3 ms·

"So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary add

"So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary addition to a lists that preclude their being able to access dangerous material (guns, explosives, etc)." I'm not sure what you're getting at on this one. This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. Of course he manufactured explosives, so it's not like he has to pass a background check to come into possession of them again. "and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things." Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? "Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon." I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. Speaking of gun regulations generally, it's not hard to understand why a pro-gun group would be against the types of additional regulations that are already present in other states that arguable do not improve safety or could even reduce it in legitimate use circumstances (eg hollowpoint bans, etc).

ethbr1 2y ago
> This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. The current US justice system is based around conviction of a crime (which usually requires having already committed it, or a VERY high bar for having intended to do so) in order to impose consequences (usually severe). Or limitations on individuals' rights after conviction of the above. There's no lesser standard of 'at higher risk to commit a crime', aside from a patchwork of short-duration city/state red-flag type laws, most of which are being challenged in court. > Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? Access to NFA-controlled devices? [0] E.g. a breach-loading potato gun > I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. The Overton Window isn't a legal term: it's a PR/clickbait term. The NRA has and currently opposes red-flag laws [1], even when constructed with due process procedures, because of its mistrust of any government firearm regulation. If they instead switched their lobbying approach to productively crafting due process procedures that would allow targeting individuals with a history of threats, abuse, and violence, the rest of us could benefit from greater freedom to dangerous devices. Instead, their tunnel vision on absolute freedom requires repeatedly casting a blind eye to inconvenient situations where disturbed individuals leverage that freedom to kill others. Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes. The NRA has fueled the exact opposite, by leveraging histrionics and fear mongering, not least for its own financial gain. Fuck em. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons [1] https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503 https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503
- giantg2 2y ago
  Oh, you're talking about red flag laws. What makes you think passing red flag laws will provide additional freedoms? It seems highly unlikely that those who support the current red flag laws would support any loosening of other firearm restrictions. Your statement also implicitly assumes that red flag laws would be significantly effective to allow looser restrictions overall. However, groups like RAND have found no conclusive evidence that red flags work. The best evidence they have is potentially reducing suicides. What would the protections you mention look like? The whole point of moving things like red flag laws or civil asset forfeiture to the civil side is because it lacks the protections on the criminal side - lower burden of proof, no right to representation, ex parte proceedings, etc. It's no wonder we see constant abuses of the process in traditional PFAs during divorces in many states. Surely we could fix the existing processes to ameliorate the problems and concerns thus providing a solid basis for the argument to expand them. Currently, the ACLU opposes most of the red flag laws due to civil liberties issues. I would bet that the NRA will propose ammendments to any national red flag legislation introduced, just as they helped shape the 1968 legislation once it looked inevitable. That's all a part of the political game. Sure, the Overton Window is associated with some clickbait, but it's a real and valid concept in politics. This is why groups aren't going to volunteer to help implement things that are counter to their goals, be it the NRA or Everytown. Do you really think Everytown would support something like national reciprocity in exchange for red flag laws? No, as they are also a hardliner and playing the game. "Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes." So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    No, I'm talking about the need to have a discussion around moving access restrictions to before a crime is committed, while still ensuring individuals have access to due process. The NRA's blanket opposition to red flag laws is simply one example their willingness to ideologically fight even the simplest approach to a priori restrictions. > So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome? In my ideal world, the US would lean more heavily into universally-accessible but universally-required certification for access to dangerous devices. Similar to motor vehicles, the default should be that no one has access to these things, but everyone has a right to obtain certification to have them. As an example, that would look something like national "must issue" concealed weapons permits, but contingent on completing a non-trivial safety course and passing a background check (to ensure the individual isn't spending their free time talking about murdering people online / to their neighbors, appealable ofc). Instead, we've spent ~60 years wringing our hands to try and square the circle between {everyone deserves access to dangerous things} and {some people are too irresponsible to have dangerous things}. Why not just start with those facts and craft a viable system from there?
bigfudge 2y ago
>Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? Freedom from gun violence for thousands of US children annually?
- devops99 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - bdangubic 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - devops99 2y ago
      The inner city gang-related shootings that are counted as more than just the bulk of the "mass shootings" are not "white male".
      - bdangubic 2y ago
        [flagged]
        giantg2 2y ago
        Is this still sarcasm? Isn't a major point in the problem that the majority of firearm violence isn't reported on, thus potentially skewing any policy solutions by obscuring the underlying problem.
        bdangubic 2y ago
        skewing any policy solutions that ship has sailed the moment United States of America collectively decided that it is acceptable to slaughter children in schools. when you make that decision as a society it is over. bringing up inner city gun violence to a gun debate is more than funny to me :)

