Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread"

Pol Lounge General News Thread of "This doesn't deserve it's own thread" (Page 70)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 6, 2022, 11:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My guess is what most conservatives support is forcing dealers to run background checks on their customers, and that’s what they’re imagining when they affirm the idea. This is more or less the law now.

Mandatory checks on private sales is what doesn’t fly.
I don't think that is correct, it sounds more like this is what you perceive to be true.

Polling is specifically on universal background checks, meaning you can't legally sell a gun unless you have verified that the buyer is allowed to purchase a firearm. For example, this Morning Consult/Politico poll puts support at 66 % + 18 % = 84 % (strongly support + somewhat support), and it specifically asks “Requiring background checks for all gun purchasers”. Support amongst conservatives is 55 % (strong) + 24 % (somewhat), i. e. 79 %. The lowest number for strong support was 53 % PID Republican, although even then 24 % somewhat support it.

This Fastcompany article links to three other recent polls that show similar numbers. I verified that the Quinnipac poll and Gallup poll specifically ask about background checks for all gun purchases. The last Politico poll was seemingly more vague and asked about gun restrictions in general.

Given the numbers and questions, I think it is fair to say that a strong majority across all demographics supports universal background checks, i. e. for all gun purchases.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 12:03 AM
 
The question which needs to be asked is whether the respondent supports mandatory background checks on private sales. If that has broad support then I’ll shut up.

The data from a poll which only implies my question is not casually interchangeable with the data from a poll directly asking it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The question which needs to be asked is whether the respondent supports mandatory background checks on private sales. If that has broad support then I’ll shut up.
The question is “all sales”, so it includes private sales. Your argument sounds as if you think that “many people aren't aware what ‘all sales’ really means and thus say something they didn't mean to say if they knew better”. IMHO you should take the overwhelming number at their word and seriously.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The data from a poll which only implies my question is not casually interchangeable with the data from a poll directly asking it.
I think you are moving the goal posts here.

I think the question is perfectly clear, simple and straightforward. It also remained consistent across different polls. I think people who are either on the fence or disagree when it comes to private sales had two other options “somewhat support” and “somewhat against”.

In any case, given the consistent large majorities, the onus is on you to show there is polling which supports your claim that certain demographics are actually largely against imposing background checks on private sales.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 12:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Two honest questions: (1) How big of a concern is that really? {antique gun traded in} I don't think the majority of guns are of any historical value.

And (2) this indicates to me that the person who owned this gun doesn't know its value. That happens in other areas all the time where e. g. people own rare collectible books and aren't aware of their value. In practice, I would expect that this happens very rarely.
I expect it's rare also. Either traded in by mistake, or a black sheep sticking it to daddy. But even a single museum piece should not be destroyed because the regulatory footnote says so. The population back then was much smaller, so fewer guns to begin with. And way fewer that survived to the present.

The fact that it would rarely happen confirms an exceptionally rare piece of history. Imagine it being any other kind of "trash" being collected. Old books, old pottery, old clock. Those ancient Greek vases probably don't pass modern regulations against leaded paint. But if destruction is required, without exception, then a piece of history must be destroyed. As a matter of law.
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think the biggest correlation to gun violence is the sheer number of guns, and meaningful change in the US would only come from a significant reduction in the number of firearms. (And they should be recycled, not thrown away, of course.)
Might I point out that reselling the good-quality guns will decrease new gun purchases by an equal amount, and recover some tax revenue? So long as new gun sales are not banned (legally impossible, 2A), the number of guns sold to owners each year will be about the same. Destroying them recovers no money, and causes more dealer sales to be of new guns. As there are fewer used guns to meet demand.

So reselling preserves precious tax revenue, while depriving gun manufacturers of some of their income. Sounds like something you'd be in favor of.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 12:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The question which needs to be asked is whether the respondent supports mandatory background checks on private sales. If that has broad support then I’ll shut up.

