Lies, damned lies, and political promises

[unixronin]

Remember how Barack Obama promised during his campaign that he supported the Second Amendment, and only wanted "reasonable restrictions" and "common-sense measures"?

Well, he's been President-elect for three days, and his change.gov site has this to say on the subject:

Address Gun Violence in Cities:  As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.  Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them.  They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof.  They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

We knew it was coming ... and here it comes.  Bend over.

Let's take those points in order, shall we?

1. The Tiahrt Amendment

   What the gun control lobby says:  The Tiahrt Amendment hampers local law enforcement by denying them access to BATF gun trace data.

   The truth:  The Tiahrt Amendment does nothing to deny gun trace information to law enforcement agencies.  It does deny NON-law-enforcement parties the ability to go on "fishing expeditions" through BATF trace data for political ends.  (Most firearms traces performed by the BATF are not related to criminal use of the firearm in any case — one of the most common reasons for BATF traces is to find the legal owners of recovered stolen firearms.  Many persons are named on BATF trace forms merely because they were witnesses to a crime involving a firearm.)  It also enforces a pre-existing provision that National Instant Check System records be promptly destroyed as already required by law, restricts disclosure to third parties of Federal records of lawful gun purchases, and forbids (again) the BATF from creating a computerized Federal gun-owner registry (again, something that has been illegal since 1986).

   An interesting and telling detail:  The gun control lobby's "point man" against the Tiahrt Amendment has been New York City Mayor Bloomberg.  But when Kansas Representative Tiahrt offered to negotiate technical modifications to the language of the Tiahrt Amendment to the extent necessary to address legitimate law-enforcement needs, Bloomberg broke off negotiations.  He wasn't interested.  Because Bloomberg doesn't care about law enforcement needs; he wants to use the data in his quest to be able to sue firearms manufacturers for criminal misuse of legally purchased, non-defective firearms.  The City of Chicago wasn't interested in law enforcement either; they wanted a list of every person in the US (not "in Chicago", note, or even "in Illinois") who owned more than one handgun.

2. Closing the gun show loophole

   What the gun control lobby says:  Criminals can go to gun shows and buy guns without having to pass a background check.

   The truth:  Two kinds of gun sales occur at gun shows — dealer business sales, and private person-to-person sales.  A buyer purchasing a gun from a dealer at a gun show must pass a NICS check and fill out a Federal form 4473 exactly as though they had walked into the dealer's store, and the dealer must report that sale to the BATF and must retain the Form 4473 for twenty years exactly as for an in-store purchase.  A buyer and seller making a private person-to-person sale must still comply with all applicable state laws regarding person-to-person transfers.  That means that it is legal to make private person-to-person sales at a gun show if and only if private person-to-person sales are already legal in that state, and while no Federal paperwork is required for person-to-person transfers, buyer and seller must still comply with any applicable state laws.

   In short, there is no gun-show loophole.

   Interesting detail:  Recently a Boston yellow journalist attempted to "prove" the existence of the "gun show loophole" by travelling to New Hampshire to buy a gun at a gun show there.  The dealer wouldn't sell to him because he wasn't a New Hampshire resident.  So he had a friend who lives in New Hampshire purchase a gun for him.  The gun never actually left the friend's possession; if the friend had then given the gun to said journalist, it would have been an illegal straw-man purchase.  The journo then bragged in print about how he'd shown how flawed the law was and proven the existence of the loophole, although the truth was he didn't actually understand the straw-man law well enough to understand he hadn't actually broken it.

   But he had the intent to violate the straw-man law, and the BATF has a poor sense of humor about that.  End result:  Journo and friend are both under BATF investigation on Federal firearms charges.

   So, just where was this loophole, exactly....?

3. "Childproof" guns

   California currently has a bill in the legislature that would mandate that all handguns sole in California be "smart guns" that can only be fired by their authorized owner.  This is what's usually meant when gun control advocates talk about "childproofing" guns.

