Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

Breaking News Texas Mall Shooting multiple fatalities

PhenomTheMac said:
I think that elongating the process required before purchasing a firearm, would lead to an increase in interactions with these malicious folks and that would increase the chance that they are flagged as potential threats.

So to answer directly to your question, I think a few things would happen that would be of benefit. I think you would have less people legally purchasing firearms with ill intent if the process was longer and more involved. I think passing a licensing process not too dissimilar to acquiring a driver license, would be more effective at identifying some of these would be shooters. I think that process in conjunction with universal background checks would prove even more effective still.
Click to expand...
There’s so many common sense ways to combat this stuff but the 2-A folks and gun lobby won’t compromise.
 
TheNightKing said:
There’s so many common sense ways to combat this stuff but the 2-A folks and gun lobby won’t compromise.
Click to expand...
There's 0 point in coming to the table with the gun lobby. They have the obvious incentive to turn every incident into an advertisement for why we need more guns in this country.

They need to be held to account the same way the tobacco industry was. The way they ended joe cool and adverts with smokers on the beach is the same way they should end this quazi-miltatary cosplay that masquerades for gun advertisement now.

Maybe if we can rein in a legislate the kinds of propaganda that had infiltrated gun culture we can have more productive dialouge with 2-A supporters. I mean even in these conversations it's not that the other side doesn't see and believe in gun control. They have a fear that gun control is a Trojan horse to take their guns and that's just not the case. A concerted effort is going to have to be made that these controls will be implemented in good faith.
 
BlackRain said:
Yes...yes it does. It's no different then people treating cars like toys and speeding and driving wrecklessly for fun even though you can't pass a driver's test that way. Just because we know what the responsible way to handle something doesn't mean it'd always done
Click to expand...

So you are saying that the trained police are treating their firearms like toys as they are prone to more accidental/negligent discharges by virtue of them handling firearms more. Ok, no. But I can level with you & say that there is a population of gun owners who may treat firearms like toys.



PhenomTheMac said:
I think that elongating the process required before purchasing a firearm, would lead to an increase in interactions with these malicious folks and that would increase the chance that they are flagged as potential threats.

So to answer directly to your question, I think a few things would happen that would be of benefit. I think you would have less people legally purchasing firearms with ill intent if the process was longer and more involved. I think passing a licensing process not too dissimilar to acquiring a driver license, would be more effective at identifying some of these would be shooters. I think that process in conjunction with universal background checks would prove even more effective still.
Click to expand...

I think that elongating the process could be good for the reasons you mentioned and bad for other reasons ie domestic issues in which women have TRO against partners or general issues of self protection. I’m all for instituting a training requirement if that training is provided for free.

One issue that I’m noticing that allows malicious people (in this case, mass shooters) to fly undetected is that for the most part, their criminal backgrounds are clean. Universal background checks close the private sale loophole but that’s it. Mass shooters obtain their firearms by passing background checks that don’t delve into anyone’s medical history. Maybe changing the way background checks are performed entirely would help curb bad actors. Universal background checks do not/would not cover medical history either.
 
PhenomTheMac said:
I mean even in these conversations it's not that the other side doesn't see and believe in gun control. They have a fear that gun control is a Trojan horse to take their guns and that's just not the case. A concerted effort is going to have to be made that these controls will be implemented in good faith.
Click to expand...

I think what gets lost in these conversations is that some of y’all think pro-2a people don’t want productive change when it comes to gun crime in this country. Nobody wants to live in fear that they could potentially be a victim in the next mass shooting.

It’s going to take a concerted effort from everyone to come up with ways to stop shit like that from happening. It’s going to take a concerted effort from both sides of the conversation to come up with effective gun control. It’s going to take a lot of hard uncomfortable conversations to churn out real solutions.
 
Eyerone said:
So you are saying that the trained police are treating their firearms like toys as they are prone to more accidental/negligent discharges by virtue of them handling firearms more. Ok, no. But I can level with you & say that there is a population of gun owners who may treat firearms like toys.





I think that elongating the process could be good for the reasons you mentioned and bad for other reasons ie domestic issues in which women have TRO against partners or general issues of self protection. I’m all for instituting a training requirement if that training is provided for free.

One issue that I’m noticing that allows malicious people (in this case, mass shooters) to fly undetected is that for the most part, their criminal backgrounds are clean. Universal background checks close the private sale loophole but that’s it. Mass shooters obtain their firearms by passing background checks that don’t delve into anyone’s medical history. Maybe changing the way background checks are performed entirely would help curb bad actors. Universal background checks do not/would not cover medical history either.
Click to expand...
Should have to undergo a psych eval before purchasing a firearm.

Training should be paid, just like drivers ed. And the price and number of hours should be high.
 
TheNightKing said:
Should have to undergo a psych eval before purchasing a firearm.

Training should be paid, just like drivers ed. And the price and number of hours should be high.
Click to expand...
So by that suggestion, you are taxing the poor for wanting to defend themselves, potentially pricing out people in poverty who may need protection the most.


But yeah, this is why dialogue is necessary
 
Eyerone said:
So by that suggestion, you are taxing the poor for wanting to defend themselves, potentially pricing out people in poverty who may need protection the most.


But yeah, this is why dialogue is necessary
Click to expand...
Subsidies for those folks, but there's a process for approval.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top