MJMaloney187: We should make it a law that every toilet bowl should have a google camera installed in it.
HST's Dead Carcass: birdmanesq:How about state's requiring militia membership as a co-requisite for gun ownership? Fine, you can own whatever guns you want (provided that they are registered--we need to know what's available when we're mustering the militia) provided you participate in once-annual militia drilling. Which, you know, can focus on gun safety and all that jazz.Like, the original intent of the 2nd amendment?
Oh_Enough_Already: This event has all but paralyzed the "ZOMG! GUNS BAD!!!" crowd across all social media, including FARK, since they're also largely the "You can't say anything bad about a black guy, that would be 'racist'" crowd, so the amount of public hand wringing and bloviating over this compared to any other similar incident is hovering just above zero.**Except for Slate, who've weighed in to say that "Yeah, 12 people are dead, but the real problem is racists on Twitter."Needless to say, Fark didn't dare greenlight that story.Gotta' stick with the narrative!!!!Trayvon! Red Lobster! Ms. America!!!!
ahab: As for the clearance/CAC issue, here's a link for you.
stovepipe: LOL[i.imgur.com image 850x441]
Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.
AngryJailhouseFistfark: Any ospitalization?
Neighborhood Watch: It's already virtually illegal to own or sell a firearm in DC. Think of that - the place where the 2nd Amendment is actually enshrined. And he went in with a shotgun, not an 'assault weapon'. Nonetheless, Obama is pushing ahead with new "executive actions" today and the usual liberal loudmouths are back on the bandwagon with the bullhorns.Why is it that when someone does a mass shooting like this, liberals demand that those who didn't do it be disarmed?
HST's Dead Carcass: Kit Fister: See you all on TFD/another TF-only thread. The liters are here.Dude, I value your opinion in these matters. Without your level headed approach, it's gonna be a madhouse around these parts./but I do understand why you want to jettison into the ricepaddies.
xanadian: That may be an argument against "add crazy people to the no-you-can't-have-a-gun-not-yours list." Criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Add someone with a documented mental health issue to that list, and now you have "criminals AND crazy people will always find a way to get a gun." Didn't help much. Made it harder, but is it enough?It's probably why I've focused more on the US fixing the mental health care system over pre-screening for gun ownership (as nice as it would be). *I* feel it would have more impact.Of course, even MORE impact would be felt over banning guns entirely, but you'll still have crazy people out there that desperately need help who will still find SOME way of inflicting their insanity on individuals.
nekom: Peter von Nostrand: Meanwhile the Republicans who refuse to pass even universal background checks are on their 40th+ attempt to repeal ACA and set health care backOf course this won't stop them from claiming we need to improve mental health careAnd they'd be right. Not that they sincerely want to do anything about it, but it really is a pretty obvious problem here. I realize hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was a giant walking red flag. How do we keep guns out of the hands of such people? Hell if I know, but it should definitely be a major goal of any gun reform.
birdmanesq: This incident is a much more compelling example of how stricter regulations could have reduced the possibility of a mass shooting than was Sandy Hook. Here you have a guy with a pretty clear record of gun incidents coupled with mental health problems who purchased one of the guns that he used in the incident legally. Honestly, the fact that he wasn't charged or convicted of the two gun things doesn't bother me, especially when suspicion is raised by the pattern of incidents and the mental health issues.So now the question is whether you think someone who has a clear record of alleged gun incidents and a history of severe mental health problems should be allowed to own a firearm. If the answer to that question is no, well, then it's fairly straightforward to reverse-engineer a regulatory scheme that might prevent that from happening.Who needed to know what at the point of sale of that shotgun for folks to hit pause on this for a while? Well, clearly a background check needed to show the mental health problems and the alleged gun incidents. Now those things took place across several states, so this needs to be a Federal solution, not a state solution. And the local jurisdictions need to be compelled to report gun-related incidents or other violent crime to the Federal database. The mental health is a little trickier because there needs to be some sort of flag that triggers reporting--but I'm sure that we can work out the details there without too much trouble.So the first step looks like a more comprehensive and mandatory system of background checks, which compels participation from local authorities and health care providers (easily coerced through public-safety and Medicare dollars).
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Jul 20 2017 19:03:45
Runtime: 0.608 sec (608 ms)