   There turn out to be a few problems with the idea, though.  You see, the technology to do it doesn't exist.  The one company that's backing the legislation knows that the technology doesn't exist, but they're hoping to get the letgislature to pay for them to develop such a technology which they can then market for other purposes.  In short, they want the State of California to fund their R&D.  Law enforcement agencies hate the idea and have been uniformly opposed to it, because no mechanism has been proposed which (a) cannot be defeated, (b) will work reliably, especially under adverse conditions, and (c) "fails safe".  In fact, it's not possible even to define what "failing safe" is with such a technology.  If the "fail-safe state" leaves the gun fireable, then it can't prevent unauthorized use; all a gun thief need do is break the sensor or remove the battery.  If the "fail-safe state" leaves the gun unfirable, citizens or police officers with "smart guns" could end up dead because their sidearm wouldn't go off when they desperately needed it to.

4. The assault weapons ban

   What the gun control lobby says:  "These weapons belong on foreign battlefields."  "The preferred weapon of criminals and drug gang members."

   The truth:  What the gun control lobby calls an "assault weapon" actually refers mostly to a set of cosmetic features that have no significant effect upon the actual functioning of the gun.  Some, like pistol grips on rifles, have no functional effect other than to make a rifle more comfortable to hold.  Ventilated barrel shrouds, another feature frequently spoken of in tones of fear and hysteria, are a totally cosmetic feature on anything but a fully-automatic weapon (that's "machine gun" to you).  Manufacturers of cheap guns put ventilated barrel shrouds on them to increase their appeal to the Rambo-wannabe set.  "High-capacity magazines"?  How is a pistol with a 12-round magazine more deadly than one with a 10-round magazine?  Is there some natural repulsive force between magazines that makes it impossible for a criminal to carry, say, three ten-round magazines instead of two fifteen-round ones?

   Or how about flash hiders?  The fear-and-loathing story is that flash hiders conceal a shooter's location.  They do no such thing.  What they actually do is help to prevent the muzzle flash of a rifle from dazzling the shooter at night, particularly in automatic fire.  That might become relevant when there are midnight gun-battles with fully-automatic weapons in the streets of L.A.

   Now, a muzzle brake?  A muzzle brake looks almost identical to a flash hider, and reduces recoil forces by redirecting gases at the muzzle.  So, in simplistic terms, it makes it easier to shoot a more powerful rifle.  But a flash hider is on the list of features that make a rifle an "assault weapon", while a muzzle brake isn't.  Go figure, huh?  Still think there's any actual logic behind this "assault weapon" stuff?

   And what's this about "fully automatic"?

   Well, you see, the gun control lobby would like you to think that any ugly black gun is a machinegun that will fire indefinitely as long as the trigger is held down.  But it just ain't so.  A civilian-legal AR15 works just like a Browning or H&K semi-automatic hunting rifle:  You pull the trigger once, you get one shot.  Pull it again, you get another shot.  Lather, rinse, repeat.  "But doesn't that mean you can just spray bullets like a firehose?" you ask.  Well, sure, you can just point in the general direction of the target and yank on the trigger as fast as you can.  We shooters call that "spray and pray".  Because divine intervention is about the only factor that's going to put your rounds on target.  In the words of Major John C. Pilaster, "Two hundred misses per minute isn't firepower.  One hit is firepower."

   The fact is, ever since 1934 it has been illegal to buy, sell or transfer an automatic weapon in the United States without paying a BATF transfer tax, and you must have a Federal Class III license from the BATF in order to do so.  Only one murder has ever been committed in the US with a full-automatic weapon legally purchased after 1934; and that was a police officer who murdered his wife with a Thompson submachinegun that he purchased for police use.  All of the rare crimes committed since then with automatic weapons have one thing in common:  the weapons were already illegal in the first place.  What is making them even more illegal going to do?  Criminals don't obey laws.  That's why we call them criminals.

   "The preferred weapon of criminals and drug gang members"?  Oh, please.  When was the last time you saw a gang member standing on a street corner with an AK47 stuffed down his pants?

