Wordslinger wrote: EmeraldGhost wrote:What specific gun law is it liberals want passed that would have prevented this shooting?
Gun purchasing background checks that have a good chance of revealing when someone with psychological problems -- medications, etc. - is trying to buy a gun. As things currently stand, I'm given to believe that one can buy a firearm at a gun show with no background check at all.
Ha, ha ... .how many Americans are, or have been, on some sort of anti-depressant, ADD medication, or other "mental health" drug?
And if they haven't been ... but their doctor puts them on something .... will the doctor be required to report it to the government?
Will alcoholics be prohibited guns. Or maybe anyone who even drinks? A lot (
and I mean A LOT) of unlawful shootings in this country involve drunken people you know.
And if we were to go down that road would we also have drug testing .... are we gonna drug screen people for THC too? I doubt many (any?) shootings at all have occurred by someone high on pot & had taken no other substance.
Wordslinger wrote:
Frankly, I don't think registration of guns is an answer by itself. I think a shooter should be licensed after taking a written test and demonstrating firearm proficiency at a range. The tests should deal with both emotional and physical conditions of the applicant. Before the license is granted, the applicant should questioned about the medications he or she's taken in the previous 12 months.
Fat chance that's gonna happen.
Anyway ... so how is a written & proficiency test going to detect a possible future emotional/pscyhological/psychiatric issue .,.. or even a current one. Are we going to put psychiatrists at the range ... with a crystal ball? And what if they lie about their medication .... are we going to check their medical records? Do we ask people about their medication when they get a driver license?
Written tests ... about what, the law? Do you think these "active shooters" did what they did because they did not know the law?
What else might a written test do ... cover gun safety? Well, that information is already out there. It might prevent a few accidents ... but by and large when/where those happen people chose to ignore the widely available gun safety rules. I'm guessing pretty much everybody already knows you shouldn't leave your guns where children, thieves, or others you wouldn't want to have access can get at them. NRA and other organizations already offer free courses in that stuff anyway. Heck, they used to bring a week long NRA sponsored gun-safety course at my middle-school when I was a kid. One hour every afternoon ending with a Friday at the range. We could even bring our own personal firearm on range day.
Proficiency tests ... what's that about? Ability to hit your target? Yeah, that's gonna prevent a lot of murders. Let's teach 'em how to shoot
more-better!
Most normal range-trained people's shooting goes to sh*t in a tactical/stress situation anyway. Ever had any tactical/stress shooting training? It's a whole different world.
Here's a better idea ... how about more emphasis, encouragement, and maybe even some government support
voluntary gun safety courses? Would accomplish the same purpose in preventing gun accidents, be less onerous & restrictive of Constitutional rights, and cheaper.
Wordslinger wrote:
I fully realize my solution isn't foolproof. Some nuts will get through, and some innocent victims will die. But it's better than nothing -- and nothing is the obvious goal of today's gun lobby -- the NRA.
Well, you got that right ... your plan is far from fool proof.
Better than nothing? No, your plan would prevent virtually ... nothing.
The hassles, red-tape, legal-hoops, and expense it would create for the tens of millions of law-abiding gun owners in this country to exercise their individual Constitutional right to own/carry their weapons
(as recently re-affirmed by SCOTUS) would be pretty darn onerous though.
It would never happen ... but hey, dream on. The NRA loves this stuff ... it's meat for their grinder.
Home
