Gun violence is a public health crisis, says surgeon general
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- U.S. Surgeon General Vivek H. Murthy declared gun violence a public health crisis Tuesday and called on the nation to address it with the same vigor used to reduce deaths and injuries from tobacco and motor vehicle crashes.
The surgeon general’s advisory marked the first time the nation’s leading voice on public health - the same office that in the 1960s highlighted the lethal consequences of cigarette smoking - had issued an urgent pronouncement on deaths related to firearms. The 39-page advisory underscores the significant physical and mental toll of gun violence on communities nationwide.
Overall, deaths caused by guns rose to a three-decade high in 2021, driven by increases in homicides and suicides, the advisory says. In 2022, more than half of all gun deaths were from suicide, while 40 percent of firearms deaths were homicides.
You know it is serious when he doesnt even take the time to mention the Bulletin Board
he's just letting it sit there in the background
Lurking
Watching
He's using an unofficial poll as an argument for making more tyrannical laws, I doubt He's smart enough to notice
@@samuraitadpole5459”tyrannical laws”… dam I didn’t know that making sure people aren’t insane before selling them a gun was tyrannical, also I just need to go hunting with my AR15.
Side note when I was in high school I had to instances of guns being brought to school it’s fucking scary the guns where obtained legally and I think that makes it worse. We need a way to solve this, more European countries dont have this problem ☑️
how in the world is it tyrannical to not want people do die from uncontrolled guns?
Are you really saying we should have WEAPONS UNREGULATED in America when just this past year there has been 630 gun shootings in the past year?
@@samuraitadpole5459Tyranny is when people don’t have to fear getting shot out in public? Children don’t have to fear going to school?
@RandomTH-camvids-bl7sc making self defense harder for the average person isn't tyrannical? Wonder how Mexicans feel about the lack of self defense measures against the cartel.
People used to bring guns to highschool all the time, it was sitting in their truck window or they had shooting classes so why is it in the time of social media and processed food do people now wanna end others?
There are people driving through crowds ending a bunch of people so we should ban vehicles
American democracy at its finest. 80% and still nothing happened
Democracy cannot remove constitutional rights.
The US Is not a democracy.
Our government is best categorized as a Democratic Republic.
Factually incorrect as the constitution has been changed and parts removed multiple times via the process of representative democracy@@Dan-lq6dg
@@Dan-lq6dgyou might want to reread the constitution. That's exactly what it can
@@Dan-lq6dgThis is not accurate, if it were amendments would be impossible. Secondly, no document, person is infallible that's why they have provisions for the procedure for amendement so that should something no longer be valid, acceptable, tenable, or in the eyes of a sufficient number of legislators "representing" their constituency any and all laws can be changed even the constitution.
Semi- automatic weapons are like 90% of the firearms currently being sold. Unless it's a bolt action rifle, it's a semi-automatic.
Most modern revolvers are semi-auto as well.
@americancapitalist9094 *double action... Not semi-auto. There is a difference.
@Sure_You_Betcha semi-auto is simply pull the trigger once, a single shot comes out, not several, no need to pull back a bolt. The fire rate is how fast you can pull the trigger. Most revolvers fit that description. It may also be double action, but by the criteria of semi-auto, most revolvers are semi-auto.
@thomasraymond7912 incorrect... kind of... semi-auto also requires the energy of the firearm firing to cycle the action... Almost no revolvers fit that description. Thus, they are double action.
Goes to show how many people actually know wtf they are voting for. Unless they do want to ban 99% of firearms which is worse
I actually did think “ok but will anything actually happen this time?”
No, because it's a lie and propaganda.
I went "NOW?!?" 😂
Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit and St Louis are why america is at #3 for gun violence out of 193 countries, without them we are 189th. All have the most severe gun laws in the states. And of those its almost entirely guns without serial numbers owned by felons.
The answer is no
@@Ben-M112 check the numbers, firearms kill a tiny fraction of the population.... compared to other causes.
Its just that when it happens, it spreads shock and fear through the community, where as heart disease or car accident doesnt.
We really dont care about all those deaths from accidents we only care when its by a person with hostile intent.
The part about authorities taking away guns from people they consider "threats" when what we've seen of modern police abusing authority... concerns me.
For real. No crime, no warrant, just arbitrary confiscation.
They are called extreme risk protection orders, and while I take issue with the specific implementation of them, in proper implementation they are initiated by a relevant private entity, such as a family member, friend, or employer, who then has to prove that they represent a severe risk to themselves or others.
