Gyroscopic Investing

Liveblogged:
http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/04/17/liv ... hopefully/

Streaming live video:
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Senate-to- ... 7439223-1/

Call your senators! It has an effect.
https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_ ... rs_cfm.cfm

Write, too:
http://www.nraila.org/writeyourlawmakers

At the state level, I have received personal reply emails. They read 'em. If you care, make your voice heard.

Defeated for now. King Obama sure sounded pissed off that his demands weren't met, despite Democrat control of the Senate. Warms my heart.

Now maybe I can find some .22 LR ammo and go back to shooting the possums and raccoons when they go after my cats instead of using less civilized means.

He sounded awfully emotional. I'm sure vulnerable democrats representing pro-gun states don't appreciate his personal crusade putting their careers at risk; he was really putting them between a rock and a hard place. Guess his hard place wasn't hard enough, though.

He's positioning himself for the next Congressional elections where he can "protect" the poor, the old, the young, and the feeble one more time. If he can fool enough voters and get control of Congress again he can then pass numerous new Obamacares.

Reub wrote: He's positioning himself for the next Congressional elections where he can "protect" the poor, the old, the young, and the feeble one more time. If he can fool enough voters and get control of Congress again he can then pass numerous new Obamacares.

From a political perspective, Obama has been playing a very dangerous game. I don't actually think that he's concerned about the health of his party much at all; time and time again he's asked Democrats to put their hides on the line for his unpopular or at least highly controversial policy ideas (Obamacare, gun control). He seems more interested in using his party's existing political capital for his own ends than he does in expanding it for subsequent Democrats.

If he continues this stuff, it's going to result in the extinction of the red state Democrat. It already happened in the house after Obamacare wiped out the blue dogs, and the same could very well happen in the senate if he successfully presses those Democrats to vote for something that their constituents really hate.

Then again, maybe red state Democrats are headed out the door anyway and Obama sees the writing on the wall, trying to wring votes out of them before they disappear. I mean, the blue state Republicans are already pretty much gone.

Some aspects of gun control may be unpopular, but universal background checks aren't.  There are few things out there that get so much agreement by the public. They needed a supermajority for the gun bill so the majority wasn't enough.

The only thing that makes these politically risky is all the freak out coming from the few that disagree with even reasonable gun control policies... Forget the crazy suggestions coming out of some states. There is no reason deadly weapons shouldn't be treated with a bit more accountability than the Wild West used market we have right now.

In fact, didn't this bill impose on states a reciprocity allowing people to carry guns into Illinois and the like?  Which I agree with... As I've often stated, states more often complicate things unnecessarily than protect us from federal stupidity... Especially now when we do a tad more interstate commerce than in 1776.

Simonjester wrote: just because "the Wild West" has been mentioned a few times in gun discussions

source info for the graph is discussed here http://extranosalley.com/?p=40843 not sure it is perfect (lies damn lies and stats) or taking other factors into account properly, its just interesting to point out "the Wild West" is being used as an emotional argument based on images of lawlessness and rampant shootings that are more the stuff of movies than reality

moda0306 wrote: Some aspects of gun control may be unpopular, but universal background checks aren't.  There are few things out there that get so much agreement by the public. They needed a supermajority for the gun bill so the majority wasn't enough.

The only thing that makes these politically risky is all the freak out coming from the few that disagree with even reasonable gun control policies... Forget the crazy suggestions coming out of some states. There is no reason deadly weapons shouldn't be treated with a bit more accountability than the Wild West used market we have right now.

In fact, didn't this bill impose on states a reciprocity allowing people to carry guns into Illinois and the like?  Which I agree with... As I've often stated, states more often complicate things unnecessarily than protect us from federal stupidity... Especially now when we do a tad more interstate commerce than in 1776.

The devil's always in the details regarding background checks, because private sales are by definition private. No law is self-enforcing, so regulating private sales will always be through the threat of punishment for the later discovery of non-compliance rather than any kind of real assurance that the law's been followed. That's what the the NRA means when it says "criminals won't do background checks."

Even if universal background checks for private sales were the law federally, nothing stops a criminal from selling another one a gun--a transaction I might add that is already illegal. Saying, "you have to do a background check" won't dissuade the dude who already knows he's selling a gun to a criminal. He knows he's already breaking the law by making the sale; why should he care if you add another law he's broken?

