XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns   
   From: murff@warlock.org   
      
   On Mon, 12 May 2014 07:19:31 +1000, Dechucka wrote:   
   >   
   > If the potentially mad in the US were restricted from gun ownership it   
   > would be a start but without compulsory background checks that can't   
   > occur   
      
   The problem isn't the "potentially mad". Everybody is "potentially mad".   
   It is the "actually mad" that are the problem. It may be that a   
   responsible gunshop owner would turn away business from someone who was   
   obviously mad as a box of frogs - much as a responsible barman will   
   refuse to serve a drunk.   
      
   But it can be very difficult to tell if someone is actually mad "now".   
   And it is very hard to tell if someone is sane now but is going to go   
   potty later. And that is even when the "check" is being done in a fully   
   competent and diligent manner by someone trained to do it.   
      
   So "background checks" as a test of suitability are flawed for practical   
   reasons.   
      
   --   
   Murff...   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)