HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Also, putting the tools that make it possible to kill 20 people in a minute in the same basket as some entertainment we consume, is way off the mark. The guns themselves are a serious problem, seems pretty unrealistic to understate that.

i put them together as examples of things used to dance around the problem. not as comparable to each other. even said as much in my first recent post about the issue.

the real problem (as it relates to mass killings) is the shooter or potential shooter. the red flags along the way that were ignored or overlooked. and what drove those individuals to plan or to carry out an attack. work on understanding the problem and curbing it as much as you can. that's the answer. but it would take work. restricting things and punishing unrelated people is easier and more flashy. it's akin to building a wall along the border, rather than looking at the actual reasons for the immigration issues.

It's not much like the immigration issue, as there are definable ways we can address different things there like streamlining the immigration process, influencing migration patterns and discouraging illegal employment. Is there an actual solution here, or just "understand people more"?

did the attackers carry out their attacks out of the blue? or were there indications as to the potential of them carrying out an attack? or even investigation by authorities and then not taking it seriously? did they purchase the guns that they used in their attack?

What real preventative methods are we talking about here? What "freedoms" would be restricted to make them happen?

Headhunter wrote:Zombs you may have missed how many times I've railed against the threat of white supremacy growing online among young people (I've consistently stated this would lead to acts of terrorism), but I'm not sure what the solution there is. So you have people being radicalized online. What are you going to do to curb their influence?

I know one thing that can have a real tangible effect on these events: making it harder for these people to get guns.

Headhunter wrote:Zombs you may have missed how many times I've railed against the threat of white supremacy growing online among young people (I've consistently stated this would lead to acts of terrorism), but I'm not sure what the solution there is. So you have people being radicalized online. What are you going to do to curb their influence?

I know one thing that can have a real tangible effect on these events: making it harder for these people to get guns.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Also, putting the tools that make it possible to kill 20 people in a minute in the same basket as some entertainment we consume, is way off the mark. The guns themselves are a serious problem, seems pretty unrealistic to understate that.

i put them together as examples of things used to dance around the problem. not as comparable to each other. even said as much in my first recent post about the issue.

the real problem (as it relates to mass killings) is the shooter or potential shooter. the red flags along the way that were ignored or overlooked. and what drove those individuals to plan or to carry out an attack. work on understanding the problem and curbing it as much as you can. that's the answer. but it would take work. restricting things and punishing unrelated people is easier and more flashy. it's akin to building a wall along the border, rather than looking at the actual reasons for the immigration issues.

It's not much like the immigration issue, as there are definable ways we can address different things there like streamlining the immigration process, influencing migration patterns and discouraging illegal employment. Is there an actual solution here, or just "understand people more"?

did the attackers carry out their attacks out of the blue? or were there indications as to the potential of them carrying out an attack? or even investigation by authorities and then not taking it seriously? did they purchase the guns that they used in their attack?

What real preventative methods are we talking about here? What "freedoms" would be restricted to make them happen?

i don't know. if there are no other preventative measures that could work, then take away the guns. at least it could potentially lessen the amount of damage or number of dead in an attack. i guess we'll have to see how much that curbs violence and murder in the country, if we get there. and what the next thing to point to, as the problem, will be. *shrug*

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Zombs you may have missed how many times I've railed against the threat of white supremacy growing online among young people (I've consistently stated this would lead to acts of terrorism), but I'm not sure what the solution there is. So you have people being radicalized online. What are you going to do to curb their influence?

I know one thing that can have a real tangible effect on these events: making it harder for these people to get guns.

are these message boards not monitored? that seems like it could go a way toward curbing the problem.

Headhunter wrote: Well, this is why gun control is the most pragmatic solution in my eyes, and one that can be measured. Preventative methods are either going to be too indirect (investment in mental health) or too on the nose (government tracking). It's nice to have principles until you need a real life solution that fits that framework and don't have one, so if there's no way to attack what you call the core issues, find another way to help.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Zombs you may have missed how many times I've railed against the threat of white supremacy growing online among young people (I've consistently stated this would lead to acts of terrorism), but I'm not sure what the solution there is. So you have people being radicalized online. What are you going to do to curb their influence?