Please listen to the counter-arguments before making a snap judgement. It's not as cut-and-dried as it seems.

As for reciprocity, that amendment failed due to the supermajority requirement. If it had been a bare majority vote, the anti-gun side would have had to deal with a bill that had national reciprocity, a user-accessible background check iPhone app, and the removal of more than 100k veterans from the prohibited list. As Feinstein and Schumer indicated  (I was watching it live on C-SPAN), those would have been deal-breakers for them. Schumer in particular was absolutely incensed by the idea of restoring rights barred to veterans whose psychologists unilaterally declared them incapable of managing their finances.

I don't think they would have liked the bill that emerged if it had been a bare majority vote. Just today a supermajority successfully added an amendment to reduce funding to states that release gun owners' personal information. I don't think they like that very much either.

If whoever sold a gun retail had to track who it was sold to, that would start a chain of accountability without giving government access to the guns people own on some kind of national database.  Simply put, weapons shouldn't be so dang easy to transfer with zero accountability.  If I want to transfer my gun to some creeper for $300, I should have to register that transaction, if with nobody else let it be initially with the gun company or third party, once again, so the government can't just peruse our ownership of guns at will. This is doable.  It's mainly because some people prefer a wild west gun market that a more productive conversation isn't happening.

I get that "criminals don't obey laws" to a certain degree, but if this can be said to at the wave of a hand make all regulations on their face fail, this seems a bit ridiculous.  Laws that hold people accountable for their actions work enough to sometimes prevent stupid actions.  It depends how they're structured.  Lots of criminals don't drive 90 in a 30 mph zone because they know they'll get caught.  We need to create a mechanism where "more people get caught."  We can create that system.  Longer waits and a bit more paperwork are unfortunate, but if it's that important that you protect your family, take the time to do it like a citizen of a civilized country and not a Somali pirate. 

Even further, for all the guns that exist today, I see no problem with a registration system on weapons that would likely take decades to have full effect.  Part of the problem is that millions upon millions of weapons have been crapped onto a misregulated market for decades now.  It's not going to fix itself over night.

moda0306 wrote: If whoever sold a gun retail had to track who it was sold to, that would start a chain of accountability without giving government access to the guns people own on some kind of national database.  Simply put, weapons shouldn't be so dang easy to transfer with zero accountability.  If I want to transfer my gun to some creeper for $300, I should have to register that transaction, if with nobody else let it be initially with the gun company or third party, once again, so the government can't just peruse our ownership of guns at will. This is doable.  It's mainly because some people prefer a wild west gun market that a more productive conversation isn't happening.

You are describing exactly the way it works today. Anyone buying a gun at retail undergoes a background check and the dealer is legally required to maintain records of the sale. Furthermore, the background check records are retained by the ATF. This makes a mapping of gun -> owner but not owner -> gun. What you advocate is what we already do.

if you want to sell your gun to a creeper (??), right now, today, you can go to a gun store and transfer it through them and get a background check done if you want. If you don't, it's on you. Nobody's forcing you to sell your gun without a background check. The system is in place. And yesterday, Democrats voted down an amendment to the gun control bill that would have made the background check system a user-facing iPhone app so that people could easily do background checks on each other. If that makes you mad, be mad at the Democrats.

The problem with regulations is that they have to be enforceable to have any teeth. Driving 90mph in a 30mph zone is enforceable due to the presence of police officers and cameras because you're on a public road. If there were no police around and no cameras and it were a private road, how would the government prevent people from driving 90mph? They couldn't, not with all the laws in the world. That's the problem. They can regulate gun sales at a gun store because they can force the gun store to enforce the law because they have to submit records, and the ATF can pull their license and jail them if they don't comply with the regulations.

By contrast, the government can't effectively regulate a private sale because the government doesn't even know that the sale took place. How would they know? And if they don't know, any regulations they could write are effectively on the honor system. That's my point.

