LogFAQs > #965412494

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

a national gun registry

That "national gun registry" is a handful of people manually looking up inconsistent, rarely-complete records on technology so obsolete I hadn't even heard about it until reading this article:
https://www.gq.com/story/inside-federal-bureau-of-way-too-many-guns

There is no proper national database of guns in the US. The NRA has fought tooth and nail to prevent the government from implementing anything remotely resembling the technology and manpower needed to effectively keep track of more guns than there are citizens, purely because the NRA (and the lobbyists funding it) doesn't want the government keeping track of guns.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Social services, education, and mental health support failed in this case.

Which means they need to be better. You know, the usual lesson provided by failure.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not a fan of making things political to begin with.

Ultimately, "making things political" means "identifying a problem and trying to solve it." The alternative is ignoring the problem and not trying to solve it, which is generally a really stupid idea.

"I don't want to get political" means "I'm okay with the status quo and don't want to have to think about why that is." At best, that's escapism. At worst, it's an active defense of something you know is very seriously hurting other people, while hiding behind an utterly disgusting veil of "you're the problem for wanting to change it." No part of that spectrum is a good thing so don't do that. If you don't like a proposed political change, grow a pair and challenge it directly.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I'm not arguing their effectiveness. It seems that the shooter had no support structure in his life that would have lead him to seek out those services. The services could be super effective but that means nothing if the people who need them don't utilize them.

Part of having effective support services entails making sure they get to the people that need them. The question of access can be safely assumed to be tacitly included whenever people talk about improving such services.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Again I have to ask, what would you consider to be common sense?

• Mandatory comprehensive background check, recent mental health evaluation, and safety course for every gun purchase, with fines and/or jail time and immediate revocation of all owned guns from anyone found to be violating this requirement (both seller and buyer). If the background check reveals anything related to domestic violence or cruelty to animals, suspend the purchase until the buyer completes and is cleared by a suitable therapy program to eliminate that risk factor
• Mandatory 2-week (or thereabouts) waiting period on all gun purchases
• A proper, computerized gun registry, with a unified, consistent system for indicating serial numbers for all new guns produced (complete with re-numbering existing, older guns if needed to be compliant with the new standard)
• All owned guns are to be stored securely when not in use (with rigorous standards for "securely" that don't mean "a kid can get in with a paper clip and 15 seconds on Youtube"). All ammo is also to be stored similarly securely, separately. The gun owner is held responsible for any and all negligence or criminal activity conducted with their guns while they are unsecured, unless they have reported them stolen (with a suitable grace period).

All of which are already enacted in plenty of other countries that see far lower rates of gun violence and mass shootings than the US, so it's not like there's no precedent for any of this. Those indoctrinated by the NRA's propaganda just lose their minds whenever the prospect of limiting their guns at all comes up.