Who should own the means of violence?

[Timsup2nothin]

Unless you are making a very dedicated conscious effort to make all your posts to your "under an assumed name YouTube channel" from an IP address other than the one you use for paying bills it's harder to NOT know where your YouTube channel is than it is to find it.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, I'd presume the burdensomeness of facial recognition software and the difficulty of tracking somebody's online (increasingly necessary and mainstream public correspondence) is going to make it significantly easier than tracking down anybody who used to write editorials for the local paper. I mean, we can make Facebook keep better records in order to shut down fake news, right? Either way, these aren't activities people usually go through unusually expert or onerous steps to remain anonymous while doing. It's more a question of if we allow the government to do what we know it's going to start doing. Is algorithmic targeted policing the bias we will rubber stamp tomorrow(it's just logical after all, we know who offends more, we have the numbers), or is it the necessary next step for law and order and harmony and prosperity yadda yadda?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It's more a question of if we allow the government to do what we know it's going to start doing. Is algorithmic targeted policing the bias we will rubber stamp tomorrow(it's just logical after all, we know who offends more, we have the numbers), or is it the necessary next step for law and order and harmony and prosperity yadda yadda?

Has that been the question for a while, or is that the question you are posing now? I may have missed a transition. In any event, the only practical answer is, as usual in matters of one person's liberty as opposed to another's, is going to lie somewhere in the middle. It's just a recasting of the eternal "how does your freedom of speech interact with my freedom to not listen?"

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trawling the internet for anything and everything a person may ever have posted is basically an open-ended task. How feasible is it to even find someone's YouTube channel if it's not under their name and they don't link to it from any social media platforms that ARE under their name? How long would you search for one before you decide it's safe to assume they don't have one? And even if they DON'T have one, how do you determine whether or not they're mentally unstable, but just don't happen to be making videos about it? Do you hire private investigators to tail them for months? Do you have them illegally enter their homes and access personal information to try and find out?

That's all a separate issue from whether its good policy to grant the license without the internet/social media "background check". What you're talking about is degree... how extensive should the social media check be? In this case there apparently was none, and had there been one, it may have revealed things that would have brought his fitness to be licensed into question.

So again, 1.) Should there have been a social media check?; and 2.) What should the nature, character and extent of such checks be? are two different questions, and conflating them isn't productive.

Well just from a logistical point of view it seems unworkable. Where are you going to draw the line? There needs to be a line somewhere.

You answered your own question. The answer to the age old "Where do you draw the line?" is always "somewhere", which is of course TBD... in the same manner way we determine everything else... through some sort of process, deliberative, political, scientific, statistical, etc., over the course of some period of time, right?

I mean, I don't find particularly persuasive, the position you seem to be taking, which seems to be that if we have to draw the line somewhere, then its too hard/impossible and shouldn't/can't be attempted.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Unless you are making a very dedicated conscious effort to make all your posts to your "under an assumed name YouTube channel" from an IP address other than the one you use for paying bills it's harder to NOT know where your YouTube channel is than it is to find it.

Well most youtube channels are "under an assumed name", so I don't think that's weird. So authorities that issues gun licences (or whatever) have access to private youtube/google information?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

So again, 1.) Should there have been a social media check?; and 2.) What should the nature, character and extent of such checks be? are two different questions, and conflating them isn't productive.

Well not in this case because you're specifically advocating for a check that would have uncovered this guy's youtube channel. I'm sure it was relatively easy for journos and/or (most likely or) internet ***** sleuths to find it after he became headline news and his face was splashed all over the media. I'm honestly not sure how easy it would have been to find before that though. Presumably he didn't have all that many subscribers, presumably the channel wasn't under his own name, etc.

The point was you seemed to be assuming that was easy and would have been found within 5 minutes. I'm thinking it probably wouldn't have been that easy at all, but I may be wrong.

I mean, I don't find particularly persuasive, the position you seem to be taking, which seems to be that if we have to draw the line somewhere, then its too hard/impossible and shouldn't/can't be attempted.

My point is that "look to see if the guy has a YouTube channel where he talks about demons" is a task that could take 5 minutes or 5 days (or, if he doesn't have a channel at all, indefinitely). The former is fine, the latter is unworkable. And you don't know which it will be before you start. So you need to define the task better. Is it "spend 1 hour looking for social media postings and if you find nothing in that time then it's a pass"? The problem with that is it's obviously going to miss a lot of stuff.