It's basically saying: "private transactions that we don't know are taking place now have to jump through this additional hoop or else they're illegal." It's pissing in the wind. Where I live in California we're a test case because all private transfers require going through a dealer and have for decades, just like you want at the federal level. But a lot of people don't know that, so they do it privately without realizing they're committing a crime. And it still happens en masse despite being illegal, because the law is practically unenforceable. It doesn't work.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Some aspects of gun control may be unpopular, but universal background checks aren't.  There are few things out there that get so much agreement by the public. They needed a supermajority for the gun bill so the majority wasn't enough.

The only thing that makes these politically risky is all the freak out coming from the few that disagree with even reasonable gun control policies... Forget the crazy suggestions coming out of some states. There is no reason deadly weapons shouldn't be treated with a bit more accountability than the Wild West used market we have right now.

In fact, didn't this bill impose on states a reciprocity allowing people to carry guns into Illinois and the like?  Which I agree with... As I've often stated, states more often complicate things unnecessarily than protect us from federal stupidity... Especially now when we do a tad more interstate commerce than in 1776.

Even if universal background checks for private sales were the law federally, nothing stops a criminal from selling another one a gun--a transaction I might add that is already illegal. Saying, "you have to do a background check" won't dissuade the dude who already knows he's selling a gun to a criminal. He knows he's already breaking the law by making the sale; why should he care if you add another law he's broken?

So if private gun sales are legal, how is it illegal for a criminal to sell a gun to another criminal?  Or a non-criminal to sell a gun to another criminal?  It seems to me if you have an unregulated used market, you're essentially making the entire market unreguated, because there's a huge back doo for black market demand, as people sell there guns to other people with no qualms about who that person is.

Here's my gun registration solution:

- Have a blind registration system.  Not sure how to accomplish this but I'm sure it can be done.  It would be impossible for some government agency to look at all the guns owned by Bob Gunowner, but if a gun is used in a crime, it's serial number is entered in and they can see that it's currently registered to Bob Gunowner.

- To buy a gun from a dealer, there needs to be a background check and waiting period.  Every serial number (probably placed somewhere within the gun as well so it can't be easily filed off) is tracked to a licensed dealer, and then to the first buyer.

- To buy a gun, every purchaser has to file for a temporary purchase permit where the government does a background check, the person is approved, and is now given a card with which any seller can sell the gun to this person, but must (either online or whatever) fill out a free tranfer form that is very, very simple based on the permit number that the seller obtains.

This works to hold accountable private gun salesmenand purchasers to the person they're selling it to for new guns, but all the existing guns in households today would either have to get registered or just ignored from the process unless someone's willing to be honest enough to enter the system.  I think a lot of people (including myself) would be honest enough to engage the system to sell guns on the private market, making a whole new wave of guns "held accountable" and therefore more difficult to place on the used market.

But there will be the leftovers.  The guns that exist in the "gray market" of un-willing registrees who can now sell, probably at a nice price, their guns to people without doing the registration.  This is the big dilemma to me... however, notice how the guns all of a sudden became far fewer in number and higher in price.  This means fewer Sandy Hooks and standard gun crimes IMO. 

I'm still for a strong hunting and healthy gun culture in the US of A.  I would love to see conceal carry encouraged to a appropriate level.  And we can probably worry about 30 round clips and the appropriateness of the most efficient (but inconvenently for criminals too large) killing tools out there at some later time.

moda0306 wrote: So if private gun sales are legal, how is it illegal for a criminal to sell a gun to another criminal?  Or a non-criminal to sell a gun to another criminal?  It seems to me if you have an unregulated used market, you're essentially making the entire market unreguated, because there's a huge back doo for black market demand, as people sell there guns to other people with no qualms about who that person is.

- It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.
- It is illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm.

Both people are therefore already breaking the law. Again, the private market isn't so much unregulated as it is unregulable. If you make background-check-less private transfers illegal, all you've done is moved from that to this:

- It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.
- It is illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm.
- It is illegal to sell a gun without having a background check run on the purchaser.
- (possibly) It is illegal to buy a gun without having a background check done on you.

It's just made more illegal, but no more enforceable. You see the problem?

moda0306 wrote: Here's my gun registration solution:

- Have a blind registration system.  Not sure how to accomplish this but I'm sure it can be done.  It would be impossible for some government agency to look at all the guns owned by Bob Gunowner, but if a gun is used in a crime, it's serial number is entered in and they can see that it's currently registered to Bob Gunowner.

