|
"Background Checks"
This may be one I can't dismantle cuz I've had my gun for a long time...got it well before mandated fed checks and here, in Louisiana, there is no mandated state check.
In short: I've got mine, didn't have to jump through hoops to get mine, so fuck it.
Not a answer, I know, so let me try...
On the face of it, I got no problem with background checks. A good chunk of what I do for a living involves background checks. I suppose the nature of the check is what concerns me.
I guess the over-riding thing for me, with background checks is: is there the presuming of innocence or guilt at the start? Checking with the intent to prove the gun buyer is guilty of sumthin' is different than checking with the assumption of innocence.
In one, you'll hunt till you find sumthin' to deny the purchase; in the other you'll simply check the facts as they exist, as they're recorded.
So, background checks are fine if done narrowly (no, you don't get to root through the gun buyer's undie drawer) and with the right ethic (the presuming of innocence).
Now, the effectiveness of checks is another thing entirely.
Obviously, the wider, deeper, more draconian, the check, the more effective. If you can go through the undies drawer you just might find sumthin' awful, sumthin' that justifies denying that gun purchase. Unfortunately you also piss liberally on the gun buyer's self-ownership and privacy.
Old notion: more safety, less liberty; more liberty, less safety.
I, of course, skew toward the more liberty the better (and I'll take care of my own safety, thank you very much). So, of course, I skew toward the narrow, minimal background check, knowing full well such checks will be less effective.
Does this answer satisfy?
|