On paper it's good, but with how common place it is for officers to misuse their power , and oftentimes without consequences, there's to many ways this can turn bad
@@nathanlehman9415 So the proper use is a pissed off ex wife or boss that hates you sending an armed SWAT team to your house at 3AM for a non-crime, after which you need to prove innocence to that non-crime
I agree. Cops should not be the ones assessing this, except in an emergency type of situation, and those should be legally well and clearly defined.
There needs to be a legal process before getting there; since it’s a constitutional right to own a gun, don’t allow cops to “do whatever they see fit”, when we know that most/way too many don’t/can’t see fit…
It takes a legal basis proving there’s a reasonable need based on facts to infringe someone’s right. In such case, only a judge has that capacity, after hearing arguments and evidence on both sides, to assess and proceed legally.
It’s needed to FAIRLY protect citizens and keep societies safe.
Most of these recommendations are already put in place in most states and federally, banning semi-automatic weapons bans everything that isn’t a single load single shot weapon like a musket, this is not only unreasonable but unconstitutional
You don't need a background check for private sales or gun shows in many states. Which means I can buy a gun off Facebook marketplace or Craigslist without having to submit to a background check. Hell, the seller doesn't even have to get the name of the person they're selling it to in most cases. If the cops show up, just say "oh, I sold that X long ago."
All of Missouri is just an example of one state that does this.
@@SatanRompsno gun shows in states that allow private sales require ffl dealers to be the sellers most of the time. most often private sellers require a ccw permit to allow someone to buy their gun, and its illegal to buy or sell a gun off of the Internet like that.
@@SatanRomps There's legislation requiring background checks at the federal level, but only if the federal government has an instant verification system working. Guess what isn't working.
Except mental health checks which are arguably most important
100% of the population is deadly allergic to bullets 😂
eh...not really.
@@joshwhite1606nah it sounds true, I am deadly allergic to poison so I would know
@@linusadestedt6517 It's actually relatively hard to die from getting shot in the US.
@@joshwhite1606 but there's still adverse effects from being shot right? it's not like i could microdose on bullets to build up resistance...
@@jj_verona not exactly a deadly allergy.
... Are people still confused about what "semiautomatic" means?
Any gun that uses an automatic feeding system (gas powered, recoil etc.) that fires one shot per trigger pull this includes most handguns except revolver, all rifles except leaver actions, bolt actions and break actions, and some shotgun as most shotguns are break action or pump action.
Yes, they are. On purpose
Confused, no. Playing dumb to claim that the term has subjective meaning that conveniently fits your political goals, yes.
@@Co60-Ni60he knows the definition. his point was this video is downright stupid because people don’t under simple the simple concept of why we need the 2.A as is.
Yes people are confused. A majority of Americans don't own or know how to use guns@@ThomasWeaver1992
"...Shall no be infringed."
Did the surgeon general declare drunkenness a "public health crisis" a century ago? The last time prohibition was tried, it created organized crime, and that was about alcohol, people where still able to defend themselves with guns. And you want law abiding people to become vulnerable to gun toting mobsters?
The last time we tried prohibition of alchohol, we ended up with the NFA.
@@dwarvenjesus4266 did it work?
@@arandomlemon6707"did it work?" Prohibition was the only amendment we repealed.
@@jonahmoran3751 yeah but wasn't there an uptick on school stuff after prohibition and the instation of the NFA or am i wrong?
He recommends-
Something we already have
Something we already have
Something we already have
...and something already found illegal and unconstitutional.
The democrat way "NOTHING IS WORKING! Lets try the same thing again and expect a different result!"
@@skylarc6063 its what all governments do when they don't want to deal with the actual problem.
@@skylarc6063do you know the defintion of insanity?
It's always so weird how people will say we have something, and then I can just use Google and...
"Universal background checks are not required by U.S. federal law, but at least 21 states and the District of Columbia currently require background checks for at least some private sales of firearms."
... prove them wrong immediately with literally less than thirty seconds of effort.
@kitsunekage12 The united states already has a universal gun background check system. We do not have a gun registry that would be required for a citizen to citizen background check system as in every case in history, that led to gun confiscation. We will not give authoritarian leftists tools they have already shown they will abuse.
Background checks are already mandatory, for any legal firearm sale from an FFL. If you're not an FFL, you don't have access to the systems necessary to perform the background check, and it's actually illegal to do so.
What makes a "universal background check" any different from what we already have? Every single proposal for one that I've seen just says they'll require FFLs to do a check, but that's already law.
Also, the people calling for the police to disarm citizens are also the ones saying police can't be trusted. Make it make sense.