Already implemented! Like I described in my previous post, there's already a government mapping of gun to owner. The serials are noted and everything.

moda0306 wrote: - To buy a gun from a dealer, there needs to be a background check and waiting period.  Every serial number (probably placed somewhere within the gun as well so it can't be easily filed off) is tracked to a licensed dealer, and then to the first buyer.

Already implemented. There's no waiting period in most states, but the waiting period IMHO is stupid, especially for guns after the first. That's just pointless.

moda0306 wrote: - To buy a gun, every purchaser has to file for a temporary purchase permit where the government does a background check, the person is approved, and is now given a card with which any seller can sell the gun to this person, but must (either online or whatever) fill out a free tranfer form that is very, very simple based on the permit number that the seller obtains.

The problem is that this still in no way actually prevents a private party from selling to another private party without using the system. Telling them they need to jump through these hoops doesn't make them do it.

I don't think it would be a huge disaster… but again, I don't see how it would actually prevent bad people from acquiring guns. If we're trying to keep good people (like you) honest, I really prefer the iPhone app background check approach.

Keeping good people honest is reasonably easy. It's preventing bad people from knowingly circumventing a nearly unenforceable law that's hard.

A "blind" database of gun owners won't stay that way.

RuralEngineer wrote: A "blind" database of gun owners won't stay that way.

And indeed, the one we have didn't. But this is not a strong argument when debating with liberal-leaning folks because usually they either don't care, or even have that as an explicit goal.

Make it a federal crime to store gun ownership data, thus explicitly prohibiting any kind of database that could and would be exploited down the road, make the background checks convenient and painless (iPhone app), and you might get more support from 2A activists.

Of course this runs counter to the purpose of the legislation (expanded database) so I won't hold my breath.

Pointedstick wrote:

moda0306 wrote: So if private gun sales are legal, how is it illegal for a criminal to sell a gun to another criminal?  Or a non-criminal to sell a gun to another criminal?  It seems to me if you have an unregulated used market, you're essentially making the entire market unreguated, because there's a huge back doo for black market demand, as people sell there guns to other people with no qualms about who that person is.

- It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.
- It is illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm.

Both people are therefore already breaking the law. Again, the private market isn't so much unregulated as it is unregulable. If you make background-check-less private transfers illegal, all you've done is moved from that to this:

- It is illegal to knowingly sell a gun to a prohibited person.
- It is illegal for a prohibited person to purchase a firearm.
- It is illegal to sell a gun without having a background check run on the purchaser.
- (possibly) It is illegal to buy a gun without having a background check done on you.

It's just made more illegal, but no more enforceable. You see the problem?

moda0306 wrote: Here's my gun registration solution:

- Have a blind registration system.  Not sure how to accomplish this but I'm sure it can be done.  It would be impossible for some government agency to look at all the guns owned by Bob Gunowner, but if a gun is used in a crime, it's serial number is entered in and they can see that it's currently registered to Bob Gunowner.

Already implemented! Like I described in my previous post, there's already a government mapping of gun to owner. The serials are noted and everything.

moda0306 wrote: - To buy a gun from a dealer, there needs to be a background check and waiting period.  Every serial number (probably placed somewhere within the gun as well so it can't be easily filed off) is tracked to a licensed dealer, and then to the first buyer.

Already implemented. There's no waiting period in most states, but the waiting period IMHO is stupid, especially for guns after the first. That's just pointless.

moda0306 wrote: - To buy a gun, every purchaser has to file for a temporary purchase permit where the government does a background check, the person is approved, and is now given a card with which any seller can sell the gun to this person, but must (either online or whatever) fill out a free tranfer form that is very, very simple based on the permit number that the seller obtains.

The problem is that this still in no way actually prevents a private party from selling to another private party without using the system. Telling them they need to jump through these hoops doesn't make them do it.

I don't think it would be a huge disaster… but again, I don't see how it would actually prevent bad people from acquiring guns. If we're trying to keep good people (like you) honest, I really prefer the iPhone app background check approach.

Keeping good people honest is reasonably easy. It's preventing bad people from knowingly circumventing a nearly unenforceable law that's hard.

