@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo we already have background checks... Just not for private sale. They have straw purchase laws that making gifting a weapon a pain too. But some states do allow private sale which doesn't need to go through federal background checks. It's not a loophole. It's common sense. If I have a firearm I dont use and a friend or family member interested in buying it from me there is no need to have government involved adding their taxes and fees.
@freemo@admitsWrongIfProven I don't agree. We're taxed plenty. Giving government more chances to shake people down doesn't sound great to me. Next they'll say I didn't charge enough because they didn't get as much tax as they'd like (this happens with private car sales).
why does the state need a cut if I'm not making a profit? I think there are often laws setting boundaries for what qualifies as a private sale. A person manufacturing weapons for sale must register with the government and add serial numbers so it's not like allowing private sale allows me to print and sell fgc-9 over and over or something. In fact if I had one I think it would be excluded from private sale allowance because it's homemade anyway. I also can't rent hours on my printer to someone who wants to make one. I can't even let you use my drill press for an 80% build. There is lots of regulation in place around private sale/trade/manufacture already.
@thatguyoverthere@freemo So it seems that either the checks are not good enough or those private sales are the problem... would need some studies about the source of the weapons used in those many shootings the usa has, i guess.
@freemo@thatguyoverthere Well for the topic at hand, it would not exactly matter if a sale is public or private - just that background checks are performed. Are private sellers liable for what is done with their gun until background checks are performed? Sell to a loonie, get imprisoned for their murder, right?
@freemo@admitsWrongIfProven If you aren't making a profit there is no tax owed simple as. Calling a sale of something I bought and am not selling for profit taxable is absurd
@freemo@admitsWrongIfProven yeah agreed. I was just saying that some states do require a background check although it's ancillary to the transfer which is the paper trail. I think I conflate the background check with the transfer in my head though because you can't have one without the other.
@freemo@admitsWrongIfProven yeah that part depends on the state. Here in wv no need but that doesn't mean you can sell homemade fgc-9 or ar pistols from the back of your truck. You also can't buy a gun for your wife. If you buy a gun and want to gift it to someone they are expected to come in and pick do the transfer. I think it's different if you give one from your collection, but if it could look like a straw purchase it's probably illegal.
@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo a person with rage control issues and no criminal record can still likely go buy a gun. Or do you think we aught to have a psych eval every time we want a new gun? That's pretty crazy if so considering the us has a history of using mental health against people in exploitative ways. Imagine a world where you need a psych eval to buy a car or a hammer or a bag of pebbles? Madness
Its worse than that... if the consequence of struggling with mental health and seeing a doctor has the consequence of revoking ones rights the end result is people who care about being able to buy a gun will go out of their way not to talk about or seek medical help for their mental illnesses.
The end result is increasing the number of people that get no help with their mental illness and a lot more of the wrong sort of people owning guns.
@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo I mean... There was the French teacher, charli hebdo (spelling), Ariana whatever concert .... Multiple rampage stabbing events in London... So much that they want to round off the kitchen knives... Many other absolutely terrible events that just happen not to include guns.
@thatguyoverthere@freemo Ah yes, now that you mention it, we have that all the time. Just yesterday i had to have my head reattached, always such a hassle!
@admitsWrongIfProven so hold on. If I say I've never been robbed at gun point I am experiencing a bias, but if you have never knowingly been at risk of beheading then it's not biased? Amazing.
@bonifartius@thatguyoverthere@freemo Ah, now i'm on board again. "Lützerath", a german town with a coal quarry, has had those thugs. They forcefully removed peaceful protestors against the mining of coal unnecessary for our energy needs.
In truely american style, instead of peaceful protest, maybe lots of guns could have yielded a better result. Purely hypothetical, but humans killing other humans might just be better for the environment.
@thatguyoverthere@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo "legal". now we have violent armed state sponsored thugs keeping others from exercising their natural right of self defense with proper means.
While that might aflddress part of the concern it seems a recipie for abuse, especially in a field that is known for quite an abundance of false positives and inconsistency when it comes to diagnosing.
Its basically the equivelant of saying "Get some government agent to talk to you, if you feel suspicious you can just deny them a gun"... i mean if you want to create a standardized test for it maybe, but even then sounds like a recipie for abuse.
Do you think something similar still applies if there's a required and the evaluator explicitly has no access to the candidate's medical history? (Or would that be infeasible enough to be useless?)