It's not illegal to sell a gun from one person to other and you can run a background check for like 5 dollars people have access to the systems it's not something new they been a thing for like the past 30 years
they mean they want a federal database.
@@captainpositivenegro2854 Which is also illegal, due to set precedent concerning infringement of the Second Amendment. While precedent *can* be overturned, it's not likely, especially with a Supreme Court with the current track record.
We've tried various restrictions and disarmament campaigns already. None of it has worked. Mostly because the problem isn't guns, or even access to guns. It's mindset and respect, which the government can't control. When life is considered cheap and expendable, and people don't respect one another, you see murders rise (with any weapon, but folks only care about the guns). When parents teach kids to respect each other, despite and because of their differences, we'll see a drop. In the meantime, why prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves?
@@captainpositivenegro2854there is a Federal crime database, as well as one that documents firearms owned. When you buy a gun they run your name and social security number through that database To see if you have anything that would disqualify you from owning it. If you have something like a misdemeanor, are under 21, or really if they just feel like it the ATF can freeze your purchase for up to a few months while they investigate for anything suspicious. They froze my purchase of a rifle a few weeks ago because I’m 18. Took ten days to get it.
@@captainpositivenegro2854if you have filled out a 4473 you are on a data base.
I don't think people actually realize what a semi auto gun is
They are "fully semi-automatic" firearms lol
@@kordi7888 lol
None of these people like the guy who made the video have a clue what they are talking about with guns yet demand to make laws... we already have along with taking away guns from well over 100 million people that have done nothing wrong.
Technically a double barrel shotgun is a semi auto weapon
@HenryGengler depends on the trigger set up but yes
Well, at least if nothing changes, you can keep using that bulletin board you expensed.
Y'know what else is a public health crisis? US healthcare system.
Jesus Christ…WE ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS HOW STUPID ARE THESE POLITICIANS?!
Not for private sales. That's what he is talking about. Rn all you have to do is claim they were a close friend and it's totally legal to sell on to someone without checking their criminal history.
@@vividfiber6668 in Tennessee if got sell to someone and do not go through the proper processes, then if something happens with that gun, YOU are on the hook too
@@vividfiber6668 and of the weapons used in mass shootings and other crimes, what % were from private sales?
The proposed solution is solving an issue that doesnt really exist
I don’t understand the background check argument. That already happens. Every time I buy a gun I fill out a 4473. I don’t get it
It's people who never gone through the process of buying one they just go off what they hear from the tv
"sir, you gotta quarantine for 15 days. You got diagnosed with bullets"
Background checks are already required when purchasing firearms.
Not true. Private sales don't require one in many states. Meaning that you can sell a gun to a felon and get away Scott free as long as you just say he is a close friend and I didn't know and didn't have to check in court.
@@vividfiber6668 So what you admitting, is criminals don’t abide by laws and will only punish law abiding citizens.
@@vividfiber6668 Besides, if gun control was truly about saving innocent lives then look at how Florida has handled it. Low government intervention leads to lower crime, especially for repeat offenders. For the simple reason that criminals don’t want to take on someone else who has a weapon.
Firearms when waterlegs walk in: 😨
💀
Ah yes, my favorite flash game, firearms and waterlegs
A Glock is semiautomatic, a 1911 is semiautomatic, I don’t think people realize most pistols are semiautomatic
People these days that want to scream the most about gun control know absolutely nothing about guns
Like I love my gun cleaning kit it came with a map and the mat is the liberals guide on an AR-15
High capacity 30 round magazines that can shoot 70 clips in 0.01 seconds. Our president Biden has said you put a brace on a pistol and it makes it a gun and it can shoot higher caliber bullets these people making the laws know nothing about firearms and it's despicable
Absolutely NOT on banning semi-automatic weapons. What a stupid idea.
So what do I do if the government goes batshit crazy? It’s note like the people are in charge
Most gun violence is from people who aren't allowed to have guns in the first place. How do you stop criminals from breaking the law while preserving the rights of law-abiding citizens?
Maybe not having more guns than people would help?
@@HunsterMonter Yet we still don't have the most gun deaths in the western world.
@@HunsterMonter brainlet take
Here in the UK it's very difficult to get a gun at all which also results in very few people with illegal guns
@@sixtieraloneYou have more knife and acid attacks which are way worse. Also a tyrannical government.
What about "shall not infringe" do you not understand?
What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?
