[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you introduced a federal law saying that all gun owners have to keep their guns in a safe, there would immediately be issues with this. Critics would point out that firstly, you need to define what qualifies as a safe because people will look for loopholes. A cardboard box will not suffice. Easy fix for that is to certify gun safes and certify the installation of them to a standard (otherwise a thief can just steal the whole safe). So you set standards for the metal, the hinges, locks and for the bolts that you would be required to use to bolt them to a wall structure. Then standards for the wall because drywall isn't going to cut it. You need to close these obvious loopholes in order to sidestep the initial objections to such laws.

Except that we accept similar technical regulations in all other areas of life. Us having to share a road leads to traffic laws and e. g. speed limits. You can have an honest discussion whether the speed limit on a highway should be 130 km/h, 100 km/h or 117 km/h. Or whether the speed limit in a school zone should be 20 km/h, 30 km/h or 35 km/h. The numbers are, to a degree, arbitrary.

Likewise, you'll have to have some rules and regs on what constitutes safe storage.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The problem with all that is that you then have to inspect and maybe license these installed safes and the gun lobby isn't going to stand for that (is it?) In the UK, a firearms officer can do spot inspections on gun owner's safes to make sure they are storing them correctly and according to the rules. Absolutely no way in hell is a law requiring/allowing that going to survive for long in the US if it even makes it into law in the first place. And not just because of the current supreme court I suspect.

Just think beyond the present Supreme Court: I think this can fall under “well-regulated militia”.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

The upshot is that you cannot practically enforce any standard of responsibility on gun owners PROAVTIVELY. My idea is to enforce one retroactively. So you mandate safety training, to be rectified regularly. How to clean and maintain, how to store, how to shoot, etc etc. You mandate storage specs and standards as mentioned above. You mandate restricting access to minors or uncertified persons. You set rules requiring the registering of resales and reporting of thefts.

Yup, agreed.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But you don't punish the failure to do any of this until after something goes wrong.

You do need teeth for the enforcement mechanism. They become empty, applied probably to people who have committed some other crime. You slap on yet another gun charge.

Ideally, you'd want those regulations, their enforcement and all that to be done in collaboration with the gun-owning public at large.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

So owners don't truly have to do any of these new requirements. But if you shoot someone and you didn't get re-certified for ten years. Oh dear. Big fines and jail time for you. If your kid does a school shooting with your gun and your safe wasn't up to spec. You're on the hook now too. If someone else commits a crime with a gun you bought and didn't report the resale or theft? You're an accessory now.

I hope that an unsafe gun storage charge will be the least of my problems if I unjustifiably shoot someone.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Hopefully this makes the concept clearer? It's a potential method to implement sensible gun laws without making it easy for them to be struck down by the usual suspects.
One of the usual generalised arguments is about not penalising responsible gun owners for the crimes or the irresponsible ones (even though this is how all laws work). My version only punishes the irresponsible ones. But it maintains American's freedom to be irresponsible gun owners which apparently is sacrosanct.

The problem is IMHO American gun culture, because fewer people own guns and the policies are dominated by an extreme and extremely vocal minority. Public pressure must build up until responsible makes a comeback in “responsible gun owner”.

Responsibility means
- safe storage,
- regular classes and certifications,
- different levels of certification for different gun types/carry options (someone wanting to carry concealed has to undergo more strict and rigorous training), etc.

The second prong is that we collect good, scientifically sound data to guide policies. If you want to do something that is statistically risky, e. g. if you have kids in the house and own a firearm, policies should be designed to take the risks into account.

The third prong is to simply strictly enforce existing laws as they are on the books now.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

This suggestion isn't a guns issue. It's property rights. We have an affordable housing crisis in the US, for multiple reasons I won't go into here. But owning a home is an expensive dream, requiring sacrifice to obtain freedom from rent, and greater freedom in general.

Yes, and you have building codes and the like. You are not allowed to build something willy-nilly if it is not up to code. You are not allowed to drive without a license either.

Originally Posted by reader50 

If you do a 30-year mortgage to own your own home, no one has the right to intrude outside of immediate crimes. Or if you invite them in. Cops should not be inspecting your gun safe, or your refrigerator, or that your bed is made properly.

