3 ms·

I don't own a gun, but let's assume I become a gun enthusiast and decide to go buy "something cool" I go to my local gun store, which is actually a front for t

I don't own a gun, but let's assume I become a gun enthusiast and decide to go buy "something cool" I go to my local gun store, which is actually a front for the ATF. In my mind, looks like a bunch of seedy characters, but i assume they're trustworthy because, natch, they have a license from the ATF. I strike up a conversation with the bearded, scraggly guy behind the counter. What would I like? I don't know. How about a shotgun? As we talk, he talks more and more about "cool" guns. Perhaps sawed-off barrels, or big loads. At some point, we cross the line between talking about legal guns and illegal guns. Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that line. I'm trusting the guy behind the counter to be a reliable guide to what can be bought or sold. From the ATF standpoint, however, I am fully aware of the intricacies of firearm law and am now soliciting them to commit a crime. A few months go by. Then the ATF comes knocking at my door with a warrant, a hi-res video, and I go to jail. Perhaps for many years. Now we can argue whether they would actually prosecute or not, or what any sane prosecutor would ask for solicitation, but the fact of the matter is, in the ATF's view, I'm a hardened gun criminal. It'll go on my record, and this will become part of the intelligence files at ATF. If you can't see what's wrong with this picture, you've lost your moral compass.

rayiner 13y ago
You don't even have to bring morality into the equation. There's functional problems with this sort of operation, for precisely the reason you outlined. The legal system assumes that people can figure out, based on social context, what the law is, or at least know when they need to consult a lawyer. Actively misleading people, in the guise of licensed dealers, upends this assumption. Whether it's moral or immoral, it's inconsistent with the most basic assumptions on which our legal system relies.
- aric 13y ago
  Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that result in forms of torture (e.g. prison).
  - rayiner 13y ago
    The problem with morality is that it's a lot more subject to disputes and individualized viewpoints than law. For example, I think it's ridiculous to say that prison is a form of torture. If you come at me with that as the basis for your argument, we'd just argue past each other and never reach a satisfactory resolution. We'd waste all day with philosophical disagreement. But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law, well then we may well find ourselves satisfactorily resolving the issue without ever bringing up our divergent personal views of morality. Of course morality always remains in the background. But it's a backstop, an argument for changing the law.
    - aric 13y ago
      An individual is not a hive. Law will always have less basis than personal morality. How anyone could think to the contrary is troubling, especially in light of a history replete with oppression and tyranny backed through "law." The US prison system is a form of torture. This is especially so when used against the hundreds of thousands of benign, nonviolent people. Solve problems, it does not. The physical hurt, torment, and destruction to a person's life and opportunities is far more real than words on paper. Many of the forms of imprisonment that linger on are nothing but a relic of barbarous eras and the sociopathy of it continues in full for those who build careers around it. In no rational, compassionate world would being locked into a cage not be considered a form of torture except possibly in the world of those who are shockingly faithful to following whatever [insert authority] tells them to, through law, and shockingly faithful in assuming the system won't err against oneself. If a person were to kidnap you off the street and lock you in a cage, placing you into a horrible environment with cutthroat gangs eager for blood where you'll possibly be assaulted at any time and dramatically ruin your prospects if you ever walk free again, you probably wouldn't like it. You'd probably find it quite torturous. Like many, you'd find it a living