@@cathyh675you obviously don't understand it, imagine fighting the strongest military on earth and people think "well regulated"" means the government is the militia😂😂😂
@@cathyh675 what part do you not understand? the milita is well regulated not the guns
@@cathyh675 all of it, the 2nd amendment does not say that the “right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
The full 2nd amendment says “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The reason it says “the people” and not “the militia” is because the people make up militias. The 2nd amendment protects the people’s right to bear arms AND to form private militias.
You are the one not understanding what the 2nd amendment means
@@cathyh675 You're the one that doesnt understand it democrat dog.
Well regulated does not mean "burned and blocked by laws" it means "in functional order"
It's still called infringement.
Shall not be infringed means it is illegal for the government to take any action which makes it harder, including more expensive, for citizens to keep and bear arms.
Then remove it as a right.
@@K_Ri-mw4hr You truly don't understand just how dangerous and evil that is...do you?
A lot of people have been killed, I don’t support a full ban but man, a lot of innocent people have been killed and that’s undeniable
@@joshwhite1606doesn’t seem to dangerous anywhere outside of americat
@@joshwhite1606 Removal of constitutional rights which are unnecessary in the modern world and studies show is actively hurting people?
There's no 87% poll. The Wapo poll was 56%
The Bruen decision means nothing will come of this. Thank god for that.
Not body wants criminals to have guns, but we still want victims of SA and other violent crimes not to be defenseless.
I wonder how other nations deal with that problem... Oh right, they don't allow people to walk around with guns, making the premise of "this SA predator will have a gun" invalid! Crazy, right?
@@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я You failed pretty hard. Nobody wants criminals to have guns. Why don't you want victims of SA to be able to defend themselves? Are you a predator?
@@ДмитроПрищепа-д3я That's not the issue. The SA predator could simply be 6' tall and significantly stronger than their victim. It's not about "he has a gun", it's about "he's so much larger and stronger than me, that my only chance to protect myself is a firearm"
@dylan_00 crazy how potential SA victims outside of the US (and hell even IN the US) have options other than guns. By your logic, the US should have almost no SA because everyone can get guns (or other countries should have astronomically higher rates of SA, which we don't). Guns don't solve the issue, nor help solve the issue
@@dylan_00 "That's not the issue. The SA predator could simply be 6' tall and significantly stronger than their victim" I'm yet to meet someone who can confidently handle a pepperspray blast into their eyes and continue doing whatever they tried to do.
Plus, an untrained person has a much easier time using a pepperspray compared to a handgun too.
61% wanting to ban SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARMS is absurd and just tells me a good number of those people don't know what that even means.
Not only is that most modern guns, that's a good number of WWII-era guns. If you genuinely think that should be banned, please either learn what the term actually means or seek help.
Semi auto weapons? Do most ppl even know what semi auto is? And isnt it weird to lump together assault weapons and general semi auto weapons?
What exactly is an "assault weapon"?
Instead of taking out 2nd amendment rights away how about they declare a health emergency on criminals and illegal aliens?
A person cannot be illegal. Only an action.
@@shoepixiesemantics don't really change the statement.
Exactly, just remove crime from the world instead of removing deadly weapons from everybodys hands. Genius. People are so insanely stuck up on the idea that the amendments are 100% perfect and the base of morals. Try considering that MAYBE values change and people learn. MAYBE the 2nd amendment is outdated. Just perhaps. Its not like there are any places in the world where not everybody can have a gun where we can look for reference and learn.
@@shoepixieYeah, the term "illegal aliens" is used to refer to people who have illegally entered the United States.
That makes top much sense.
Background checks are… already mandated in every state…
Who did they ask? People who have never owned a gun?
It's WaPo, right? You know how journalists are, like, 99% leftists?
I can only imagine how "police taking guns from mentally unstable people" would play out in some cases.
yep and this coming from the defund the police crowd
@@captainpositivenegro2854 I don't think defunding will help. They would need money to actually put their people through proper training, and to fund stricter personality/mental health checks, and to make sure there are no extremists amidst their personnel.
But something just has to change. Cops act out way too much and use their power to oppress, instead of help and deescalate.
Yep because anyone with more than a 100 rounds, or more than 2 gun are considered mentally insane.
It's definitely a slippery slope. Fact of the matter is I'd rather the police be able to disarm someone than not. Imagine someone who appears to be drunk and angry with a gun, waving it around at those around them.
If the police officers weren't lawfully allowed to disarm that man, and he were threatening violence, what would you do? He could kill and injure multiple people including yourself as the police officer. They'd just have to shoot him because what else could they do?
No. I'd much rather police officers be able to disarm people of guns. Yeah it sucks but there's more good cops than bad ones, and handicapping the good ones is doing no one any favors. The bad cops break the law anyways, the good cops can't.
