by Jandamurra » 21 Aug 2016, 1:35 pm
@Gwion.
We can agree to disagree.
Just briefly, though, there is no "anti crazy check" that will actually stop a crazy or a crim from getting a gun, let alone allow someone to defend themselves from a crazy should the need arise.
I think we can all agree that the best single propaganda item for the "anti crazy check" has been Martin Bryant, but if he didn't do it-and he didn't-then that goes out the window.
To me, the anti-crazy check is a foothold for registering firearms. Let's say there's only a background check and no registration- a huge improvement on the current situation, to be sure. But you can also never be quite sure if your details aren't being secretly retained, including what you've bought. No information stored electronically is immune from this problem.
To get really paranoid (and why not?), I've read that gun shops across Australia were told to prepare for new gun laws 6 months before the PAM. Don't get me wrong-this is only something I've read-but it certainly fits in with what I do know about the PAM conspiracy. Considered in isolation it's nothing, but in with everything else, I'm inclined to believe it.
If gun shops can give no warning about massive changes to legislation, then they quite possibly could also give no hint that one's details are secretly recorded by the government in what amounts to a registry. As I have already brought up, though, their co-operation might not be needed.
Heads up to our US members, though the intelligent comments I've read from them indicate to me they have weighed this possibility.
People who support an "anti crazy check" see themselves as having a responsible, mature, measured approach, but what if they are just plain wrong about the need?
I say let it all hang out and to hell with background checks!