madd0ct0r wrote: ↑
Could you expand on that lonestar? I assume your not talking about illegal drugs, or usa's draconic rules on drink driving or walking drunk?
I'm not sure how else to simplify that, it's pretty self-evident.
You claimed that gun owners are "allowed to impose costs" on everyone else. No shit? Just like nearly everything else on the planet?
I referenced alcohol because it really fits the best from a imposing physical
harm standpoint. Alcohol consumers "impose costs" on everyone else. Most
people would argue that that doesn't mean alcohol should be banned, even though it only takes a responsible consumer of alcohol once to ruin his day and the day of a lot of other people. You could apply that to other drugs as well, illegal and not, but I think that all drugs should be legalized and taxed with the revenue going to social programs.
More broadly, "I can't believe we get costs imposed on us by others" is like someone ranting about public options for healthcare because they don't want to pay for a fatty nerd's heart surgery.
Why do you sincerely believe that the ban would fail to stop mass shootings but the background checks would?
Not Fenix, but I sincerely think that focusing on mass shootings is missing the bigger picture.
Even using the dubious mass shooting tracker that the anti-RKBA guys like to use, the incredibly vast majority of "mass shootings" use handguns. AR-15s or AKs are black swan events, and make soccer moms worry about little Jimmy in school but not in the least about Ray-ray three towns over, whose urban school district just shuttered 10% of public schools and saw a corresponding jump in homicide(usually with handguns).
But even if you aren't thinking of gangland shootings, you have things like the VA Tech or Sikh Temple shootings where the shooter used handguns, or the WNY where the shooter used a manually fed shotgun.
on the other hand
, if you could do a UBC that addresses registration concerns, continue to improve NICS(yes I know that Fix NICS was finally passed last year; I submit that there's always room for improvement), that would go a long way.
Even more effective would be adding people who engage in violent misdemeanors to the prohibited persons list, at the very least for a set period of time. Domestic violence is the #1 indicator of gun violence(other than gender!), and frequently DV charge is plead to a more generic "violent misdemeanor", or it isn't counted as DV because some jurisdictions don't consider it applicable to non-married couples. The cops wouldn't like this, as nearly a third of them end up with DVs and get it changed to a more generic violent misdemeanor charge, but hey, fuck 'em. Of course the country has no problems with cops killing more Americans in 2018 than in all school shootings from 1980 or so to 2018, so I'm sure that they would get a carve out anyway.
I would also send cops out for a visit if someone attempts to purchase a firearm and fails a background check. The majority of the time, a prohibited person who does this is violating a court order/sentence, which is a crime in of itself. At the moment, Oregon is the only state that does this.