@@sirlimpsalot0-010 Yeah, I don't think that's what's being talked about here exactly. They already are allowed to disarm active threats.
I think the law is more about background checks and confiscating the guns of all unfit-to-wield-a-weapon citizens etc.
Another law that only effects the law abiding
This is why gerrymandering needs to be framed as a free speech violation.
Exactly. There's no way that %61 agreed on banning semiautomatic firearms. The majority of firearms are semiauto 😂
It is, it’s just very hard to spot
@@gilbertwilson9093 Plus 61% did not vote on this. It was a poll taken from a small number of random people that likely live in big cities.
If 80% of people were in favor of locking people up for crazy reasons like (not wearing masks or getting the shot) that would still make it wrong. You need to ask if it is actually morally ok for a government agency to take away your right as a free person for a perceived threat...as Benjamin Franklin said, a people who would rather trade liberty for a small amount of safety deserve neither and will end up with a leesser degree of both
Ah, the Benjamin Franklin quote. I love how you are using it wrong. You'd know this if you actually studied the quote beyond what the angry TH-cam man told you. For those curious, it's referencing hiring mercenaries to defend settlers instead of creating your own army.
Yes. This is the reason why we are a Republic. NOT A DEMOCRACY. Democracies lead to the majority controlling everything and having the ability to outlaw the minority. Republics are so much better
Wow. So nice to hear that people still don’t know that background checks are mandatory federally on all firearm purchases. As well as mental health checks.
As a swede, not knowing much of this. Did the automatic firearm ban 1994 stop school shootings and criminals?
Nope
there is a federal background check on every gun purchase. and framing this as a public healthcrisis while celebrating LIzzo for being 700 LBS is quite the example of mental gymnastics.
And that's why mob rule is a bad idea, and the right is constitutionally protected.
We already have background checks
Red flag laws, although unconstitutional, do exist in some states
And you *cannot* ban "assault weapons" because that'd violate the 2nd Amendment.
That 61% that don’t know or don’t care that semiautomatic firearms make up the vast majority of modern firearms makes this obvious people are not very educated on the issue. The surgeon general is outside his swim lane. He should focus on bring honesty, accuracy and accountability to his own core missions.
First though, let's see all you "concerned citizens" and the surgeon general fix Chicago aka "the war you can drive to". None of you anti-gunners want to talk about, or do anything about, that particular "gun free zone".
What do you want them to do? Its not like having a ar15 will magically solve crime in Chicago? You want to stop crime get the police, and if the police are ineffective, fix that. Guns aint the solution.
And in europe there's a public health warning on knives
20k gun related, non suicide deaths are a "health crisis", but 40k traffic deaths and 250k medical negligence deaths anually are nothing to worry about
There are several things that need to be working right in order for this to work
Guns aren't the issue. The issue is social-economics and mental health, ignoring them won't stop the violence.
It's more accurate to say that guns are only part of the issue.
@@TheOriginalJphyper Guns aren't the issue because even if there were no guns in the US violent people would just use a different weapon
@@shadowthedemonicwolf4410 A guy with a knife is a lot easier to stop than a guy with a gun. He can't do as much damage, either.
@@TheOriginalJphyper You'd think so but not really
@@TheOriginalJphyper A dude in South Korea went on a stabbing spree and stabbed 13 people before being stopped
Ok, but if you ban semi-auto, what are you left with?
Bolt-actions, pump-actions, break-actions, single-shots, all the useless junk.
@@lkhdmrtna single shot, which is all you need if you really want “self defense”? Sounds great to me!
@@IMthebiggestboy I'm sorry but educate yourself a little please. In high stress situations you will likely need more than a few shots, what if you miss? What if there are a few people that now know you used your only shot while they have actually useful guns?
Single shot is just bad for self-defense.
@@Arthur_Grey34
Did you not ever hear of sarcasm
Should any other constitutionally protected right be subject to your proposed restrictions?
100k died of drug overdose, infact gun deaths are closer in count to motor vehicle accidents. Should we now consider motor vehicles a public health crisis? Should we consider drug overdose a public health crisis?
Ah yes, I forgot that guns were in fact an integral part of society whose function was to transport and minimize harm. It would be ridiculous to say that the sole purpose of guns is killing, with no other function in society
Yes we should
We've taken measures to make cars safer, like safety features and legislation. Why should we not do the same for firearms?