If you are building a new home or do extensive renovations, a building inspector will check if everything is up to code. How is that different? Can you refuse a building inspector and not expect consequences? Ditto for the car that you own, there are regular state-mandated checks on that, too.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Private homes have extensive legal protection, requiring search warrants to intrude. […] Your home is kinda your castle, or at least your private space. With legal teeth behind the "private" part.

Which is why laws should take personal rights into account. But no right is absolute since there are almost always other, competing rights.

Originally Posted by reader50 

And requiring only licensed safe installers? Are you kidding? Why sign away half your life to own something, that you aren't allowed to work on yourself?

The building trade already is very regulated. My understanding is that I would not be able to call myself a plumber in the US. (I definitely wouldn't in Germany as plumbers are a “protected trade”, unlike, say, business consultants.)

Originally Posted by reader50 

A gun left to itself will do nothing. It will corrode until the house falls down around it from old age. If "something goes wrong", it's because someone handled the gun. Perhaps while drinking. Following the euro logic, how would (say) annual inspections catch that?

I think that's a very myopic point of view. The point of safe storage laws is to protect others living in the house, e. g. the owner's children and spouses. And often it is precisely because people handle guns irresponsibly, especially when combined with alcohol and narcotics. The rights of the owner collide with the rights of others.

Originally Posted by reader50 

Would monthly or even weekly be any better? If your home is open to officials checking on your gun storage, it will logically evolve into requiring a live camera pointed at the safe. Officials record the feed, and you bear no liability if the guns are in storage the whole time. This also lets them verify you keep the door closed & locked. Not just when the inspectors come by.

Yes, an inspection is only a screenshot. But that applies directly also to, say, CPS, health inspections in restaurants and places where toxic chemicals are handled. It is for good reason that these exist even though none are a perfect measure, especially in isolation.

Originally Posted by reader50 

What I was saying above, is that it wouldn't be gun lobby groups arguing against these in-home inspection requirements. It would be all homeowners, their wives/husbands, plus gun owners, plus civil libertarians. Even individuals who are against gun rights, but are members of other categories.

That seems very categorical and self-assured.


PS Fun fact: if you license certain software, most notably from Microsoft, in many cases you do allow them to randomly/“randomly” audit your company. Happened to my brother's company a few years ago. He predicted that they'd have to pay a high six-digit amount. His bosses laughed. Until Microsoft came to a number that was very close to my brother's. I know that this is different from the scenario we are talking about now (state vs. agreements between companies, etc.), but I think few people know about it and hence, do not object.

Conversely, a lot of the discussion is based too much on hypotheticals, the idea some have that “Obama will come for their guns.” They build up a straw man and then fight against that straw man.

[subego]

Is 14 too young to have unrestricted and unsupervised access to a gun and ammunition? That was how it was for me.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, and you have building codes and the like. You are not allowed to build something willy-nilly if it is not up to code. You are not allowed to drive without a license either.
...
If you are building a new home or do extensive renovations, a building inspector will check if everything is up to code. How is that different? Can you refuse a building inspector and not expect consequences? Ditto for the car that you own, there are regular state-mandated checks on that, too.

A substantial change requires inspection. Adding a room, changing the room size, replacing the roof framing, etc. In most cases, jobs that require inspections get handed off to contractors, and the contractor pulls the permits.

Minor changes typically do not require permits if the owner does them him/herself. ie - replacing your garbage disposal. Installing a wall shelf, or adding lockdown screws to a safe. Or installing blinds. It varies by state and city. ie - installing a gas furnace in a home that previously had an oil furnace would be a major change. However, installing a washer/dryer in a space set up for them doesn't need a permit, because the home isn't being modified in any serious way.