The problem is very few sellers can be proven to "knowingly" sell a gun to a "prohibited person."  There is no accountability there.  It's a total gray market, which in essence makes the entire new gun registration system almost fatally flawed.  It wouldn't be if there was a set-up registration system for the used market.  That creates a ton of teeth that weren't there before, and closes a huge back door for millions of guns that are now tracable to a now held-accountable private seller.  The current system without that accountability is a sham.  I can sell my guns to anyone with no legal liability whatsoever as long as I "don't know" that they are a prohibited person.  Looking at these as essentially the "same system" is hardly that.  I could sell my guns easily right now with no ramifications or liability to anyone I don't know. 

You're looking at how difficult it would be to acquire guns on a micro level.  Yes, people will be still "be able" to buy guns just like I'm able to drive 90 on the freeway, smoke crack on my deck, and probably find a way to find a SMG for $15,000 out there.  The thing is, when you make things more difficult and expensive for criminals, they do less of it.  On a macro level, there will be far fewer guns available on the "gray market" that exists today if we properly register and background check all new sales and as many used ones as law abiding citizens will oblige.  The rest of the guns would now be on an unreported "black market" and become more expensive... less available. 

These statements of "I can reload a gun fast," or "I can turn a semi-auto into an automatic," or "I can kill a lot of people with a bolt action," or "I can figure out a way to get a gun" are just irrelevant when you look at the overall societal goal of taking certain regulatory steps that will actually reduce (not eliminate) unnecessary carnage, if we can do so in way that hardly limit personal freedom (which I know is subjective, but at least people are going to still be able to hunt, enjoy and use guns for personal defense) then it's worth doing so no different than it's worth painting lines and posing speed limits on the gosh darn freeways.

moda0306 wrote: These statements of "I can reload a gun fast," or "I can turn a semi-auto into an automatic," or "I can kill a lot of people with a bolt action," or "I can figure out a way to get a gun" are just irrelevant when you look at the overall societal goal of taking certain regulatory steps that will actually reduce (not eliminate) unnecessary carnage, if we can do so in way that hardly limit personal freedom (which I know is subjective, but at least people are going to still be able to hunt, enjoy and use guns for personal defense) then it's worth doing so no different than it's worth painting lines and posing speed limits on the gosh darn freeways.

I disagree. You have correctly divined the micro vs. macro distinction being made here, but micro matters for a whole class of people you're trying to stop from doing bad things: those who are determined.

What you're saying is that society can make things harder for the average person. And you're right. But I don't think that society can really stop a determined person from accomplishing what he wants. If your goal is to make doing bad things with guns harder on average, your mental model must be of not-very-determined people who will just give up if there's enough hassle. And you may very well be right. But the most horrific killings are universally perpetrated by those with an abnormally high amount of resolve. Europe actually provides an interesting template: while crime levels are fairly low in most western European nations, mass shootings remain still happen no matter how tight they make their gun laws.

All the gun laws in the world will never stop a deranged person from using one to commit terrible, horrible damage. A lone psycho with a pair of 100 year-old revolvers could do untold damage in a school bus. He could do it with a knife. He could do it with a can of gasoline and a match. You can't legislate away crazy.

If you acknowledge this, then I think it's important to craft laws that don't have preventing those kinds of acts as a goal, not only because it's impossible, but also because most proposed laws that that try end up being totally draconian and completely unacceptable.


So let's get back to gun transfers. Can we agree that these are our three cases that we want to stop?

1. Prevent honest, non-prohibited person from unknowingly selling a gun to a prohibited person
2. Prevent prohibited person from selling gun to other prohibited person (already illegal)
3. Prevent dishonest-yet-not-prohibited person from buying a gun for a prohibited person (straw purchasing, already illegal)

#1 can be accomplished with an iPhone app. If you want to give it more teeth, maybe impose some liability on a private seller who doesn't use the background check app and sells to someone who winds up committing a crime. I think few would have much of a problem with that.