@robryk@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo first I think there is a difference between a previous offender and every person. Why am I expected to prove my trustworthiness when government agencies aren't required to do the same? I've done nothing that harms anyone in a way that is against the law. It's impossible for anyone to claim they've never done harm or lost self control or will never. Even infants have fits of rage. Augustine talked about this.
Having a psych eval as a prerequisite for a driving license doesn't sound totally weird. As an example, Zürich requires psych eval of drivers who have done something particularly reckless while driving if they want to keep being allowed to drive. I don't think it's required ahead of time for any license, but heavy vehicle/bus/... license requires a medical exam which I can't find the exact description of.
@robryk@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo second I think if a person commits a crime and is convicted (it doesn't count if not) and they serve out their sentence, their debt to society should be considered repayed in almost all cases (all really if the punishment were to always fit the crime).
@freemo@admitsWrongIfProven@robryk yes I agree. Just being lazy and using a euphemism but it's about restitution and recovery. I do think some crimes deserve at minimum life sentences if for no other reason than to protect innocent people from fully actualized monsters (rape, molestation, etc). But I believe any crime that has a specific temporal path to restitution should be basically expunged after the sentence has been served. If the sentence is insufficient then the law should be updated to reflect that.
@thatguyoverthere@freemo@robryk Would it not be more important to reinstate voting rights? As far as i know, convicted felons don't get to vote after serving their sentence, is that right?
@admitsWrongIfProven@freemo@robryk it's a matter of what you consider to be a vital human right. As it stands today any person with an assault charge is legally not allowed to own a firearm. Does this mean people with previous violent records dont own guns? Of course not they just use alternative means to secure their firearms.
People have the right to defend themselves. By imprisoning them we strip them of that right. When they have served their sentence their rights should be restored. You aren't stopping determined criminals by making it harder for someone who made a shit decision when they were 20 to defend themselves at 75.
"Shoot people in any non-self-defense situation, don't get guns again." Softer measure to stop further violence than life long imprisonment, and if further violence is to be expected, it must be stopped.
But voting rights are a must-have: this thing about taking them away is one of the reasons i do not consider the usa a democracy.
@freemo@thatguyoverthere@admitsWrongIfProven there is a natural experiment that shows this. The FAA grounds pilots and controllers who have a medically diagnosed mental health issue. The result is that people in these professions do not seek treatment for their mental health issues because doing so means loosing their job.
@thatguyoverthere Well, "a shit decision" and showing signs that a repeat offense would be different things, and thus should be treated differently. That's where good laws need to get complicated, because life is complicated.
@admitsWrongIfProven in the eyes of the law there is no difference without stepping on human rights and treating some people different from others. I thought that was bad.
@freemo@antares@thatguyoverthere It amazes me that this seems to leas to one clear conclusion for you folks. Did i get that right, pilots with mental health issues should not be grounded? Or what exactly are you saying?
I would go the route with better help, not letting people become unemployed and forgotten, stuff like that.
And with guns, is your argument really to let people with some predisposition to impulsive violence have guns so seeking help would not be impeded?
@admitsWrongIfProven I mean Jung talks about the shadow. Augustine talks about how infants are monsters. It shouldn't be news that human beings are omnivorous animals that have violence in our nature.
I woukd say pilotes with mental health issues should not be grounded, 100%. Science is about going with what the nunbers say even when it defies your biases and assumptions.
We know for a fact that the result of groubding people with mental health issues means more people with mental health issues wind up in the pilots seat.
Are you claiming we should enact policies that are known to objectively increase the number of mental health issues flying planes?
You think, despite being disproven by example, that forcing mental health consequences means people with mental health issues wont be doing the thing.
You think the choice is between crazy people with guns/planes vs sane people.
The reality is the argument is treated people who are now mentally healthy flying/owning planes/guns vs untreated people.
It amazes me the republicans are out here trying to argue for better access to emntal health meanwhile democrats are trying to punish people who need access to mental health.
that's how you end up with someone telling a doctor they are sad and now they are on 30 terrorist watch lists because of it and none of them make sense.
That is exactly why so many soldiers refuse to ask for help with their ptsd issues. If you want people to seek mental health help then you must make it beneficial to them and not a weapon to be used against them.
This is the first good post of yours that I've read.
@freemo@thatguyoverthere@admitsWrongIfProven Criminals get the ledgers and target the owners. It's a real thing in Australia. The gun regisration data base is busted too. That has been linked to robberies where owners and dealers have been targeted.
A popular right wing news paper published a map showing regions of highest concentration of legal guns per person which were farm communities. Those communities were targeted by thieves and still are.