The data from a poll which only implies my question is not casually interchangeable with the data from a poll directly asking it.
I'm going to agree with subego on this one. Conservatives may well read "universal" as "universal checks on new purchases". Or universal check at official sellers.

I've never done a background check for any purpose. If I had a gun for private sale, I wouldn't even know how to do the deed. It sounds like I'd become an unpaid deputy of the government, with penalties if I miss a form, or make any kind of mistake filling one out. And it's implied that anonymous sales would be impossible. Would this apply to gifts too? Paperwork, penalties, and government notification if I gifted a gun to a cousin?

My initial reaction was that "universal" sounded good. Until subego brought up the word "private". At which point I had to start thinking about it more.

Side question - will this plan lead to the government having a complete list of all private citizens who own guns? And an exact list of which ones each citizen owns?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 01:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
The fact that it would rarely happen confirms an exceptionally rare piece of history. Imagine it being any other kind of "trash" being collected. Old books, old pottery, old clock. Those ancient Greek vases probably don't pass modern regulations against leaded paint. But if destruction is required, without exception, then a piece of history must be destroyed. As a matter of law.
I think the important qualification here is that this is strictly voluntary, so people choose to have their property destroyed (potentially in exchange for money, gift cards or what not). This is no less lamentable than my parents throwing away their record collection or people selling precious books for a dollar at a yard sale.

All of these hurt people who care about those items, but ultimately, this is the decision of these individuals. Overall, though, the issue sounds like a niche problem.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Might I point out that reselling the good-quality guns will decrease new gun purchases by an equal amount, and recover some tax revenue?
I don't think most people are not worried about tax revenue here. Do you think this is a viable argument when it comes to e. g. cigarettes, should we argue that increasing cigarette sales leads to an increase in tax revenue?
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So long as new gun sales are not banned (legally impossible, 2A), the number of guns sold to owners each year will be about the same. Destroying them recovers no money, and causes more dealer sales to be of new guns. As there are fewer used guns to meet demand.
I don't know that this is true, because all of these actions might change how the majority of people think about firearms. As far as I understand, compared to the past on average fewer Americans own more guns.

Personally, my expectation is that if the political system does not enact meaningful firearms regulations that are in line with a vast majority, eventually Americans will change their minds about the way the Second Amendment is currently interpreted and might abolish it altogether.
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
So reselling preserves precious tax revenue, while depriving gun manufacturers of some of their income. Sounds like something you'd be in favor of.
I don't care about tax revenue in this case. And if gun manufacturers are smart, they will use their expertise in high quality manufacturing and apply it to other fields. After all, such a shift would not be unprecedented. In my home of choice, Japan, sword smiths lost pretty much their entire market in the Meiji period. So they switched to manufacturing kitchen knives. Damn good ones.


I'm kinda worried about the American military adopting the SIG M5. IMHO the reason why the AR15 is as popular as it is is simply, because it looks and (with the obvious exception of full auto) works like the gun that soldiers use — which they think is cool. They can put flashlights, sights and laser dots on their Picatinny rails and customize it. While the (original) AR15 uses an intermediate cartridge, the M5 has a bullet with much, much higher energy (meant to defeat Russian and Chinese body armor). And it looks cool, new and by default comes with a suppressor. I'm worried that this will yield a run on a much more powerful rifle whose bullets are meant to defeat body armor. Even with AR15 the police officers seem to be scared to risk their own lives, they did not enter Sandy Hook Elementary, Parkland High and now at Uvalde's Robb Elementary School.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 02:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The question is “all sales”, so it includes private sales. Your argument sounds as if you think that “many people aren't aware what ‘all sales’ really means and thus say something they didn't mean to say if they knew better”. IMHO you should take the overwhelming number at their word and seriously.
My argument is the true measure of support for a policy is the willingness to tolerate the negative consequences. Not only is this the true measure, were I a legislator I’d consider it my ethical responsibility to use this measure because anything less would betray my obligation to be forthright with my constituents.

The question in that poll for ignores the negative consequences and therefore does not meet my criteria for a valid representation of what constituents believe.