#2 and #3 are the real tricky ones. Both are already illegal. Read that again: they're both already illegal. So trying to make them more illegal is silly; what we want is to prevent them from happening, right? We want to make what's illegal but unenforceable illegal and enforceable. I would be more than willing to entertain any reasonable options, but I'm sort of at a loss as to how the government can actually prevent those transfers from happening. Any ideas? How can the government prevent from happening private transfers of small inanimate objects that take place behind closed doors?

PS,

A couple things:

- A lot of times, determination is temporary due to emotion.  Other times it's due to economic benefits of having a gun to commit a crime.  In both cases, making guns more difficult to get could combat the impact of determation due to either emotion or potential economic gain.  I'm sure someone in Great Britain could find a way to get a hold of a handgun or even an AR-15.  However, it's damned difficult.

- I realize those other two are illegal already, but it's the fact that people can so easily sell guns on the used market without fear of reprisal that it's a very incomplete policy.

The more guns that are pinned to a person, the less guns that are available on the "gray market," and the higher the price will be, and the more difficult they'll b to get.  This means less deranged people doing what they dream of doing, and less criminals actually killing others, including children.  Not impossible, not even vastly reduced, but it's less dead kids, and all I have to do is act like an adult and fill out some paperwork when I sell a deadly weapon. 

I guess I love the idea of an iphone app or something similar.  I'm not sure what the reasoning for the political turmoil is around this topic is, I guess.  I'm sure there's a lot going on I don't know about, but I certainly don't side with the NRA who has allowed this problem to get so damn difficult to solve in the first place.

moda0306 wrote: - A lot of times, determination is temporary due to emotion.  Other times it's due to economic benefits of having a gun to commit a crime.  In both cases, making guns more difficult to get could combat the impact of determation due to either emotion or potential economic gain.  I'm sure someone in Great Britain could find a way to get a hold of a handgun or even an AR-15.  However, it's damned difficult.

That's because they've banned almost all guns, destroyed their civilian shooting culture, and made hunting something only wealthy aristocrats can do. Those are all things you said you didn't want to happen in the USA.
 

moda0306 wrote: - I realize those other two are illegal already, but it's the fact that people can so easily sell guns on the used market without fear of reprisal that it's a very incomplete policy.

But how do you fix that? Here in California, background checks for private sales are mandatory but it hasn't actually stopped people from selling without them--knowingly or unknowingly. Again, you can make it illegal, but how do you actually stop it from happening?

moda0306 wrote: The more guns that are pinned to a person, the less guns that are available on the "gray market," and the higher the price will be, and the more difficult they'll b to get.  This means less deranged people doing what they dream of doing, and less criminals actually killing others, including children.  Not impossible, not even vastly reduced, but it's less dead kids, and all I have to do is act like an adult and fill out some paperwork when I sell a deadly weapon. 

Let's look at how recent deranged people got their guns:

Adam Lanza: murdered his mother and stole her guns that were legally purchased at a dealer (ref)
Rodrick Dantzler: stole his guns (ref)
Wade Michael Page: purchased his gun legally since at the time nothing he'd done made him a prohibited person (ref)
Jared Loughner: purchased his gun legally since at the time nothing he'd done made him a prohibited person (ref)
James Holmes: purchased his gun legally since at the time nothing he'd done made him a prohibited person (ref)
Nidal Hassan: purchased his gun legally since at the time nothing he'd done made him a prohibited person (ref)
Jiverly Wong: purchased his gun legally since at the time nothing he'd done made him a prohibited person (ref)
Seung-Hui Cho: purchased his guns from a dealer since his disqualifying mental health records hadn't been entered in the system (ref)
Eric Harris & Dylan Klebold: straw purchasing from friends (ref)

"More background checks!" doesn't seem to be the answer. Maybe we should work on improving the quality of the existing background checks before we subject more people to what appears to be a very deeply flawed system.

The problem is hard to solve because we know any discussion with anti-gun folks becomes about bans and confiscations or a road to bans and confiscations regardless of how much Obama may deny it. There's simply too much evidence.

You could gather all the 2A supporters together and get a meaningful piece of legislation that would be comprehensive, clean up the existing disaster of gun laws, make a stab at mental health, and get universal background checks. I know it could be done, but not if it's co-sponsored by the Brady campaign.

It's like asking PETA to help draft hunting regulations and expecting a reasonable result. Their motives are known.