I know one thing that can have a real tangible effect on these events: making it harder for these people to get guns.

are these message boards not monitored? that seems like it could go a way toward curbing the problem.

They can't do anything about 4chan, 8chan and any dark web wormholes these people dwell in.

Not sure I get why the freedom of the guy who needs 50 automatic weapons is more valuable than the freedom of HMFers and internet users. Or maybe in both cases, it makes sense for freedoms to be compromised in the name of security.

Headhunter wrote:An interesting dynamic here is the common sense gun policies are not some issue Americans are deeply divided on. Up to 90% approve of universal background checks, and somewhere close to 70% support a full ban of assault rifles. Americans want these things. Don't be fooled by NRA money and mythologization of the 2nd Amendment (whose interpretation the NRA has fought to control).

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Well, this is why gun control is the most pragmatic solution in my eyes, and one that can be measured. Preventative methods are either going to be too indirect (investment in mental health) or too on the nose (government tracking). It's nice to have principles until you need a real life solution that fits that framework and don't have one, so if there's no way to attack what you call the core issues, find another way to help.

this is your hill. soo.. what are the requirements in place to legally purchase a high caliber gun? what is in place in order to legally sell one as well?

is there a limit that can be sold, for an individual or to a residence/single address?

and is there not some sort of registry or license necessary in order to legally own and oprrate such a weapon?

and do these requirements and licenses (whatever) not apply to legal modifications for the weapon?

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:An interesting dynamic here is the common sense gun policies are not some issue Americans are deeply divided on. Up to 90% approve of universal background checks, and somewhere close to 70% support a full ban of assault rifles. Americans want these things. Don't be fooled by NRA money and mythologization of the 2nd Amendment (whose interpretation the NRA has fought to control).

background checks are not a requirement already to legally own a high caliber gun?

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:An interesting dynamic here is the common sense gun policies are not some issue Americans are deeply divided on. Up to 90% approve of universal background checks, and somewhere close to 70% support a full ban of assault rifles. Americans want these things. Don't be fooled by NRA money and mythologization of the 2nd Amendment (whose interpretation the NRA has fought to control).

background checks are not a requirement already to legally own a high caliber gun?

They exist but can be significantly improved upon with national standardization. They're not required for transfers between private parties, and that's how you end up with a lot of guns leaving "the system".

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:An interesting dynamic here is the common sense gun policies are not some issue Americans are deeply divided on. Up to 90% approve of universal background checks, and somewhere close to 70% support a full ban of assault rifles. Americans want these things. Don't be fooled by NRA money and mythologization of the 2nd Amendment (whose interpretation the NRA has fought to control).

background checks are not a requirement already to legally own a high caliber gun?

They exist but can be significantly improved upon with national standardization. They're not required for transfers between private parties, and that's how you end up with a lot of guns leaving "the system".

i'm for background checks and licenses (including transfer licenses). and sellers at gun shows should have to at least follow the same rules and laws as a brick and mortar store owner.

if guns "leave the system", and it's not by way of theft or something. then hold the original owner accountable for whatever damage is caused. if he hasn't reported it stolen, then all you can really do is assume that it wasn't theft unless you find out otherwise, in some way other than just his word for it.

Headhunter wrote: Congrats, you're a proponent of common sense gun laws. These are the wild, radical policies that 3/4 of the country want and the NRA pumps millions of dollars into Republican pockets to avoid.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: Congrats, you're a proponent of common sense gun laws. These are the wild, radical policies that 3/4 of the country want and the NRA pumps millions of dollars into Republican pockets to avoid.

3/4 of the country are not the politicians that push for these solutions and decide how to implement them. forgive me for being suspicious of lawmakers and politicians in a world where the politician in the highest office of our country is advocating for banning of fictional violence as a serious solution.

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.