Replacing an existing gas furnace falls in the grey area - all the hookups are already there, and the space was already set up for that very device. It requires skills, but replacing an appliance with a same-type appliance doesn't significantly modify the house. Likewise replacing a water heater. Many people replace water heaters themselves, and to my knowledge, it does not require a permit.

note: there is a big difference between if an owner fixes their own house, vs someone doing it for a fee. My answers here apply to the owner doing his/her own work. If you are paid to fix stuff for other people, you can require licensing. example: cutting hair (barbers, cosmetologists) require licenses. For home contracting, it's required if the job price exceeds a trigger threshold. Last I checked (30 years ago?) the trigger was $300.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I think that's a very myopic point of view. The point of safe storage laws is to protect others living in the house, e. g. the owner's children and spouses. And often it is precisely because people handle guns irresponsibly, especially when combined with alcohol and narcotics. The rights of the owner collide with the rights of others.

I agree there can be no absolute rights, because they conflict with others' rights. Regarding safes, many (most?) states do require secure storage in homes with kids. Though there are no inspections - violations are punished after the fact.

The flip side is that someone who lives alone shouldn't have to store their guns in a safe, right? Or a home with only adults present? Or is this a "protect the kids" excuse to require ALL guns to be secured in safes, regardless of who lives there?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

{a majority oppose forced in-home inspections} That seems very categorical and self-assured.

Perhaps, but I'm only responsible for my own opinions. People are protective of private homes, with politicians and courts protective as well. It is what it is - people are intolerant of official intrusions in homes here.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is 14 too young to have unrestricted and unsupervised access to a gun and ammunition? That was how it was for me.

What is the legal drinking age?
What is the legal driving age?

So that question answers itself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What is the legal drinking age?
What is the legal driving age?

So that question answers itself.

Does it?

No way I would have let unsupervised, 14-year-old me drive a car.

I would allow supervised drinking for 14-year-old me, which is what happened to me in real life. I would discourage unsupervised drinking, which is also what happened to me in real life. I’d know it’s going to happen though, and I wouldn’t make a huge deal out of it unless it became a problem, which is also also what happened to me in real life.

I’m totally fine with the gun.


So, they’re actually all kind of different.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

A substantial change requires inspection. Adding a room, changing the room size, replacing the roof framing, etc. In most cases, jobs that require inspections get handed off to contractors, and the contractor pulls the permits.

Point being that mandatory inspections are accepted in other areas of American life. Only once you involve firearms things suddenly become absolute and weird.

Originally Posted by reader50 

The flip side is that someone who lives alone shouldn't have to store their guns in a safe, right? Or a home with only adults present? Or is this a "protect the kids" excuse to require ALL guns to be secured in safes, regardless of who lives there?

No, firearms should be stored safely under all circumstances. That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!” 

Originally Posted by reader50 

Perhaps, but I'm only responsible for my own opinions. People are protective of private homes, with politicians and courts protective as well. It is what it is - people are intolerant of official intrusions in homes here.

Yeah, and they’d still be protected. Just that they’d have to accept additional responsibilities as a firearms owner.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

No way I would have let unsupervised, 14-year-old me drive a car. […] So, they’re actually all kind of different.

Using a gun is more dangerous than the other two activities. I did all sorts of moronic and dangerous things when I was 14 (including things that were extremely dangerous only to myself). I definitely wouldn’t want to have involved a firearm in that.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!”

The issue is it would de facto allow anyone to run a background check on anyone.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Using a gun is more dangerous than the other two activities. I did all sorts of moronic and dangerous things when I was 14 (including things that were extremely dangerous only to myself). I definitely wouldn’t want to have involved a firearm in that.

Well, then you obviously shouldn’t have had a gun.

I didn’t do irresponsible things with the gun if only because I wanted to keep it. That, and I actually took it seriously, which weighed heavily into my dad’s decision it was an acceptable state of affairs.


In terms of danger, the only legitimate unsupervised activity with a firearm for a 14-year-old is target practice. On the whole, I’d say target practice with low powered rifle is safer than getting behind the wheel.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by reader50 

The flip side is that someone who lives alone shouldn't have to store their guns in a safe, right? Or a home with only adults present? Or is this a "protect the kids" excuse to require ALL guns to be secured in safes, regardless of who lives there?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, firearms should be stored safely under all circumstances. That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!”