Am I understanding correctly you argue I should do the opposite? I should substitute laser-focus on what’s contentious for ignoring it entirely or almost entirely?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 03:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My argument is the true measure of support for a policy is the willingness to tolerate the negative consequences.
You seem to argue that most people “don't know what they are voting for”, and that you view a ban on private sales without background check as a negative. In combination, it seems like a version of the common trope that “people vote/act against their own interests.”

I don't find that persuasive and seems to be just motivated by your own beliefs. What if a majority of people (however you slice it) really believes that banning all sales without background checks (including private sales) as something positive rather than something negative? Surely, some people are not aware of some the negative consequences that you have in mind, but then IMHO the onus is on you to persuade them otherwise.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not only is this the true measure, were I a legislator I’d consider it my ethical responsibility to use this measure because anything less would betray my obligation to be forthright with my constituents.
No offense, but that sounds very much like motivated reasoning on your part, clouted in piety. Also, why do you assume you are an elected representative here?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Am I understanding correctly you argue I should do the opposite? I should substitute laser-focus on what’s contentious for ignoring it entirely or almost entirely?
No, I'm just saying that if you want to claim that there really isn't support for a ban on private gun sales without background check, then the onus is on you to provide evidence.

Otherwise, if I were you, rather than try to argue about hard-to-argue-with numbers, I'd think about what it means knowing that you are part of a small minority here. Now that doesn't mean that you are wrong or right, it just means that you will have to make the case for your position. IMHO any gun ownership proponent who steadfastly refuses to admit this might accelerate a violent (figuratively speaking) and sudden change in policy.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 07:18 AM
 
The poll question has no information about how the policy would be implemented. Voting for a policy I don’t know how will be implemented is the definition of “don’t know what I’m voting for”.

Poll numbers for “free food” are not indicative of support for “free food (made of people)”.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 07:20 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What if a majority of people (however you slice it) really believes that banning all sales without background checks (including private sales) as something positive rather than something negative?
Then they are willing to tolerate the negative consequences.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 07:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Also, why do you assume you are an elected representative here?
Because elected representatives are the ones charged with implementing policy, and have an obligation to be forthright with their constituents. Pollsters are not charged with this duty, and they have far less obligation to be forthright.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 07:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The poll question has no information about how the policy would be implemented. Voting for a policy I don’t know how will be implemented is the definition of “don’t know what I’m voting for”.
That‘s a separate question. And as long as there isn‘t a concrete proposal on the table, also not necessary.

Overall, it seems you are trying hard to dismiss the poll. When there is such broad consensus in society, that should IMHO have consequences in how politicians prioritize their efforts. And their policies should reflect the opinions of their constituents.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Then they are willing to tolerate the negative consequences.
You are not even willing to concede that some of the things you see as negative others see as a positive — and vice versa? People can genuinely have different opinions on things.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 12:29 PM
 
One thing worth noting is what Klepper pointed out on Colbert yesterday:

A huge majority of constituents isn't necessarily a huge majority of voters.

In the U.S., only a fraction of the eligible population is registered to vote, and only a fraction of those registered actually vote. And only some of those will vote Republican.

So depending on the issue, a small minority of public opinion can be a majority of Republican voters.

Subtract the number of voters for whom it's not a deciding issue, or where another (say, anti-choice stance) makes a bigger priority, and it might be less harmful for Republicans to support unpopular measures than risk losing the corporate donors lining their Swiss bank accounts and campaign funcs.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 09:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
Side question - will this plan lead to the government having a complete list of all private citizens who own guns? And an exact list of which ones each citizen owns?

Background checks should be secondary to closing the private sale/gun show loopholes but could be instrumental in doing so. You can't have private citizens running background checks on each other, thats as demented as it is impractical. The answer is to ban private sales. You can only buy from and sell to a licensed dealer.
If you are caught in possession of any gun without being able to produce a receipt with the serial number from a licensed dealer, it gets taken and you get fined. Three strikes and you get jailed too. I guess you'd have to pay via electronic payment too, no cash so you can prove you bought it and didn't just buy the original receipt along with the gun.