You didn't say they should do some basic checking to minimise risk to some degree in general cases. You said in this specific case that they should absolutely have found his channel and seen it as a warning sign, implying that a check would have been enough to have definitely known about it. But any reasonable allocation of resources to trawl social media is nowhere near guaranteed to have found it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Well most youtube channels are "under an assumed name", so I don't think that's weird. So authorities that issues gun licences (or whatever) have access to private youtube/google information?

I didn't say that it was weird. I said that it didn't matter. Assuming that your google/youtube information was generated from your IP address it doesn't matter what name you put on it, they know that it's yours...or can if they pay attention anyway. So if some media monitoring plan is put in place it would be fairly easy to accomplish.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well not in this case because you're specifically advocating for a check that would have uncovered this guy's youtube channel.

No, I'm not. I think you're projecting that onto me. Please quote where I advocated for such a thing. As I recall, I specifically asked folks the question of whether or not its worse that they gave him the license without checking (meaning worse than giving a guy hearing demon voices the weapon in general).

The point was you seemed to be assuming that was easy and would have been found within 5 minutes. I'm thinking it probably wouldn't have been that easy at all, but I may be wrong.

Again, you seem to be projecting those assumptions onto me. Where did I say, or imply that it was easy... would take 5 minutes... or anything like that? I recall suggesting exactly the opposite, repeatedly... and asking precisely if the fact that it was difficult was why you were opposed.

You said in this specific case that they should absolutely have found his channel and seen it as a warning sign, implying that a check would have been enough to have definitely known about it.

Again... No, I did not say that or anything like that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My point is that "look to see if the guy has a YouTube channel where he talks about demons" is a task that could take 5 minutes or 5 days (or, if he doesn't have a channel at all, indefinitely). The former is fine, the latter is unworkable. And you don't know which it will be before you start. So you need to define the task better. Is it "spend 1 hour looking for social media postings and if you find nothing in that time then it's a pass"? The problem with that is it's obviously going to miss a lot of stuff.

No you have it backwards. First we need to decide whether the "social media check" is acceptable on principle, or if as @Farm Boy suggests, maybe violates people's rights. If folks think that the social media check is kosher on principle, then you move on to scope. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be leaning towards "OK on principle". On that note... there's a big gap between 5 minutes and 5 days. As an aside, I'm not sure why you've picked 5 days as your line in the sand for doing a check that involves a matter of life and death, but hey if that's your hill then we can go with that.

So you say 1 hour is fine with you, except that it will "miss a lot of stuff". Two points on that. First, again... does the risk that the 1 hour check misses stuff mean that there should be no check, cause unless you can catch everything its pointless? Or does it mean you need a longer check to catch more and miss less? I'm not clear on which position you're taking. Second... if its the latter... there's a big gap between 1 hour and 5 days, so if 1 hour is too short and 5 days too long, what time period would you find acceptable?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

So you say 1 hour is fine with you, except that it will "miss a lot of stuff". Two points on that. First, again... does the risk that the 1 hour check misses stuff mean that there should be no check, cause unless you can catch everything its pointless? Or does it mean you need a longer check to catch more and miss less? I'm not clear on which position you're taking. Second... if its the latter... there's a big gap between 1 hour and 5 days, so if 1 hour is too short and 5 days too long, what time period would you find acceptable?

I'm sure that if you stopped to think you recognized this as a reflection of a current gun law controversy, because when you measure a check in time you create a very serious decision that has to be made; ie, what happens when time expires? The current controversy isn't about social media checks, it's about the 'background check' that has become pretty widely accepted.

Say I am a gun dealer, and you want to buy a gun. You willingly accept that you will have to submit to a background check, maybe grudgingly, maybe not. You come back three days later looking to pick up the tangible token of your constitutionally granted rights...and I haven't gotten any results. Now what? Maybe the agency is systemically incompetent. Maybe the results are lost in the mail. Heck, maybe the request was lost in the mail. Maybe I think you are a dangerous nut so I just 'misplaced' your information rather than even submitting it. Maybe I know you are a dangerous nut but I want to make a sale so I misplaced your information. No matter what the cause, we have a situation here where through no fault of your own your exercising of your rights is being prevented.