hell. You'd probably understand that being placed into a cage is a form of torture. That's what prison is to people who disobey immoral laws. I wouldn't wish it for my enemies. This is why always evaluating the ethical basis is more important. Neither "law" nor "just following orders" suffice. > But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law... No, I don't enjoy circular reasoning. I only like open discourse. That means anything can be referenced. The philosophical disagreement is far more important to talk about either way. That's unless, of course, one finds oneself trapped in a courtroom of an [arbitrary jurisdiction/nation] where morality is mostly left to rot -- nay those very rare moments where nullification occurs and independent thought triumphs.
jonnathanson 13y ago
"Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that line." And that's one of the most frightening aspects of modern-day law enforcement tactics, especially when considered in light of the surveillance techniques now at their disposal. The standard presumption that everyone is fully aware of the legal boundaries of daily activities falls to pieces when someone is in virgin territory. In your hypothetical case, you've never bought a gun before, and you're probably a little nervous and out of your element. You're easy prey for a sting of this nature, and your nervousness would "read," in the context of the surveillance video, as criminal intent. Ironically enough, it's the law-abiding citizens who are least likely to be aware of the intricacies of criminal law. The real criminals would cover their bases. So by its very nature, a sting like this one produces perverse outcomes. It over-selects for innocent bystanders and petty criminals, and filters out the savvier criminals who are actually the locus of the problem ostensibly being combated.
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  > The real criminals would cover their bases. So by its very nature, a sting like this one produces perverse outcomes. It over-selects for innocent bystanders and petty criminals, and filters out the savvier criminals who are actually the locus of the problem ostensibly being combated. In the Milwaukee operation that inspired this bit of investigative journalism, it turned out even worse than that. The career criminals quickly recognized the undercover agents for what they were and proceeded to con the !$@%$@ pants off of them. The whole operation eventually fell apart when the agents got looted, including having the weapons stolen from one of their cars while it was parked at a completely different location. There was absolutely no benefit to the community from this. The agents baited a bunch of sometimes clueless folks who mostly weren't anything worse than your garden variety juvenile delinquents into committing crimes serious enough to send them to jail. So they created an acute increase in the crime rate, which then permanently decreases the ability of members of the community to secure gainful employment, thereby also creating a chronic increase in the crime rate, expanding social burdens on the community, and reducing the community's economic productivity overall. This in a city that's already completely falling apart both socially and economically thanks to >50% of its African-American males having prior convictions. In return for the pleasure of getting to do this, they supplied the local street gangs with free weapons and, briefly, a convenient source of income.
TallGuyShort 13y ago
I don't disagree that what the ATF doing is wrong, but as a gun owner who appreciates both the value of my gun rights and the seriousness of my responsibility to use them safely and wisely, I'd like to suggest an alternate view on where the picture is wrong: you trusted the gun store to be a reliable guide on what can be bought and sold. Now, I like to get advice from my local gun store as well, but it's purely informational. As someone who possesses lethal weapons, I verify EVERYTHING about what my legal obligations are, what is safe, and what is effective for home defense. I strongly recommend that anybody else do the same. A lot of people believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment, but such a freedom comes with this responsibility.