Psychiatrists, therapists and mental health practitioners should also be able/required to report patients to the background check system. Nothing about their conditions or medical records, just a flag on the system saying no guns for you until the shrink says so.


No-one has addressed the idea of heavily taxing some or all guns. This would not be unconstitutional would it? And it would make them less accessible to children, criminals and general misfits.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 09:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That‘s a separate question. And as long as there isn‘t a concrete proposal on the table, also not necessary.
Yes. It’s a different question. Hence the answers not being interchangeable.

I prefer the strategy of asking questions before there is a concrete proposal, and letting the answers inform its creation. Explain to me the benefits of doing it in reverse.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 09:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are not even willing to concede that some of the things you see as negative others see as a positive — and vice versa? People can genuinely have different opinions on things.
Of course I’m willing to concede it.

What I’m saying and what you think I’m saying are so divergent, I’m not sure how best to clarify.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Yes. It’s a different question. Hence the answers not being interchangeable.
To me it feels like you are deflecting. I have just stated that polls show there is broad and consistent support across the political spectrum for banning all sales without background checks.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I prefer the strategy of asking questions before there is a concrete proposal, and letting the answers inform its creation. Explain to me the benefits of doing it in reverse.
Because it helps prioritize societal and political issues. Something with such broad support should be worked on and worked out by politicians. It is a necessary step before coming up with solutions.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Of course I’m willing to concede it.

What I’m saying and what you think I’m saying are so divergent, I’m not sure how best to clarify.
I have not criticized you for holding a minority opinion, I have criticized two things: (1) I have objected to you for insisting that what you see as negative consequences is shared by others. It doesn't mean you have to agree, just accept that some people might feel that what you see as a negative they see as a positive. And (2) I think the onus is on you to convince the vast majority otherwise.

I think I understand quite well what it is like to be in a minority when it comes to opinions: I was arguing for gay rights before it became normal, I spent decades arguing about renewables and the problems associated with fossil fuels and nuclear energy. However, it was my job to spread the word and convince others.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 11:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Background checks should be secondary to closing the private sale/gun show loopholes but could be instrumental in doing so. You can't have private citizens running background checks on each other, thats as demented as it is impractical. The answer is to ban private sales. You can only buy from and sell to a licensed dealer.
In principle, you can think of ways to allow for private sales but ensure background checks. For example, you could force people to go to the local police or sherif's office and conclude the sale there — after law enforcement confirmed that the buy was eligible to buy that particular class of weapon.

However, I agree that given that sales of e. g. alcohol require a license, I think this is the easier way that closes many practical loopholes. In fact, I think alcohol is an excellent analogy for the right of Americans to drink alcohol is enshrined in the Constitution as well.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you are caught in possession of any gun without being able to produce a receipt with the serial number from a licensed dealer, it gets taken and you get fined. Three strikes and you get jailed too. I guess you'd have to pay via electronic payment too, no cash so you can prove you bought it and didn't just buy the original receipt along with the gun.
I think we need to distinguish also between laws as they are on the books and how they are enforced. IMHO guns should be registered. Practically, you could make a rule that all newly purchased, gifted or inherited guns must be registered. After a generation or so, all firearms would be registered. Then you can compare whether the person who possesses a particular firearm has it registered under their name.
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
No-one has addressed the idea of heavily taxing some or all guns. This would not be unconstitutional would it? And it would make them less accessible to children, criminals and general misfits.
That has been tried with e. g. suppressors. When it was proposed the $200 registration fee was some outrageous amount, but now, thanks to inflation, it is not a serious hurdle.