Common sense says that since you haven't passed the background check the law prevents me from selling you a gun. The NRA says that I should be obligated to let you have your gun, and of course in many states whatever the NRA says goes. What is the proper course? If the law says I have to give you the gun, and you take the gun and commit an atrocity, and subsequent investigation shows that with your background you should never, ever, have been allowed to buy it, there is liability, somewhere. Who "dropped the ball"? What if it isn't a specific dropping of the ball, but an outright reality that the time limit is just impractical and routinely goes unmet? What if the time limit was practical, but by adding some additional aspects to the checked 'background' we have made it impractical after it is already in use?

When we consider adding some other aspect to the "background check," as in some sort of dive into social media, we compound the existing issue. To compound it without considering how to solve it in the first place is counterproductive.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'm sure that if you stopped to think you recognized this as a reflection of a current gun law controversy, because when you measure a check in time you create a very serious decision that has to be made; ie, what happens when time expires? The current controversy isn't about social media checks, it's about the 'background check' that has become pretty widely accepted.

Say I am a gun dealer, and you want to buy a gun. You willingly accept that you will have to submit to a background check, maybe grudgingly, maybe not. You come back three days later looking to pick up the tangible token of your constitutionally granted rights...and I haven't gotten any results. Now what? Maybe the agency is systemically incompetent. Maybe the results are lost in the mail. Heck, maybe the request was lost in the mail. Maybe I think you are a dangerous nut so I just 'misplaced' your information rather than even submitting it. Maybe I know you are a dangerous nut but I want to make a sale so I misplaced your information. No matter what the cause, we have a situation here where through no fault of your own your exercising of your rights is being prevented.

Common sense says that since you haven't passed the background check the law prevents me from selling you a gun. The NRA says that I should be obligated to let you have your gun, and of course in many states whatever the NRA says goes. What is the proper course? If the law says I have to give you the gun, and you take the gun and commit an atrocity, and subsequent investigation shows that with your background you should never, ever, have been allowed to buy it, there is liability, somewhere. Who "dropped the ball"? What if it isn't a specific dropping of the ball, but an outright reality that the time limit is just impractical and routinely goes unmet? What if the time limit was practical, but by adding some additional aspects to the checked 'background' we have made it impractical after it is already in use?

When we consider adding some other aspect to the "background check," as in some sort of dive into social media, we compound the existing issue. To compound it without considering how to solve it in the first place is counterproductive.

I get what you mean and I did realize that a "social media check" would become part of the "background check", but I admit that I had not considered all the implications you mention. However, I don't think the "5 minutes versus 5 days" that @Manfred Belheim was talking about is the same time period that you are. I think he was (and I'm sure I was) talking about actual man (or computer) hours spent on the internet search itself.

I realize that yes, that search would almost certainly have to take place during some kind of "waiting period"... which is why I felt that 5 days was a pretty arbitrarily short time limit, but I also recognized that 5 days of man-hours searching the person's social media presence would basically be a whole work-week, so there's arguments either way.

But now that you point it out, it is a significant issue if one state has a long waiting period that allows all this to take place whereas another does not. Putting all that aside, I think you still need to have some agreement that the search doesn't just fundamentally violate people's rights before you can even reach the complexities of implementation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But now that you point it out, it is a significant issue if one state has a long waiting period that allows all this to take place whereas another does not. Putting all that aside, I think you still need to have some agreement that the search doesn't just fundamentally violate people's rights before you can even reach the complexities of implementation.

Oh, agreed, no question. I just wanted to point out the quicksand onto which you were heading. The NRA's preference on background checks is that they be so extensive as to make it impossible for them to ever be completed on time, thus ensuring that they will never prevent a sale. In effect, you are playing directly into their hands.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Oh, agreed, no question. I just wanted to point out the quicksand onto which you were heading. The NRA's preference on background checks is that they be so extensive as to make it impossible for them to ever be completed on time, thus ensuring that they will never prevent a sale. In effect, you are playing directly into their hands.

Which goes back to your point about what happens when the "time" runs out... Is it what happens when you are still in the jewelry store when "closing time" comes (ie not a damn thing, and you keep shopping until you are done)... or what happens when you miss "last call for alcohol" (as in you're SOL)?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Which goes back to your point about what happens when the "time" runs out... Is it what happens when you are still in the jewelry store when "closing time" comes (ie not a damn thing, and you keep shopping until you are done)... or what happens when you miss "last call for alcohol" (as in you're SOL)?

And despite the fact that I find the NRA generally disgusting, they have made a very persuasive argument that the time running out and having no results from the background check does not justify infringing the rights of the prospective gun buyer. If there are any states opting for "must wait for results no matter what" I expect they will be challenged and they will lose.

