82 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Which is something gun control typically aims at

[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 1 year ago

I believe you missed my use of the word "typically".

[–] skulkingaround@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sorry bud, best I can do is ban suppressors and shotgun pistol grips. At least they won't be able to shoot you ergonomically.

[–] threeduck@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago

Ouch my ligaments.

No more murderin' for meeee

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 20 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Dude was literally in a mental hospital for a while, wasn't he?

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, and again there was no enforcement, no gun control anywhere can work without enforcement.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Or you know, we could only give guns to people that really really need them instead of making a hobby out of it

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Zoomboingding@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] Grimy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Meissnerscorpsucle@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

as someone who has unfortunately had to use a firearm to protect the life of myself and my family, all I hear is "it would be better if you where dead"

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.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] eguidarelli@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Obi@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 year ago

There are hunters in every country, gun control laws account for them. They're rarely the problems though accidents do occur.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com -2 points 1 year ago

He should have been in a cage.