ethbr1 2y ago

> This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. The current US justice system is based around conviction of a crime (which usually requires having already committed it, or a VERY high bar for having intended to do so) in order to impose consequences (usually severe). Or limitations on individuals' rights after conviction of the above. There's no lesser standard of 'at higher risk to commit a crime', aside from a patchwork of short-duration city/state red-flag type laws, most of which are being challenged in court. > Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? Access to NFA-controlled devices? [0] E.g. a breach-loading potato gun > I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. The Overton Window isn't a legal term: it's a PR/clickbait term. The NRA has and currently opposes red-flag laws [1], even when constructed with due process procedures, because of its mistrust of any government firearm regulation. If they instead switched their lobbying approach to productively crafting due process procedures that would allow targeting individuals with a history of threats, abuse, and violence, the rest of us could benefit from greater freedom to dangerous devices. Instead, their tunnel vision on absolute freedom requires repeatedly casting a blind eye to inconvenient situations where disturbed individuals leverage that freedom to kill others. Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes. The NRA has fueled the exact opposite, by leveraging histrionics and fear mongering, not least for its own financial gain. Fuck em. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons [1] https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503 https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503

giantg2 2y ago
Oh, you're talking about red flag laws. What makes you think passing red flag laws will provide additional freedoms? It seems highly unlikely that those who support the current red flag laws would support any loosening of other firearm restrictions. Your statement also implicitly assumes that red flag laws would be significantly effective to allow looser restrictions overall. However, groups like RAND have found no conclusive evidence that red flags work. The best evidence they have is potentially reducing suicides. What would the protections you mention look like? The whole point of moving things like red flag laws or civil asset forfeiture to the civil side is because it lacks the protections on the criminal side - lower burden of proof, no right to representation, ex parte proceedings, etc. It's no wonder we see constant abuses of the process in traditional PFAs during divorces in many states. Surely we could fix the existing processes to ameliorate the problems and concerns thus providing a solid basis for the argument to expand them. Currently, the ACLU opposes most of the red flag laws due to civil liberties issues. I would bet that the NRA will propose ammendments to any national red flag legislation introduced, just as they helped shape the 1968 legislation once it looked inevitable. That's all a part of the political game. Sure, the Overton Window is associated with some clickbait, but it's a real and valid concept in politics. This is why groups aren't going to volunteer to help implement things that are counter to their goals, be it the NRA or Everytown. Do you really think Everytown would support something like national reciprocity in exchange for red flag laws? No, as they are also a hardliner and playing the game. "Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes." So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?
- ethbr1 2y ago
  No, I'm talking about the need to have a discussion around moving access restrictions to before a crime is committed, while still ensuring individuals have access to due process. The NRA's blanket opposition to red flag laws is simply one example their willingness to ideologically fight even the simplest approach to a priori restrictions. > So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome? In my ideal world, the US would lean more heavily into universally-accessible but universally-required certification for access to dangerous devices. Similar to motor vehicles, the default should be that no one has access to these things, but everyone has a right to obtain certification to have them. As an example, that would look something like national "must issue" concealed weapons permits, but contingent on completing a non-trivial safety course and passing a background check (to ensure the individual isn't spending their free time talking about murdering people online / to their neighbors, appealable ofc). Instead, we've spent ~60 years wringing our hands to try and square the circle between {everyone deserves access to dangerous things} and {some people are too irresponsible to have dangerous things}. Why not just start with those facts and craft a viable system from there?

bigfudge 2y ago

>Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? Freedom from gun violence for thousands of US children annually?

devops99 2y ago
[flagged]
- bdangubic 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - devops99 2y ago
    The inner city gang-related shootings that are counted as more than just the bulk of the "mass shootings" are not "white male".
    - bdangubic 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - giantg2 2y ago
        Is this still sarcasm? Isn't a major point in the problem that the majority of firearm violence isn't reported on, thus potentially skewing any policy solutions by obscuring the underlying problem.
        bdangubic 2y ago
        skewing any policy solutions that ship has sailed the moment United States of America collectively decided that it is acceptable to slaughter children in schools. when you make that decision as a society it is over. bringing up inner city gun violence to a gun debate is more than funny to me :)