• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Being found incompetent generally removes your right to have a gun. Why did he have a gun? Why wasn’t it taken away?

      If the laws we have aren’t enforced, then passing more laws isn’t going to help.

      • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most guns used in crimes are stolen, bought on the street, taken from a relative, etc.

        So it’s probably pretty easy to get a gun in the circles this guy moved in.

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          That’s usually the case. Which means passing yet more laws without enforcement is not going to have an effect on a group that overall ignores the law.

          • RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            TL;DR - gun owners are creating the very problem they claim to need firearms to defend themselves against, but resist any possible regulation between themselves and their toys and are quite happy to let society pay for their unfettered right.

            I’ve had guns my entire life. The only laws that will make any sense are requirements to secure firearms and making gun owners responsible for crimes committed with said firearms should they not be secured. A somewhat distant third would be capacity limits on magazines…seriously, I’ve had shit tons of fun shooting with 3 round mags or 5 round stripper clips. Nobody needs 15, 25+ round mags. At that point it’s a toy the owner is accessorizing. I’ve done more than one deep dive into the statistics regarding firearm use in crimes, and as I previously mentioned, the vast majority of firearms used are taken/stolen. Grabbed from a relative’s closet. People leave guns under car seats, glove boxes, truck door pockets, countertops, closets, wherever they either left them out of laziness or some fear they make up to justify them accessible in an instant. Theft is a fact of life. There’s never been a civilization without it. Homes and cars will be broken in to and guns stolen. Those guns directly used or sold on the street to be used in crimes. Now the gun owner washes their hands of the gun on the street and goes and buys more to defend against the criminals that stole their stuff. Rinse and repeat.

            If people can afford hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of firearms, they can afford a safe. They can afford to not be dumbasses and not leave unsecured firearms where little Johnny can find it and shoot himself, where Tyler doesn’t have the safe code to grab a couple handguns and shoot up his school, where some dude doesn’t steal the guns out of the pickup and then go shoot a store clerk for $ or the other drug dealer on his turf. Failure to secure said firearm gets a nasty charge, like accessory to deadly assault or something. I’m tired of gun owners’ who think gun control stops as soon a a they leave the range and that leave the rest of society to pay the deadly price for their toys.

            • Kelsenellenelvial
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Lots of Canada’s laws are a little extreme to me, but they cover a lot that you said. Restricted firearms need an extra permit that requires personal references, and must be double locked(like a locked case in a locked safe, or trigger lock plus locked case) during storage and transportation, and we limit magazine sizes. Lots of our gun crime involves firearms purchased legally in the US that make their way here on the black market, so I’m in favour of the US tightening up their gun control.