IMHO the best way forward is to take “well-regulated” seriously. Depending on the type of firearm, you should have stricter or laxer restrictions. E. g. a bolt action hunting rifle should require someone to have different and less training than a concealed carry permit for a handgun. The latter should be pilot's license difficult, i. e. regular mandatory training and the like. But of course, I realize the farther down the post you have read, the less likely the proposal is being implemented.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2022, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you are caught in possession of any gun without being able to produce a receipt with the serial number from a licensed dealer, it gets taken and you get fined. Three strikes and you get jailed too. I guess you'd have to pay via electronic payment too, no cash so you can prove you bought it and didn't just buy the original receipt along with the gun.
This would certainly grow the jail population. Guns are often passed down through families. If it was bought 60-70 years ago by someone now deceased, how many people will still have the receipt? So if a family has 3 (or more) inherited guns, off they go to jail. And their inheritance is confiscated. Even though they've done nothing wrong.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 12:01 AM
 
@Oreo

If we mandate background checks on private sales, a system for conducting those checks must be created.

This system will create consequences. I won’t qualify them as positive or negative.

For example, solutions where a private citizen can conduct background checks on other private citizens has consequences for privacy.

There are solutions which don’t have privacy consequences, like banning all private sales. Criminalizing behavior which is currently legal is a consequence of this solution.

The true measure of support for manditory background checks is how willing people are to tolerate these consequences.


I didn’t qualify these consequences as positive or negative. The qualifier isn’t the focus, it’s what it qualifies.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 12:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I have objected to you for insisting that what you see as negative consequences is shared by others. It doesn't mean you have to agree, just accept that some people might feel that what you see as a negative they see as a positive.
I’m not insisting this.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m not insisting this.
In response to
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
What if a majority of people (however you slice it) really believes that banning all sales without background checks (including private sales) as something positive rather than something negative?
you wrote:
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Then they are willing to tolerate the negative consequences.
Also in earlier posts you insisted that people must have [url=http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?p=4425376#post4425376]“the willingness to tolerate the negative consequences”[\url]. If you don't see a consequence as negative, you don't need to tolerate it.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 01:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If we mandate background checks on private sales, a system for conducting those checks must be created.

This system will create consequences. I won’t qualify them as positive or negative.

For example, solutions where a private citizen can conduct background checks on other private citizens has consequences for privacy.
Yes, the same goes for purchasing a house or a vehicle, which you also need to register with the state.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
There are solutions which don’t have privacy consequences, like banning all private sales.
Why would that have no implications on privacy? If stores had to run background checks, then they would have to manage the exact same private information as during a private sale. IMHO if you allowed for private gun sales with background checks, then the background check itself should be identical no matter how you purchase a firearm.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Criminalizing behavior which is currently legal is a consequence of this solution.
Yes, and? That is only problematic if is (= the descriptive claim) and ought (= the prescriptive claim) coincide — which in this case they don't. When making good laws you attempt to bring is and ought closer together. And when the vast majority if society thinks that certain behavior ought to be illegal and no longer tolerated, then this criminalization is intended.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The true measure of support for manditory background checks is how willing people are to tolerate these consequences.
If that were the bar, I don't think we'd be able to have a functioning society. The “true measure of support” is an entirely fictitious thing and not useful to make good or moral decisions. Or even to guide your thinking that helps you find a solution. It is just an argument to not change anything, no matter how much support the general idea has among the population.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 02:09 AM
 
Strike the word “negative”. It’s ultimately not relevant to the point.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 02:18 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Strike the word “negative”. It’s ultimately not relevant to the point.
At least the arguments in my last reply do not depend on that. Like I wrote in my last paragraph, I still don't see why this is a relevant or even useful way to think about problems. At best, only a tiny number of people know all the implications of a decision. (Although I'd set that number to 0.) Even well-informed voters don't know all implications.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 02:44 AM
 
Sorry. That was meant as a response to your reply before that.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 03:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why would that have no implications on privacy?
If private sales are banned, there are no background checks occurring for private sales, hence the policy does not have a privacy implication.

