Dear anarchist*5

Article by Colonel Nogov on Mar. 27, 2015

Dear anarchist: Isn’t it reasonable to have background checks, licensing, safety courses before allowing someone to own or carry a gun?

Colonel Nogov:  In theory that sounds great.  Unfortunately, when government steps in, theory flies out the window and reality takes over.

Background checks.  Wouldn’t it be nice to know that the psycho down the street couldn’t get a gun because he had a history of being violent towards others or he had a history of mental illness that could cause him to break with reality at any time?  I’m with you.  I don’t want a guy like that to have guns either.  The problem though as always is government.  The government uses background checks to deny people the means of self defense for lots of reasons other than just the two mentioned above.  It includes all kinds of people who have been in the government prison system who aren’t actually dangerous.  The prison system is filled with non violent “offenders”.  As far as the mental illness is concerned the government could use that as a catch-all for people not getting guns.  Imagine this scenario, a woman sees a psychiatrist a few times for depression after her divorce.  This is now used as an excuse to deny her the means for self defense because she’s now “mentally ill”.  This woman could have a stalker which is why she wants the gun.  Too bad.  Good luck.  The government always abuses any power it gets.

Licensing and/or registering guns.  The problem here is government again.  It abuses the licensing system.  It uses the licensing system to deny people based on arbitrary rules it decides and can change at any time.  They might impose a high price for licensure preventing people from obtaining the license.  It also uses it to create a registry.  Government registries are notoriously unsecure.  To what purpose could someone use a registry that lists names, addresses, phone numbers, and what guns are owned by people?  I can think of a few nefarious purposes.  I’m a thief and I want to steal guns, I know where they are.  These target are going to be softer than gun stores who have much higher security.  I’m a rapist and I’ve been stalking this woman.  Let’s check the registry and see if she owns a firearm.

Safety courses.  It would be nice if everyone wishing to own a firearm new basic handling and safety procedures, but once again government uses this to spoil the party.  It has the potential for abuse.  It could impose a minimum amount of hours in training.  What if the government decided 1000 hours was the minimum.  Who has the time to complete that many hours of training and still work and make a living?  It could require licensing for trainers at considerable cost that would then be passed on to the students.  The high cost of training from a government certified instructor could be too high for many.  Once again, what if someone had a stalker and needed the firearm today?  I guess that’s just to bad.  You should have anticipated having a stalker and gotten your training before.

Ultimately, if someone wants a gun, they can always go to the private market.  Background checks and safety courses would only cover licensed gun dealers.  Licensing and registering can be ignored.  These alleged precautions to keep guns out of the hands of violent people and crazies doesn’t do that.  It’s sounds good in theory, but does absolutely nothing.  It’s a detriment to non violent sane people.  That’s all.

Those are the pragmatic answers.  Here is the number one answer.  The government has no right to tell anyone they can or cannot own a gun or guns.  All governments are illegitimate.  They have no right to rule us.

So, the answer is no.  I don’t think it’s reasonable for governments to impose any restrictions on gun ownership what-so-ever.  Their alleged safety precautions are lies and they don’t have the right to anyhow.