The point I was alluding to was emotional manipulation, using "think of the children!" as a lever to force policy changes. It should not have been used, unless the requested legal change was indeed focused narrowly on protecting kids. ie - secure storage not required when there are no kids.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

The point of safe storage laws is to protect others living in the house, e. g. the owner's children and spouses.

If it's just name dropping to require secure storage all the time, regardless of who is present (even no one living there), lets do things the politician way:

"The new law is to protect ..."
- the children (already covered)
- pregnant women!
- low income people.
- non-pregnant women.
- elderly people.
- immigrants and refugees.
- people in bankruptcy.
- ordinary people.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

The issue is it would de facto allow anyone to run a background check on anyone.

No, it doesn't. One sensible way is to always have a licensed firearms dealer involved who is responsible for running the background check, whether the other person is licensed (if available) and the do the (change in) registration. All you get is a green light or a red light. You'd only be able to run a background check if two people find one another and one wants to purchase a firearm from the other.

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, then you obviously shouldn’t have had a gun.

With respect, I don't think I was special. I wouldn't trust any teenager with a firearm unsupervised for the same reasons I don't want them driving. Their frontal cortex just hasn't matured sufficiently.

Originally Posted by subego 

I didn’t do irresponsible things with the gun if only because I wanted to keep it. That, and I actually took it seriously, which weighed heavily into my dad’s decision it was an acceptable state of affairs.

Which is not a deterrent if e. g. you want to commit suicide or you don't even think beyond the current moment.

Originally Posted by subego 

In terms of danger, the only legitimate unsupervised activity with a firearm for a 14-year-old is target practice. On the whole, I’d say target practice with low powered rifle is safer than getting behind the wheel.

Target practice of a minor should always be supervised.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

The point I was alluding to was emotional manipulation, using "think of the children!" as a lever to force policy changes. It should not have been used, unless the requested legal change was indeed focused narrowly on protecting kids. ie - secure storage not required when there are no kids.

It is not emotional manipulation, it is statistics. Kids living in a household with firearms are at an elevated risk. But children aren't the only reason. If you want to handle explosives, you are also required to store it safely even if kids are nowhere close.

Originally Posted by reader50 

If it's just name dropping to require secure storage all the time, regardless of who is present (even no one living there), lets do things the politician way:

If you want a firearm, you need to handle and store it responsibly, that's all there is to it. You should be licensed, trained and receive regular training. E. g. at my old job if I wanted to perform certain sensitive tasks (e. g. work in the cleanroom), I would require regular re-certification. If I hypothetically handled dangerous chemicals, I'd need serious regular on-the-job training with regular certification. (Among other things, they used HF, a really, really dangerous chemical.)

[reader50]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Can you refuse a building inspector and not expect consequences? Ditto for the car that you own, there are regular state-mandated checks on that, too.

Meant to reply to this, but got drawn into the gov-snoops in-your-home stuff.

CA does have a "smog check" that comes up every 2 years. But it only tests vehicle emissions and smog-related equipment, plus a few vaguely-related items. Like verifying the fuel fill hole is too small to allow the old leaded-gas pumps to fit in. Unleaded gas pumps are made with narrower nose pipes, so your unleaded car would be difficult to fill with leaded gas.

Some other states do have regular inspections for road safety, but CA does not require those on personal cars. Not even during a used car sale.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by reader50 

CA does have a "smog check" that comes up every 2 years. But it only tests vehicle emissions and smog-related equipment, plus a few vaguely-related items. Like verifying the fuel fill hole is too small to allow the old leaded-gas pumps to fit in. Unleaded gas pumps are made with narrower nose pipes, so your unleaded car would be difficult to fill with leaded gas.

Some other states do have regular inspections for road safety, but CA does not require those on personal cars. Not even during a used car sale.

Yes, and? I'm not trying to argue other regulations in detail, just that government inspections, even mandated ones, are part and parcel of other aspects of life and can interfere with “property rights”. It isn't a new concept that heretofore has never been applied.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Target practice of a minor should always be supervised.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, it doesn't.

Yes it does, because when…

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

two people find one another and one wants to purchase a firearm from the other.

This would allow anyone to perform a background check on anyone.

[OreoCookie]

With the consent of the buyer. No consent, no background check.