This is in contrast to a system where they are not banned, but background checks are mandatory for them, and a private citizen must run a background check on another private citizen.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 03:19 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If private sales are banned, there are no background checks occurring for private sales, hence the policy does not have a privacy implication.
I don't get it. There would still be background checks for sales with dealers, and the information that needs to be exchanged is identical. Unless you are criticizing that people can currently get firearms without background checks of any kind e. g. through private sales or at gun shows. But I think this is precisely the loophole that the vast majority of the population wants fixed, i. e. it wouldn't be a bug, but the feature.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is in contrast to a system where they are not banned, but background checks are mandatory for them, and a private citizen must run a background check on another private citizen.
No, citizens need not run background checks on one another, they could let e. g. law enforcement or ATF do that. Like I wrote above, you could implement background checks by mandating that people do private sales at police stations or sherif's offices. The buyer hands in the paperwork to police and police gives thumbs up or thumbs down.

Personally, I think it'd be better if only people needed licenses to buy, sell and trade firearms — just like you do for alcohol (which is also constitutionally protected), medication and a whole host of other stuff. But I think there'd be a way to allow for private sales with background checks.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
At best, only a tiny number of people know all the implications of a decision. (Although I'd set that number to 0.)
The cure for those unaware of the implications of a decision is explication.

If the question directly addresses the implications, then the respondents are aware of those implications because they’re contained in the question.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 03:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The cure for those unaware of the implications of a decision is explication.
Yeah, except that because of the complexity of the system there is no way to predict the impact with certainty. Even experts only understand facets. An expert on pandemics and an expert on 12K education might come to different conclusions on school closures during the height of the Covid pandemic. On what time frame do you measure costs?

Who are the relevant experts? Are gun owners more of an experts than victims of gun violence?

Culture plays a major role, and there are self-reinforcing effects, you could enter a virtuous or a vicious cycle. Many people are afraid of change, even if the change is likely for the better. Initially, Obama Care (aka the ACA) is more popular now than it was when it was new. What does that mean?

You can't try solutions in a carefully designed experiment either, you can't play god, prepare another country with 331 million inhabitants that is statistically identical to the US and let it evolve for a decade or a century.

People also might not want to dive deeply into one subject. Probably that's not the best use of one's time. People are used to take decisions with partial information, and in a democracy they don't need to be informed.

Overall, I think you seem to insist that people would be of a different opinion “if only they knew” what the implications are and use that as a justification to dismiss broad public support.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If the question directly addresses the implications, then the respondents are aware of those implications because they’re contained in the question.
If nobody knows and nobody can know all the implications, is that a useful method to address problems?

IMHO the better way is to accept that you don't understand everything, you try to implement something that addresses a problem you see with the best available information you have and then iterate on it. And even if you find a solution that is perfect now, it could be inadequate if circumstances change. Plus, individuals don't need to understand all aspects perfectly here, instead society at large gives you more and more relevant perspectives on an issue.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
This would certainly grow the jail population. Guns are often passed down through families. If it was bought 60-70 years ago by someone now deceased, how many people will still have the receipt? So if a family has 3 (or more) inherited guns, off they go to jail. And their inheritance is confiscated. Even though they've done nothing wrong.
You'd have to have some one-off system for existing weapons. Register the serial with a licensed dealer so you get a new receipt with the serial on it for a small admin fee or no fee at all. There would be a limited window for this. After that if you want to be one of those stubborn "My guns are secret" types then you risk losing them.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 04:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That has been tried with e. g. suppressors. When it was proposed the $200 registration fee was some outrageous amount, but now, thanks to inflation, it is not a serious hurdle.
Whats an AR-15? $1000? Stick $5-10k on it.


