@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?

@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

No they arent usually liable for private sales that bypass a background check.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere You do see what problem i would have with that, were i affected?

@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

Well considering i already .entioned that this is a loophole id be fine fixing i woukd thinknit woukd be obvious that we agree its a problem.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

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

@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 @thatguyoverthere

As ive stated, it is a valid loophole. Im fine with addressing.

That said as long as attacks on gun rights are underway id be hesitant to fix this issue when the first amendment is already so grossly abused. If thr left werent calling for further constitutional violations id probably be louder about fixing this loophole. As it stands it might be one of very few ways people will have quick access to guns if in need.

@freemo You're either really bad at convincing people guns should be loosly regulated or really good at riling people up to want to ban guns... i cannot decide which.

Does your own perception of the consequences of your toots differ?

@admitsWrongIfProven Hard to judge. Most of the time whatever peoples ideas on guns happen to be will not be changed by my opinion. I also have noninterest in convincing people of anything, i enjoy talking about it, but its more about seeing how people can be led to beleive lies as long as thry are popular enough rather than a desire to convince people.

I do know over the years at least 20 or 30 people have changed their mind specifically because of the data ive shared and never once was i made aware of anyone who was on the fence and changed to an antigun stance because of something I shared. So im pretty happy with the outlook if that is to be the measure anyway.

@admitsWrongIfProven

I also know people who are antigun consistently think progun arguments are shit. I dont think ive ever once heard a strongly antigun person go "You make an excellent progun argument but i still disagreee due to..." like never, not unless thry were on the fence on the issue... so at best your assessment is predictable, meanwhile the progun people will generally share and praise my argument with a similar level of bias. But hey they may be biased but at least they are the correct one of the two.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

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.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere That warm, peaceful feeling of not living in the usa ^^

@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

On that we agree, but not related to guns in anyway

@freemo Might be that some other factors aggrevate the violence in the usa, yes.

I think there are countries with as much guns, but way less shootings.

Question for me would be: what would produce results in the short term, because the social problems won't be solved over night. If there is any effort made at all, i can't judge that from here.

@admitsWrongIfProven Oh thats easy, immediate, extreme, tax funded access to therapy and medication for everyone. Implement this immediately and you will find easily the biggest short term solution that also has thr benefit of working even better as a long term solution

@freemo That's a positive approach i appreciate very much. I would think there needs to be more, like work against poverty, but your suggestion is doubtlessly a good one.

@admitsWrongIfProven you asked for short term and immediate solutions. Fixing poverty is very impactful but also more of a long term sokution and not quite as easy to address

@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 @thatguyoverthere

I lived for 30 out of my 40 years in the USA. Ive been threatened at knife point twice, ive never once been threatened with a gun in person.

@freemo @thatguyoverthere Hmm, survivorship bias?

@thatguyoverthere Haha yeah, that was the point. Would you joke about being beheaded, if you were?

@admitsWrongIfProven @thatguyoverthere

Very much doubt that but happy to look at the numbers to try to find out.

@thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven @freemo various incidents involving axes and knives in germany, more often than mainstream reports on it.

you wouldn't have someone killing multiple people with an axe if we had legal carry here.

@bonifartius I find free for all too exhausting.

@admitsWrongIfProven why? if someone wants to kill others he'll just use a knife, hammer or a car like we have seen.

@bonifartius You do realize that hammers or knives yield higher risk for the attacker, right?

If i told you "shoot that bear", that might sound feasible. What about i give you a knife instead and let you have at it? Changes the "courage" needed, doesn't it?

@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.

@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.

@admitsWrongIfProven @bonifartius @thatguyoverthere

You wanted an example of why i thought yojr arguments are bad faith, you have another example.of it here

@admitsWrongIfProven this isn't about american style any more than there are americans who are voluntaryist :)

to be beaten and robbed by the state and still thinking it's a good idea to have armed gangs with a monopoly on violence is a bit weird.

you wouldn't have had lüzerath in the first place as the state couldn't simply disown people for the "common good".
@thatguyoverthere @freemo

@freemo @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

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 @freemo Hmm, that approach weighs on trust in the institution not to abuse power, which would be what freemo doubted.
I would ask if with this little trust, the administration can be legitimate at all.

@admitsWrongIfProven @robryk

Youd need a standardized way, and frankly psychiatry juat gets it wrong too often, e en if i did trust the govt to act responsibly i dont think the medical institutions are able to reliably and accirately diagnose people. False positives are rampant, which isnt so harmful for a person seeking help(you usually try deveral competing diagnosis ubtil one works). But in a gun ownership setting where the first, and likely wrong, diagnosis sticks... yea no sorry that just sounds like a bad move.

@freemo @admitsWrongIfProven

Why would the first diagnosis stick? I would expect the setup to be roughly along the lines "if you think it's wrong, you can appeal, but then a larger number of doctors get to examine you and their majority opinion is adopted". In such a setup, ignoring issues of cost, you'd be asking for a consensus of a random(?) subset of local psychologists. Are you pointing at the cost issues or something else?

@robryk @admitsWrongIfProven

Thats true, first diagnosis may not need to stick.

So how about this, handke it like a court. A person takes a standard test with standard questions. If all 12 of 12 randomly selected doctors who arent allowed to talk all come up with ide tical diagnosis it sticks. The person can appeal once a year and if even one doctor disagrees with the diagnosis the diagnosis is repealed.

I dont personally support this due to other concerns of abuse. But if this woukd be at all workable youd need a blind diagnosis requiring consensus.

@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo

Trust is very contextual. For example, from opinions of random folks I know, I would have less trust in authorities (or institutions in general) in my area in the context of dealing with _very_ atypical situations compared with situations that they've likely thought about ahead of time.

@robryk @thatguyoverthere @admitsWrongIfProven

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.