   The "assault weapons ban" is bullshit, pure and simple.  Many politicians who support banning "assault weapons" can't even explain what they think one is.  It's an attempt to separate out a group of guns, demonize them, and ban them — then move on to the next group.  That's a process that won't end until every type of gun actually useful for hunting or self-defense has been banned.  At which point the gun control lobby will say, "Well, the guns you have left aren't any use for defense or hunting anyway, so what do you need them for?"  And if you think I'm kidding, that the gun control lobby would never take your deer rifle — hey, if it could penetrate a bulletproof vest (which something like 99.9% of centerfire rifle rounds will) and has even a low-power a telescopic sight (which, at this point, over 90% of hunting rifles do), it's "a deadly sniper rifle".  Hand it over, bud.

Why can't the Democratic Party learn from experience?  The last time the Democratic Party lost control of Congress, it was largely because of voter backlash against one gun control law after another after another.  But here we go again, not even in office yet, and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are already starting to talk up the new gun-control laws they're going to pass.  When they say "common-sense measures", they mean keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them ... and they don't think anyone should have them.  It's like a knee-jerk reflex — "Hey, we're in power!  BAN TEH GUNZ0RZ!"

This, by you, is "change"?  From here, it looks like "Democratic Party Business As Usual."

Comments

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I like that idea.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Corrections:

2a. Heller explicitly ensconces a Second Amendment right to armed self defense. There is nothing implicit about it, nor is it in any penumbra. See Holding 1: "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

3. Hotly contested. Armies of statisticians are arguing over this. All that can be said concretely is the wild claims of turning traffic stops into Old West shootouts have failed to come to pass. If you ask me, that's vindication enough, but hey.

4. Most violent crime is impulsive, poorly planned, and the product of a violent personality with little in the way of impulse control. These are not the sorts of people who rationally think "hey, this gun-free zone would be a great place to go on a rampage." Highly organized violent predators are an extraordinary statistical anomaly, for which we should all be grateful. (The Virginia Tech shooter was one such anomaly.)

5. "Most" is a hard road to hoe, given the sheer number of gun control laws out there, and the fact it's phrased universally. For instance, gun control laws in the UK were originally enacted not out of racist tendencies, but to attempt to suppress the IRA. Didn't work out too well for them. It would be more accurate to say that "many early gun control laws were overtly racist in nature."

7. The Guard has existed for a few centuries. In the era of the Framers, civilians who were fully trained for military duties and could be called up by the monarch on demand to serve as an army were known as members of "select corps", or "elite corps". This also goes to argue against the National Guard-style interpretation of the Second Amendment: if the Framers meant the Guard, they would have said "a well-regulated select corps...".

10. Not true. The Second Amendment has been raised in other cases before Heller, just not directly. Miller was also not dead, he was in hiding. It is true that his case was not pleaded before the Court, due to some spectacularly ... unusual ... hijinks.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

A correction to my correction:

Jack Miller was not dead at the time his case was argued in March 1939. He was, however, in hiding.

He was murdered in April of 1939, the victim of an apparent homicide.

The decision was rendered in May.

I imagine you were remembering Miller as being dead before the opinion was given, and I remembered him as being alive but strangely not present for his own case during the hearing.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It is true that his case was not pleaded before the Court, due to some spectacularly ... unusual ... hijinks.

Huh. You clearly know details of US v. Miller that I've forgotten. I need to go read up on it again.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

"Weakest" and "flawed" is in the eye of the beholder. In the eyes of the Court, it probably stands as a remarkably good one, in that it nominally resolved the issue before them while at the same time not really limiting their freedom to make other decisions in the future.

From the perspective of people looking to get guidance from a SCOTUS decision, though, yes, it blows.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

I should have written "his lawyer did not brief the Court." Technically there was a pleading.

Miller's lawyer was so broke, and was so underpaid for his services, and had such short notice, that he allowed the prosecutor's brief to go uncontested. He did not file a reply brief on behalf of Miller.

That's what I meant by "his case was not pleaded." He didn't have anyone in SCOTUS making his case for him, not in any way that mattered.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Ow. You just broke my brain. I think I can solve the energy crisis by hooking up a turbine to David Ricardo's grave.