I heard some Uvalde families are suing the gun maker. This should be encouraged.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 04:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If nobody knows and nobody can know all the implications, is that a useful method to address problems?
I feel it goes without saying it’s a useful method for implications that are foreseeable (e.g., in a system where private citizens can run background checks on each other, there are privacy implications that are foreseeable).
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 04:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
If you are caught in possession of any gun without being able to produce a receipt with the serial number from a licensed dealer, it gets taken and you get fined. Three strikes and you get jailed too.
This sounds super mega unconstitutional to me.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 04:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I feel it goes without saying it’s a useful method for implications that are foreseeable (e.g., in a system where private citizens can run background checks on each other, there are privacy implications that are foreseeable).
Aren't you referring to intended consequences? And why do you keep on writing that citizens run background checks on each other?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This sounds super mega unconstitutional to me.
I think it will be found unconstitutional, but I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional — well-regulated is explicitly contained in the 2nd Amendment.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 05:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think it will be found unconstitutional, but I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional — well-regulated is explicitly contained in the 2nd Amendment.
I agree.

It’s unconstitutional by the current interpretation, which isn’t going anywhere fast.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 05:53 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Aren't you referring to intended consequences? And why do you keep on writing that citizens run background checks on each other?
I keep using citizens running background checks on each other because it’s an example (not meant to exclude other examples) where we can point to a straightforward consequence (privacy implications).

I would say the intended consequence of such a policy is stopping the sale of firearms to people who fail a background check. The privacy implications are an unintended, yet foreseeable consequence of this specific policy (citizens running background checks on each other).
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 08:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I would say the intended consequence of such a policy is stopping the sale of firearms to people who fail a background check. The privacy implications are an unintended, yet foreseeable consequence of this specific policy (citizens running background checks on each other).
Why do you insist it is an unintended consequence? I don‘t think there is a long cause-effect chain here, it is plain as day that whenever you need to identify yourself that you need to do this with private information.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2022, 08:43 PM
 
How is this really relevant? The post you quoted did not qualify the consequence I mentioned as intended or unintended, merely that it is a consequence.

You asked whether I meant to qualify it with “intended”. I did not, but I attempted to restate my point in accordance with the question I was asked.

Said answer I did qualify with “I would say”. Perhaps it was unclear, but such qualifiers generally denote the exact opposite of insistence.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2022, 03:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This sounds super mega unconstitutional to me.
Does 2A say you have a constitutional right to keep stolen guns?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2022, 03:52 AM
 
Are there any current laws about owning guns with no serial numbers? That seems like an easy one that no-one could produce a sane argument against.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2022, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Does 2A say you have a constitutional right to keep stolen guns?
The 4th protects me from having my papers searched without probable cause.

The 2nd means possession is not probable cause for a search.

The 14th guarantees me due process of law, and one of the processes I am due is a presumption of innocence.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2022, 12:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Are there any current laws about owning guns with no serial numbers?
Yup. That’s five in the poke.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2022, 01:10 PM
 
Unless you made the gun yourself. Last I heard, serial numbers are required on sold guns. Note that buying your own programmable CNC milling machine is a very expensive step, just to make a few guns for yourself. Vastly cheaper to buy them already made, with serials.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2022, 02:00 PM
 
This is correct. A homemade, non-NFA gun not intended for sale isn’t legally required to have a serial, but the ATF says “pretty please with sugar on top do it anyway”.

Also, the requirement for serials on non-NFA guns didn’t become law until 1968, so pre-1968 ones manufactured without serials are kosher, but you can’t erase the serial from a pre-1968 gun if it was manufactured with one. It was legal to remove a serial on a non-NFA gun prior to 1968, but all the guns upon which this was performed became illegal post-1968.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 10, 2022 at 05:30 PM. )
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2022, 11:33 PM
 
‘What the F-ck Is This?’: Team Trump Blindsided by Jan. 6 Committee Getting Doc Footage

A documentary film team had unrestricted, behind-the-scenes access to Trump and family throughout the reelection campaign, including Jan.6. The House committee has subpoenaed all the raw footage and the producer is fully cooperating.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 9, 2022, 07:15 PM
 
In today’s episode of Just How Fucking Cruel Can the Right Get?...

Preventive care such as birth control, anti-HIV medicine challenged in Texas lawsuit
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 8, 2022, 05:07 PM
 
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,