[subego]

There’s going to be a natural tension between the degree we can assure the consent is legitimate and how much friction is involved in the process.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

There’s going to be a natural tension between the degree we can assure the consent is legitimate and how much friction is involved in the process.

What do you mean: if you want to purchase a firearm, you need to show you are eligible to the seller. Having a two-tiered system where in some circumstances you have to prove you are eligible while in others you are not is inconsistent, stupid and unsafe.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

The issue is it would de facto allow anyone to run a background check on anyone.

What??? No!

Having a renewable and revokeable license means that you lose it if you mess up.

If I sell you my gun, I’m not running down your police or psychiatric history—I just check whether you have a valid and current license. You provide me with up-to-date paperwork, I sell you the gun. You don’t — I don’t.

You know how car rental companies insist on seeing a valid driver’s license when they rent you a car? They aren’t running a “background check” on you.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What???

What’s being discussed (emphasis added):

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!”

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

What do you mean: if you want to purchase a firearm, you need to show you are eligible to the seller. Having a two-tiered system where in some circumstances you have to prove you are eligible while in others you are not is inconsistent, stupid and unsafe.

Sorry, I missed this.

How would it work?

I’m not sure what the inconsistent, stupid, and unsafe refers too.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

How would it work?

I can see two options:
(1) You ban all private sales. Sales have to go through a licensed gun store.
(2) You allow private sales, but only through licensed gun stores that make sure paperwork is on the up and up. When buyer and seller come to an agreement in principle, they go to a licensed store and the seller and the prospective buyer consent to a background checks. The result will be either a green light or a red light. No background checks are possible without both parties’ consent.

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m not sure what the inconsistent, stupid, and unsafe refers too.

All firearms sales should make sure that buyer and seller are legitimate, i. e. they are allowed to possess firearms. Forgoing background checks for private sales (and gun shows) creates a back door the size of the Arc de Triomphe.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That line of argumentation reminds me of people arguing against mandating background checks for e. g. private sales and the like. “But I have known Bob all my life!”

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I can see two options:
(1) You ban all private sales. Sales have to go through a licensed gun store.

I would term banning all private sales “banning all private sales” rather than “mandating background checks for private sales.

Bob’s pal feels bait and switched here.

[Spheric Harlot]

That’s all unnecessary.

Every weapon is registered.
Licenses are validated regularly and suspended as soon as any irregularities occur.

I sell my gun only to people with current and valid paperwork— I’m not doing “background checks” any more than the car rental is when they check my license.

When I sell, I inform the registry that I’ve sold and whom to.

[subego]

So, anyone could do a search on anyone to see if their license is revoked? The Venn diagram of this and background checks has overlap, no?

This is before getting to the part where it’s probably unconstitutional under the current interpretation.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I would term banning all private sales “banning all private sales” rather than “mandating background checks for private sales.

I don't think that's an accurate interpretation. You could also riff off of the idea: e. g. the local Sheriff or another government office could be used to green light the sale instead of a licensed gun store. Or you could fix the processing fees a licensed dealer can take. So many options to have a background check prior to sale and transfer of registration with the ATF as part of the sale. Under no circumstances would you be able to run a background check without someone's consent.

If you still don't like my ideas, that's cool, but I don't think your claim that “you can then run background checks on anyone” is correct.

Originally Posted by subego 

So, anyone could do a search on anyone to see if their license is revoked? The Venn diagram of this and background checks has overlap, no?

Again, no. Buyer and seller have to agree to that prior to sale. You cannot run a “background check” on anyone, unless you have their consent. And you wouldn't even need to see what is on their record, all you need is a green light or a red light. The actual check is either done by a government body or someone who is licensed (a neutral third party). Another option is a license that you can verify with a reader and specialized software (just like you can verify government issued ideas in some cases).

Originally Posted by subego 

This is before getting to the part where it’s probably unconstitutional under the current interpretation.

How do you know that?

[Laminar]

Isn't there already a "the same gun control argument again" thread?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I don't think [calling it banning private sales is] an accurate interpretation.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

(1) You ban all private sales. Sales have to go through a licensed gun store.