What you're talking about here would, first off, cause a regulatory explosion. Okay, so IBM has to sell laptops at $100? Despite the fact that while the local labor force might get paid $1/hr, the horde of lawyers responsible for navigating the IP thicket costs a lot more? Clearly, you can't ask IBM to sell their laptop below cost... and you can't trust IBM to tell you what their real cost is... so we need some independent agency to determine what the true cost of their laptop is.

Once you know the true cost, how are you going to force IBM to sell there? Any time you want the law to force someone to do things, you're talking about an enforcement agency. Okay, so let's add an enforcement agency on top of the regulatory agency.

And how many laptops are they required to sell at $100? Hmm. Clearly, this is a matter for Congress to decide. Congress will, using the information provided to them by the regulatory agencies, force IBM to sell X laptops at $100. Now, what happens if those X laptops don't sell?

... Oh! And even after Congress makes these decisions, every Tom, Dick and Harry who has an axe to grind against IBM (in other words, all of their business competitors) will file lawsuits alleging IBM is not in compliance with these laws and should be punished. So now the courts get involved, too.

So, once you've presided over the conversion of decentralized capitalism to a centrally planned socialist system, you're ... going to be effectively upping the price of labor in Malaysia. IBM isn't going to go along with this out of the goodness of their hearts. They're going to say "well, each laptop costs $100 more if we build it entirely in the US, so let's do it here and avoid the headache."

Which puts tens of thousands of poor Malaysians out of a job. Instead of $10/day sitting in an air conditioned factory, they're now earning $1/day doing backbreaking labor in hot fields.

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

regarding my point #3, I was specifically citing the states of Florida and Michigan which both saw reductions in violent crimes after allowing concealed carry to its citizens. I'll provide cites if you need them.

5. I'll accept the correction, though I will still posit that much of America's gun control laws have roots in racism.

10. To my knowledge, US v Miller is the only two-party case heard before SCOTUS without both parties represented (I'm ignoring Ex Parte considerations right now).

[mzmadmike.livejournal.com]

The National Guard was created by Act of Congress in 1903.

[mzmadmike.livejournal.com]

That's cool. I'd personally like a list of all Jews, Trade Unionists, Gays, Catholics and Gypsies.

Just because I have a right to know.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

#3. Sure, but like I said -- armies of statisticians. The socioeconomic factors going into violent crime rates are legion. It makes as much sense to believe that CCW led to a drop in violent crime as it does to believe that changing factors led to a drop in violent crime despite the increases brought with it by CCW. The entire argument is mathematically unconvincing. Human society is too chaotic a system (in the chaotic mathematics sense of the word) for us to be able to say what things would have been like ceteris paribus save for this one social factor.

#5. I have no disagreement with this.

#10. I wasn't talking about Miller. I was talking about ... crap, blanking on the name of it. SCOTUS case from a few years ago which revolved around whether using a firearm as an instrument of commerce in a drug transaction (drugs for guns) counted as "use of a firearm" for purposes of sentence enhancement; Scalia wrote a great dissent. One of the issues raised in it was a Second Amendment claim, which the Court basically wrote off. The Second Amendment has been presented to the Court a few times over the years, but never as the central issue of a case, and SCOTUS has always shrugged off those claims.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Under the name National Guard, sure.

The Framers were very familiar with National Guard units, just under a different name. King George had a habit of using select corps to oppress his subjects, though, and so the Framers were in no way fond of the idea of a select corps.

[rosencrantz23.livejournal.com]

If you recall the name of that case, I'd be interested in reading it.

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Also, see Federalist no. 29, which talks about the problems with select corps:

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power...

The phrase “a militia in the hands of the federal government” -- sounds quite a lot like the Guard, doesn’t it? Nominally they belong to the states, but they are subject to federalization at any time. The National Guard is pretty much exactly what Federalist no. 29 warns us about.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I have actually been thinking for the past few days that given Zero's (I do like that...) part in the housing boondoggle, he really deserves to inherit it as POTUS.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I have in my possession an interesting STRATFOR analysis of what Obama's going to have to face in his first year.