@@TheOriginalJphyper because at the end of the day it's not guns that need to be better and safer but for people. Too many people are careless or are mentally/emotionally unfit to handle a firearm
@@TheOriginalJphyper Because it's collective punishment. So youre going to punish a group for the actions of criminals. They leave out most gun deaths are from gang violence, gangs dont go to the hunting store for their merchandise.
A car, atleast most drivers are legally driving. Guns, a majority of crime happens with already illegal firearms
Weird i thought violent crime has been down significantly since the 90s
I like how this guy thinks he's smart and still doesn't know there's background checks for every time you buy a gun in America
Yeah that that's objectively false. Background checks are only required for licensed firearm dealers, which make up less than half of firearm sales in the US.
@@Effect_FXare background checks required at gun shows?
There are background checks every single time you buy a gun from a licensed dealer. Any kind of store and yes even gun shows if they are an FFL. If you say that’s not good enough just tell me how you will be able to enforce an even more draconian system. From now on all heroin dealers must register and report every sale and perform a background check on every heroin user they sell to.
@@mattpiezer5363 chill dude. It was a simple question. I didn't know.
@@kevinfranklin635 I was more replying to the top comment. I’m sorry if that bothered you. To answer your question, it just depends on the individual dealer/seller, the state and local laws. Not everywhere.
Now show the numbers on who is doing the violence.
stupidity is becoming a health crisis, are they ever going to fix the education system?
We have this problem in Canada. A person with an "Assault Weapon" goes on a killing spree, then the federal government introduces a wave of gun bans. Then another person with an "assault weapon" comes along and does it again, the government bans more guns. Repeat ad nauseum. Point being, banning something removes the ability to regulate it, and doesn't change the fact that criminals *will* still have access to these weapons, whereas law abiding citizens will have even less access to them.
Gun control isn't some thing that you can introduce and the problem will go away. Guns themselves are not a problem, they are inanimate objects. Maybe instead of introducing laws that won't actually solve anything, try investing in mental healthcare, actual healthcare, solving the addiction crisis, lowering the massive crime rates, cracking down on gang violence. All of the above are the root causes of gun violence, not the guns themselves.
Definitely another example of some bureaucrat who isn't qualified to have a policy influencing opinion on something having a policy influencing opinion on something.
The main issue is that the CDC is bared from researching ways to lower gun violence/the causes simply from the act that created the CDC
So, since clearly no one here has ever purchased a firearm, heres a quick breakdown of the process of purchasing a gun.
1. You enter a gun store
2. You spend time speaking to the clerk or store owner about potential firearms you want or would be interested in buying
3. You select a firearm you wish to purchase
4. You then are handed a document and a pen, this is a 4473 form, this is your first background check step
4-1. You fill out this extensive questionnaire and provide answers you sign/swear are true, these include your legal name, age, birthday, social security number, questions regarding your legal status in the US as a citizen, your status as a felon, and more
5. After the form is complete the clerk takes the form and calls into a specific line with the FBI who handles federal background checks through a system known as LEADs.
5-1. The FBI runs a federal Background check through their system which compiles data from all state and countrywide criminal databases to ensure A. This is indeed the right person and B. Legally this person is telling the truth. This background check seems instantaneous but its actually involving a full countrywide data search on each person, or, a universal background check.
Note: the US does NOT run international background checks as firearms cannot be purchased in the US by non-US citizens.
6-A. Your background check is clear, no felonies, warrants, or other blemishes on your record preventing you from acquiring a firearm, depending on state laws the firearm may either be properly sold to you after completion of the background check, or it may be held for a duration between 3 and 30 days, again depending on local laws and allowances. This notedly has not been shown to have any affect on lowering crime statistics.
6-B. You either have a warrant, a prior felony charge or other reason you may not legally purchase a firearm, in the event you have a warrant the clerk will contact local police and stall you until their arrival, if you have prior felonies your sale will be denied and a note of your attempt to purchase a firearm will be made to police, this may or may not result in jail time.
In short, the process now, to own a firearm, requires the background checks so heavily requested by all individuals. Private sale of items (which mind is not always legal) such as firearms is not controllable and illegal trade, transfer and sale of all guns IS an issue that both parties wish to find a solution for, however much like illegal drug trade it is difficult to track ownership verifiably to ensure no firearms end up in the wrong peoples' hands
he didn’t use the bulletin board 😔
80% of people think semi-automatic sounds scary but have no idea what it means
The problem is banning semi-automatic and fully automatic guns will only stop some of the deaths. In Australia they banned guns and now people are making guns out of caulk guns and staple guns. People get killed by the police everyday carrying airsoft guns. So we need sweeping gun legislation. We need to ban all guns. Automatic, Semi-Automatic, pump action, lever action and especially muzzleloaders. That should include paintball guns, airsoft guns, caulk guns, paint guns, amd BB guns. The only people that should be allowed to have guns are the police and the inner city kids who need them to protect themselves.
