There have been some horrific crimes causing multiple deaths in this country involving "guns".
Unfortunately, there is a group of people who want to disarm all Americans because they want to disarm all Americans.
They are using these horrific shootings (which are statistically negligible when compared to deaths from alcohol, vehicles, and medical malpractice, particularly when you remove gun death and violence from large urban centers that already practice onerous and arguably unconstitutional gun control) in their efforts to disarm all Americans.
Let's ignore those people for right now. They are bad actors. mountebanks and disingenuous frauds with questionable motives, most presumably to subject the citizenry to a greater level of control than only guns. They are quite fond of "population control" of the re-education camp variety.
Let's assume we are talking to rational people who are trying to limit gun death for compassionate reasons, people who do not want to limit the rights of innocent citizens.
People who support "red-flag" laws and "universal background checks".
Seemingly rational reactions to a problem that are actually part of a slippery slope to the ends of the first group: disarmament of the population.
Let's posit that universal background checks should obviate the need for "red flag" laws.
Now we've eliminated the problem of subjective complaints leading to unfair confiscations and denials of constitutional rights.
How often would these background checks be performed so that a person who passed a check does not pose a threat later should they decline in capacity below the acceptable limit?
Annually? Is that reasonable? Every gun owner facing an annual mental health checkup?
Now, how do we keep universal background checks from becoming a gun registry that could lead to the aims of the first group again? One that doesn't discriminate against a large portion of the population?
Since there are people who engage in homicide not involving guns, but vehicles, knives, hatchets, bombs (already regulated heavily), and martial arts, would it not be less discriminatory if we were to subject everyone to annual background checks?
It's the logical conclusion that cannot be escaped. This would catch people before they commit crimes, which it seems is the goal of the those proposing background checks.
But what do we do with someone we determine could, and I emphasize "could" hurt someone else?
We should lock them up for the safety of the rest of the citizenry. All of them.
It's common sense gun control.
And if you want some informative analysis, listen to The Drift Radio Show.
I'm biased, but people tell me it's good.