Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[Pete Zicato]

Sounds good. Moving this to another thread.

[henry quirk]

:thumb up:

[Flint]

Background Checks.

Are they good? Are they bad? Could they be improved?

If there are issues with the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed? If there are issues with any proposed improvements to the current state of Background Checks, how could those concerns be addressed?

[henry quirk]

"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?

[xoxoxoBruce]

If background checks are use to deny people a gun just because they are stone crazy, how long before people are denied because they don't eat kosher, or wear white after Labor Day?

Pretty stupid statement, right? But it's the same reasoning I hear time and time again.

[henry quirk]

If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.

The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).

Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.

In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).

[Griff]

So you're saying yes to background checks unless they are effective.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

If the purpose of a check is to deny X cuz of Y then, from the start, the check is a wrong-headed exercise.

The legit (reason to) check is simply a reconcilling of what is recorded and what the check target has volunteered. Where recorded fact coincides with the target's rendition, the rest of us need to butt the fuck out of the gun purchase. Where there is discrepancy, the target of the check shouldn't have to jump through hoops and spend thousands to correct inaccuracies (if inaccuracies there are).

Always, at any point in the process, there should be an unqualified presuming of innocence about the check target, on the part of public servants overseeing that process.

In other words: I shouidn't have to 'prove' that I'm good to gun own; gov has to 'prove' in an obvious, demonstrable way why I'm not (and it has to do so without diggin' around in my drawers [take that as you will], or by laying claim to shifty, shifting cultural notions).