Who in the world did they survey? That seems wildly inflated
I literally just watched a video of some guy stabbing six children in a park in France, while the unarmed parents were unable to do anything to protect their children.
It was four, not six kids and if it were in the US, he would have done it with a gun so the numbers would have been higher and injuries more severe
@@pavelmacek282Yeah, but that guy would have approximately a ~77.34% chance of becoming swiss cheese.
@@pavelmacek282you mean the over 1 millions lives saved every year because of firearms? That guy wouldn't been dead for a shot was fired or he'd barley get to do anything.
Ontop of that, 40k people died in 2023 half of that number was suicide.
So 20k to homicide right? No, you cross out firearm accidents, shooting accidents while hunting and so on and the number drops even further.
Despite all of that it's still far better than both the 80s and 90s and theres more people and more firearms in the us today than there were then.
@@lkhdmrtn sorry but could you pls specify on what statistic or facts did you based your estimate?
@@yulfine1688 you mean like when there is a mass shooting in a school and even the designated police officer at spot doesn´t help? so a bunch of parents at the playground would for sure saved the day... keep dreaming
The problem is “assault weapon” is a loose term its advocates throw around which could mean whatever they want it to mean that day of the week. Its original meaning from before the 1994 ban was a *select fire* intermediate caliber rifle with all the forbidden features (like a pistol grip), then certain politicians started referring to guns that were *just semiautomatic* with the forbidden features as “assault weapons”. Next thing you know they’ll be claiming *all semiautomatic* firearms are “assault weapons”.
When you buy guns, you have to fill out a form called a 4473 and they do a background check for any felonies and involuntary mental hospital admission. Also a FFL (firearms dealer/ gun shop) can refuse to sell to anyone and if they show signs of hurting others or themselves the FFl has to refuse service
The issues causing gun violence isn't "mental health" so much as it is "PVP enabled areas"
It's a complex issue that dips a bit into a lot of uncomfortable topics that most would rather ignore and so they are ignored and violence soars.
The problem... Is dishonesty, you have to frame it...
The situation is a lot more complicated than just removing guns out of the picture, and failure to see that is really either not going to help anything or going to make things worse
calling it "uniquely american" is absolutely true
Key question is what do you consider and assault weapon.You can spray a default hunting rifle black and add 1 or two attachments and some people will consider it a assault weapon.Also a ban of any and all semi automatic guns in America seems unfeasible in the light of recent rulings around handguns which like 99% are semi automatic.
He recently did an interview on NPR, and honestly, I'm with it. People for a long time thought that getting people in tune with banning cigarette use in public was something not possible as it was too ingrained in our culture. Obviously, it wasn't considering how much we limited its use. By framing gun violence as a public health issue, maybe we can finally stop over politicizing the issue and finally get something done about it.
They… they do know that semi-automatic will ban everything that is manually cocked or racked, right? If it loads the next shot between trigger pulls without you having to do it manually, it’s semi, which is the appeal of many pistols for self-defense.
Yeah no to banning semi autos. If the cops have it, i want it too. What would the mental health backgrands look like? I was medicated for depression five years ago does that mean i shouldnt own a gun? People are a danger to themselves or others? Who determines that? Im not saying theyre bad ideas, i just dont want people in positions of authority being able to abuse regulation to prevent certain demographics from being able to own the means to protecy themselves.
It also helps when they don’t explain what semiautomatic is
I have no faith in anything ever being done in regards to gun violence
Banning weapons does Nothing to people that don't care about laws.....taking from the good people doesn't change anything.
The vast majority of gun crime is committed with handguns in certain cities with already strict gun control with a certain demographic of people
Shall not be infringed
It’s really telling that you think efforts to protect others are infringing on your rights. You’ll still be able to own a gun if you’re not a risk to yourself or others.
I don't care about background checks, but they always try to sneak in a ban on black rifles.
Oh boy here we go… you remember when we announced a public health crisis on drugs? And look where the war on drugs got us… Portland, sanfran and LA to name a few.
You know what's great?
WE ALREADY DO THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND HAVE FOR DECADES
Taking guns away from law abiding citizens will not fix the issue. Criminals sorta break laws, why would they follow gun laws.
Criminals are outside the law, so laws will not stop them.
I still go by there is no such thing as a assault rifle and it still not going to stop criminals from having a semi automatic weapon
THERE ARE BACK ROUND CHECKS....