rayiner 13y ago

You don't even have to bring morality into the equation. There's functional problems with this sort of operation, for precisely the reason you outlined. The legal system assumes that people can figure out, based on social context, what the law is, or at least know when they need to consult a lawyer. Actively misleading people, in the guise of licensed dealers, upends this assumption. Whether it's moral or immoral, it's inconsistent with the most basic assumptions on which our legal system relies.

aric 13y ago
Morality is important to bring into the equation. Although s/he didn't have to, as you say, I'm glad s/he did. One should always keep ethics as a fundamental layer in discussing law, especially about actions that result in forms of torture (e.g. prison).
- rayiner 13y ago
  The problem with morality is that it's a lot more subject to disputes and individualized viewpoints than law. For example, I think it's ridiculous to say that prison is a form of torture. If you come at me with that as the basis for your argument, we'd just argue past each other and never reach a satisfactory resolution. We'd waste all day with philosophical disagreement. But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law, well then we may well find ourselves satisfactorily resolving the issue without ever bringing up our divergent personal views of morality. Of course morality always remains in the background. But it's a backstop, an argument for changing the law.
  - aric 13y ago
    An individual is not a hive. Law will always have less basis than personal morality. How anyone could think to the contrary is troubling, especially in light of a history replete with oppression and tyranny backed through "law." The US prison system is a form of torture. This is especially so when used against the hundreds of thousands of benign, nonviolent people. Solve problems, it does not. The physical hurt, torment, and destruction to a person's life and opportunities is far more real than words on paper. Many of the forms of imprisonment that linger on are nothing but a relic of barbarous eras and the sociopathy of it continues in full for those who build careers around it. In no rational, compassionate world would being locked into a cage not be considered a form of torture except possibly in the world of those who are shockingly faithful to following whatever [insert authority] tells them to, through law, and shockingly faithful in assuming the system won't err against oneself. If a person were to kidnap you off the street and lock you in a cage, placing you into a horrible environment with cutthroat gangs eager for blood where you'll possibly be assaulted at any time and dramatically ruin your prospects if you ever walk free again, you probably wouldn't like it. You'd probably find it quite torturous. Like many, you'd find it a living hell. You'd probably understand that being placed into a cage is a form of torture. That's what prison is to people who disobey immoral laws. I wouldn't wish it for my enemies. This is why always evaluating the ethical basis is more important. Neither "law" nor "just following orders" suffice. > But if we follow a policy of resolving issues by reference first to the law... No, I don't enjoy circular reasoning. I only like open discourse. That means anything can be referenced. The philosophical disagreement is far more important to talk about either way. That's unless, of course, one finds oneself trapped in a courtroom of an [arbitrary jurisdiction/nation] where morality is mostly left to rot -- nay those very rare moments where nullification occurs and independent thought triumphs.

jonnathanson 13y ago

"Now here's the thing: beats the shit out of me where we crossed that line." And that's one of the most frightening aspects of modern-day law enforcement tactics, especially when considered in light of the surveillance techniques now at their disposal. The standard presumption that everyone is fully aware of the legal boundaries of daily activities falls to pieces when someone is in virgin territory. In your hypothetical case, you've never bought a gun before, and you're probably a little nervous and out of your element. You're easy prey for a sting of this nature, and your nervousness would "read," in the context of the surveillance video, as criminal intent. Ironically enough, it's the law-abiding citizens who are least likely to be aware of the intricacies of criminal law. The real criminals would cover their bases. So by its very nature, a sting like this one produces perverse outcomes. It over-selects for innocent bystanders and petty criminals, and filters out the savvier criminals who are actually the locus of the problem ostensibly being combated.

bunderbunder 13y ago
> The real criminals would cover their bases. So by its very nature, a sting like this one produces perverse outcomes. It over-selects for innocent bystanders and petty criminals, and filters out the savvier criminals who are actually the locus of the problem ostensibly being combated. In the Milwaukee operation that inspired this bit of investigative journalism, it turned out even worse than that. The career criminals quickly recognized the undercover agents for what they were and proceeded to con the !$@%$@ pants off of them. The whole operation eventually fell apart when the agents got looted, including having the weapons stolen from one of their cars while it was parked at a completely different location. There was absolutely no benefit to the community from this. The agents baited a bunch of sometimes clueless folks who mostly weren't anything worse than your garden variety juvenile delinquents into committing crimes serious enough to send them to jail. So they created an acute increase in the crime rate, which then permanently decreases the ability of members of the community to secure gainful employment, thereby also creating a chronic increase in the crime rate, expanding social burdens on the community, and reducing the community's economic productivity overall. This in a city that's already completely falling apart both socially and economically thanks to >50% of its African-American males having prior convictions. In return for the pleasure of getting to do this, they supplied the local street gangs with free weapons and, briefly, a convenient source of income.

TallGuyShort 13y ago

I don't disagree that what the ATF doing is wrong, but as a gun owner who appreciates both the value of my gun rights and the seriousness of my responsibility to use them safely and wisely, I'd like to suggest an alternate view on where the picture is wrong: you trusted the gun store to be a reliable guide on what can be bought and sold. Now, I like to get advice from my local gun store as well, but it's purely informational. As someone who possesses lethal weapons, I verify EVERYTHING about what my legal obligations are, what is safe, and what is effective for home defense. I strongly recommend that anybody else do the same. A lot of people believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment, but such a freedom comes with this responsibility.