args

universal background checks r a common sense solution to gun violence

The "doomsday" scenario as you call it is not irrelevant because you are ignoring the fact that the government is the entity deciding who is fit for gun ownership, and who is not. If they wanted to disarm the most well trained, and the most likely persons to own guns then they would do it as it would benefit them in case such a scenario were to happen. These people would most likely be veterans due to their military training, and their familiarity with firearms. It would be all to easy to have psychiatrist at the governments disposal to misdiagnose P.T.S.D. (Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome), and then use this as grounds to restrict gun ownership. The fact that the government is the one determining who is "fit" for gun ownership, and who isn"t proves the point is not irrelevant. z88;z88;z88;As for background checks we already have these in place (Vary state to state, but the Brady Bill and the current NICS system are examples). You are saying then that these background checks that are already in place don't work, so your solution is to add more filters? What more could you do that wouldn't restrict access to law abiding and mentally sound citizens, thereby violating their 2nd Amendment right? You are also assuming that people who intend to commit violent crimes are going to go through the legal parameters to obtain a firearm. If they are fine with taking the risk to commit the crime, then why wouldn't the same person be fine with taking the risk to gain the means to commit said crime? They wouldn't think twice about buying a gun off the street or through the deep web because they are already accepting the risk that comes with committing the violent crime they want the gun for. Also I'd like to point out that while you are not talking about banning guns that it doesn't matter if you ban guns or if you add more filters to the system, people are still going to kill people and in mass. China has mass stabbings happen frequently, and gun violence as well as non gun violence is still a very real problem in the UK. They still have mass stabbings and homicide. You have a human problem not a gun problem. Yes it is easier to kill someone with a gun than some other means, but the person behind the gun is ultimately the cause of the homicide. People are a product of their environment, and in a culture that surrounds our people with such poor influences it is no wonder why we have a problem with homicide, not just gun related deaths. z88;z88;z88; This is an argument based on logic and facts, not emotions. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to arm a populace so they can resist a tyrannical government (which it is), then by adding more filters to an already existing screen you would be restricting access of firearms to law abiding citizens who are mentally stable. I'm not saying you wouldn't filter SOME crazies through this screen, but you wouldn't catch all of them nor would you be doing the nation a favor. You would only be disrupting the balance of power between the state and the people, which is catastrophic. "It would be better to have whatever means necessary to control guns even if that meant inventories." So you're telling me then that the end justifies the means? The end being what? Safety from people who use firearms to commit violent crimes? If so you still would be ignoring stabbings, arson, and brute force while still not filtering every violent criminal out of the system. And then the means would be allowing the government access to the information of who owns guns, how many do they own, and where are they. You would still be disregarding criminals who won't register guns or go through any screens to obtain one, but you would still be accepting all the risks of giving the government that dangerous information. "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety," Benjamin Franklin. I understand a lot of people get emotional over the "gun issue," but this is a topic where there is only room for logic and not feelings. There is no filter that you could implement that would be effective at catching the majority of these people who will commit violent crimes with a firearm without simultaneously restricting the 2nd Amendment right of mentally stable law abiding citizens as well. To implement policy that would cause the latter would be reckless and dangerous for the currently free people of this nation.