Nah, you're not having em
Tyranny can FAFO!
"A Rose by any other name...."
Tyranny is tyranny is tyranny.
Gnatcee Getmany took away guns for public safety, and when they didnit they began oppressing people.
Soviet Russia took guns away from people, then syarted oppressing people.
The English took weapons away from the Irish for public safety reasons, and once the weapons were confiscated they oppressed them.
In every instance in history government stepped in and took away people's right to arms, oppression immediately followed.
Nevermind ALL gun violence occurs in GUN FREE zones. Criminals are cowards. They NEVER go where it is a danger to them.
Nevermind the mentally ill and criminals still get the guns even where background checks and laws are already in place.
Gun control, as defined by WaPo and other Soros-funded narratives, does nothing except punish law abidng citizens.
Actual gun control would be madates enforcing gun education in order to graduate, but Democrats cannot stand people having controlnof their own power so that fair, just, and reasonable idea would just never float their minds.
Now, bring on the excuses. Go on. I love readong the mental gymnastics required to reframe taking away guns and weapons as a non-tyranny.
PS no entity has caused more gun violence than the government. All other entities combined are a laughable drop in the bucket by comparison.
The third one “taking guns away from people considered to pose a risk…” the wording is important. In all states which have implemented these red flag laws, there is no burden of proof. One person can say one thing in an affidavit, get someone’s guns taken away for up to (and always) 6 months. The laws also allow the order to be renewed an unlimited amount of times, therefore somebody can become restricted indefinitely. The problem with this, is if somebody lies about somebody else, the judge will need no more evidence than one statement to remove someone’s guns. Then to get them back, they probably get ordered to therapy, and get the order dissolved. They are legally laid out similarly to restraining orders. I support stricter mental health assessments on gun owners, but I don’t trust the government to do it. The state doesn’t need to be fiddling with a constitutional right which could(once in a blue moon) be used to protect we the people from the government.
Yes yes no
Obviously i only use it in a safe and/or designated area. Shooting competitions exist. Hunting exists. Rapid fire plinking is just fun. The firearm is nice to look at and cleaning it is calming.
Firearms arent for everybody. But banning a certain type from sale isnt going to stop the people who are already getting them illegally.
There is already a “universal” federal background check mandated for any purchase from an FFL (federal firearm license) dealer. Which makes up 60% of all firearm purchases. If “universal” means all firearms sold, even privately, you’re asking for the impossible.
The idea of banning semi automatic weapons (which includes almost all handguns), you’re talking about banning 90% of guns in existence. Unless you’re trying to perform a a buy back like NZ did (which is the only country that successfully banned all semi automatic weapons), then again you’re asking for the impossible.
I do appreciate the desire to improve American’s livelihoods, but we must remain realistic about our expectations and stay informed, neither of which the Surgeon General appears to be.
To get more people to support limits on assault weapons, maybe it should be that you should have to have a license and own a different firearm for like a year or something before you can get assault weapons
How many fire arm related deaths are Suicide?
62%
We have this already
Yes the surgeon general is clearly qualified to speak on the sales and control of guns... How about he look into the over pricing of medicine and medical care. You know something in his field of work. Also many other countries have gun violence. Many worse than the US.
I was told if I stopped breathing, the percentage of me being involved with gun related issues drops significantly.
and THIS is why we're glad Chevron Deference was overturned.
no gov agencies can't expand their own powers like this.
These stats make absolute sense. Because, yes, as a gun owner, I believe EVERYONE should have a background check and a mental health evaluation before purchasing a firearm. Half the problem is people who are not responsible and the other half is people who refuse to be responsible.
But yeah you lose me when semi-auto firearms are at risk of being banned. Full-auto assault weapons I can see, but frankly, the bad guys and good guys still use full auto weapons that are off market, meaning they're not in the lega system in the first place. How am I, as a civilian, supposed to defend myself with a single-action firearm? That's just anti-firearm lobbyists trying to infringe on citizens rights.
Y'all should do a video on the floods in Sioux center
requring background checks on all purchaces will end up the same way as trying to a concealed carry in New Jersey or a Firearms permit for full auto weapons from the feds, we will get back to you in 2 to 3 years.... just say no. private citizen sales of firearms being mandated to have background checks isn't going to happen regardless of what laws you put in place and stores already require them but have a maximum deadline for the background check to take to keep the above from happening. Ohio used to had near instant background checks for concealed carry when bush and Trump where in office. during the Obama and biden admin it takes 6 months THE MAXIMUM wait time for a background check to clear.