@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?

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo some states require a "transfer" which involves a background check. Some respect privacy.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

Public gu sales require a paper trail be kept. This is a bigger issue for me than just the background check

@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.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

Yea but in private sales you dont have to transfer ownership at the point of sale. Sometimes you dont have to record it at all

@freemo @thatguyoverthere Sounds perfect, if the goal is to have a gun as a someone with rage control issues.

@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

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven @freemo

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 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.

@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).

@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 I think they should have all of their rights fully restored

@thatguyoverthere @freemo @robryk It'd make a difference if the crime was related to violence if it is about gun rights.

"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.

@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.

@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 yeah maybe we can just give the decision to a computer program. It's nvince chatgpt99 that you deserve a firearm

@thatguyoverthere That seems unprompted. @freemo only calling me out on bad faith arguments here?