 

[Farm Boy]

or what happens when you miss "last call for alcohol" (as in you're SOL)?

Actually, my observation of these interactions is that the casuals, the superfluous, and the uggos go home. The good old boys and the people they think are hot stay, and maybe get a round or two on the house.

 

[Ironsided]

State and capital in a glorious effort to make us efficient little consumers of safety.

 

[Perfection]

All humans should be locked in little life support pods then jacked into a virtual reality network so that they stop killing each other.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Actually, my observation of these interactions is that the casuals, the superfluous, and the uggos go home. The good old boys and the people they think are hot stay, and maybe get a round or two on the house.

Random anecdote perhaps never apropos:

Spoiler :

My ship was in the shipyard for an overhaul, and behind schedule. In order to "provide greater support to shipyard personnel" my department was taken off of the "duty day" system, in which the duty section was responsible for the ship for twenty-four hours every third day and would routinely just pull whatever all nighters might be required, and put on "rotating shift work." Since there's still the same number of people and 24/7 manning is still required for a ship this isn't your daddy's "working graves," this means seven days on swing shift, seven days on day shift, seven days on grave shift, rinse and repeat with no days off. Every three weeks you get the "big break" by getting off graves at eight Saturday morning and not having to be back until swings on Sunday at four in the afternoon. Woooooo hoooooo!

Anyway, the point is that after a few months what we have here is a bunch of really irritable sailors.

So my crew comes around to swing shift for the second or third time, and we decide to frequent the nearest bar to the shipyard since we are getting off at more or less midnight as long as our reliefs are on time and we can quickly turn over all the information they need to keep on keepin' on with whatever is being done. This bar is not a hugely successful establishment, being in a downtown waterfront industrial area, and we expected that when we rolled in having hiked up out of the shipyard we'd likely have the place almost to ourselves; say, twelve thirty or so, with an hour and a half available before being sent out into the streets.

First night, I have a couple beers, get kicked out, hike back down into the shipyard to my car, drive home, and it's like quarter past two. All the way home I was trying to sort out how in ninety minutes I had only managed to drink a couple beers.

Next night, me and a couple o' the boys grab my car and drive up to the bar, and even with the delays of negotiating the vehicle gate we get there a bit ahead of the rest of the gang. This time after a couple beers I can hop right in my car and scoot home, and when I get there it's not even two o'clock.

We're sailors, there are clocks all over the ship, watches are hazards in electrical safety areas as well as around rotating machinery. This is waaaaaaaaaaay before cell phones. The only time check in this bar is the bar clock. But I did own a watch, and the third night I put it on on the way to the bar. When they were kicking us out my watch said something well short of one thirty. Girl behind the bar says she has to go by the bar clock. Out we go.

Fourth night I check my watch against the bar clock when we get there and they match. I catch the guy who has been there every night and eventually is clearly identified as the bartender/waitress girls boyfriend adjusting the clock, and note that he does this behind her back. When we are getting kicked out I explain to her that the guy is adjusting the clock, but she still "has to go by the bar clock because if she is serving after it says two o'clock she can get in a lot of trouble," and of course I'm not the first customer ever to say "but my watch says..."

On the fifth night we expect that the guy, having been caught, would just let time pass at its normal rate. We were wrong. We were pissed.

On the sixth night we bought a pitcher of beer and let it sit on the table until we were being kicked out. Then we told the girl that she may not be able to serve us but since we knew it wasn't two o'clock we'd take our chances staying and drinking our warm pitcher until my watch said two. This being Friday there was a bit of a stir among the handful of people who were peacefully leaving as directed. We told her boyfriend that adjusting the clock wasn't going to get her out of there any sooner, so he may as well give up.

On our seventh and last night we expected that he would just let time pass normally, especially since it was Saturday night and we again weren't the only people in the place. We were also particularly ornery since we had to be back at the boat at eight for day shift. So when he adjusted the clock we broke all his fingers.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I'd wager the bartender/waitress was in on the clock-fixing scheme. She probably told him to do it so she could get out early with plausible deniability.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'd wager the bartender/waitress was in on the clock-fixing scheme. She probably told him to do it so she could get out early with plausible deniability.

Clearly she wasn't resistant. I really figured that on the weekend some of those people would be 'regulars' and that she would be concerned about word of the early closings getting back to the owner.