I have no idea how this could be unclear.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Isn't there already a "the same gun control argument again" thread?

Ostensibly it’s the election thread?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have no idea how this could be unclear.

Yes, that was option (1). Now quote option (2) that I gave, please. (Those were not two steps, but two options.)

[subego]

It was the first one I was challenging.

The second is more or less how it works in Illinois.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

So, anyone could do a search on anyone to see if their license is revoked? The Venn diagram of this and background checks has overlap, no?

This is before getting to the part where it’s probably unconstitutional under the current interpretation.

Having someone show you a valid license is not a “background check”, any more than having someone show you a driver’s licence. If it’s suspended/revoked, they can’t show it to you.

[andi*pandi]

For perspective, in some pharmacies you are required to show ID before you can buy certain drugs, even basic ones like pseudofed.

My freedom to be free from sinus congestion is more useful to me than my freedom to buy guns.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Having someone show you a valid license is not a “background check”, any more than having someone show you a driver’s licence. If it’s suspended/revoked, they can’t show it to you.

We don’t have a license system.

So, yes, there’s no background check involved in this new system which doesn’t exist and I have no details on.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

For perspective, in some pharmacies you are required to show ID before you can buy certain drugs, even basic ones like pseudofed.

My freedom to be free from sinus congestion is more useful to me than my freedom to buy guns.

All commercial sales require a background check.

As for the pharmacy, I find that so obnoxious I stopped caring about the consequences. Make all the meth you want, just let me refill my fucking first aid kits in a timespan shorter than 6 weeks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

We don’t have a license system.

So, yes, there’s no background check involved in this new system which doesn’t exist and I have no details on.

Well, that’s prerequisite to everything I’ve written. Innit.

[subego]

Well, yes, but as I noted earlier, you have been replying to my responses to Oreo, who proposed mandating background checks for private sales. We can talk about licensing, but that’s inherently a separate discussion.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

For perspective, in some pharmacies you are required to show ID before you can buy certain drugs, even basic ones like pseudofed.

Sudafed can be used to make meth can't it? Thats probably why they want those sales traceable.

[subego]

Claritin too. That’s why it takes me 6 weeks to refill my first aid kits. Three kits times two types of pseudoephedrine.

[reader50]

Should we ask why all three aid kits keep running out of pseudoephedrine? I assume it's unrelated to why everyone's in a good mood on set.

[subego]

Ironically, I could probably get my hands on meth easier than the pseudoephedrine.

I generally only have to do the dance every few years when things expire. Next round is 2026.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, yes, but as I noted earlier, you have been replying to my responses to Oreo, who proposed mandating background checks for private sales. We can talk about licensing, but that’s inherently a separate discussion.

No, it's not "inherently separate", it's inherently foundational to ANY talk of gun regulation beyond "Let's ban certain types of weapons".

There is literally no way to incorporate liability and responsibility into handling of guns without tracking them to the persons liable and responsible.

[subego]

I repeat, the discussion I’m having is about mandating background checks.

Your system which has no background checks is irrelevant to discussion of mandated background checks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I repeat, the discussion I’m having is about mandating background checks.

Your system which has no background checks is irrelevant to discussion of mandated background checks.

Why would anybody want to discuss background checks if there's a perfectly viable solution used world-wide that completely obviates the need for background checks?

The whole idea a privacy invasion is a complete red herring.

[subego]

Canard in what sense?

The licensing system you propose does not invade privacy, or people shouldn’t care about this particular invasion?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Canard in what sense?

The licensing system you propose does not invade privacy, or people shouldn’t care about this particular invasion?

I've written it four times, but I'll be happy to write it again: A robust licensing scheme does not involve non-government people doing background checks on other non-government people.

[subego]

Yes.

A robust licensing scheme requires the government to invade the privacy of its citizens, and likely violate the 2nd Amendment as it’s currently interpreted.

[Spheric Harlot]

Naturally. American gun nuts have managed to frame the entirety of their arguments while completely ignoring that "well-regulated militia" implies actual regulation.

Unless there is any motion towards common sense and a genuine interest at finding a solution — and there doesn't look to be — every single word we write here is completely wasted effort.