Personally, with zero executive experience, I think he's fucked.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

Doesnt have to be any sort of centralized bureaucracy per say, no more than an internationally recognized trading standard. of course we're talking about first-world nations actually standing behind their supposed commitment to developing nations here. But simply put, you give developing nations some solidarity to stand up to the companies themselves.

Laptops are an amusing example, because the local market for them is lightly lessened (but improves as the company improves). But more regular goods are less problematic.

Anyway, the point being is that currently, There's only one problem I see with unrestricted international business, and that's that eventually there is a financial imperative to keep developing nations poor and exploitable. While it wasnt a suggestion for an implementation, I think my idea stands as the seed for a model that might be.

Yes, there's companies out there that do things like fund local education, even to the college level. But inevitably what happens there, are these newly-educated folks, immediately try to leave the country in favor of better employment. A few people get out, underdeveloped nation stays underdeveloping.

But yeah, you've hit the nail on the head that it's got to be a method that would still keep it profitable for enterprises to be there, while still deflecting the imperative to keep the supplying nation underdeveloped and cheap.


This is, and always has been, that for the rich to stay rich, they must by necessity keep a certain percentage of the population poor, or else the whole thing breaks down. That's a model that (just like the Game Theory guys) I think can be transcended out of at some point. I'm by no means a fan of regulation and law as a means to this end. Game-changing incentive processes are what works for things like this.

Pursuing for a truly 'open' market, where products are available to everyone, not just those in the most profitable markets, is still, historically, one of the most peace-inducing things to happen to any nation. Free Trade is great when it's consumer-driven, it's an unbalancing force when it isnt. We sure as hell dont have that right now. Any mechanism that shifts it back in that direction is worth figuring out.

but yeah, the idea is inevitably, 'change the game, not the rules'


(and in other news, NoScript now complains that Ronin's journal is attempting an XSS `sploit, every time I try to post to it)

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Your "internationally recognized trading standard" falls apart the instant businesses recognize that (a) this kills their business and (b) they don't have to participate.

This theory belongs right beside Communism. Like Communism, it's a great theory as long as you can trust people to act in opposition to their own interests. Like Communism, it will require an oppressive state in order to coerce people into acting in opposition to their own interests.

Sorry. It's bogus. It doesn't work.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

(and in other news, NoScript now complains that Ronin's journal is attempting an XSS `sploit, every time I try to post to it)

Only my journal, or any LiveJournal? I use a fair amount of CSS if you're reading it in my style, but I don't use any XSS.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Don't confuse whining and incorrect invocation of the 1st amendment with well, anything but ignorant whining. Hell, no one even deleted your silly comment, much less tried to stop you from saying it.

Next time try invoking the 3rd Amendment when you're watching TV and an ad for the Army comes on. It'll be about as accurate.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

Unless; there are other factors that make the activity profitable.

(and since you invoked Ricardo, well yeah, I'd be interested on what he would have to say, about keeping wages low by concentrating on low-price enabling goods, and its effects on things.)

Point being, I agree that enforcement is ridiculous. Game-theory-like mechanisms of 'willing collusion' are the way to do something like this. Setting up a system where the less profitable option is /not/ to participate is the way to do things like this. Now, how to do that, well, that's going to likely take a few game-changing technologies, both physical and systematic.

In short, we're looking at a conceptual scenario from opposite ends of the process. I'm saying we need new canal built, you're telling me that since shovels are evil, there should be no talk of canals.

[fruitylips.livejournal.com]

Last week there was 'survivalist guy' (I really wish I'd paid attention to who he was, since he was far more coherent than usual for this kinda thing) on my morning radio discussing the coming collapse of society and what not. The host asked him how much ammo he'd stocked up. He replied that it was several 100K rounds, but added that he didn't buy it in case he needed it, but bought it as in investment and has started to liquidate it all as the priceof ammo has doubled since he bought it. He's getting rid of much of the ammo and stock piling gold now.

[databeast.livejournal.com]

so far, only yours, and it just started last night. I'm using IE to post to yours now

I'll check with some others

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Huh. Veeeeeeeeeeeery peculiar.....

I don't suppose NoScript is getting confused by my style chrome being loaded from another site...?

[cipherpunk.livejournal.com]

Not at all. I firmly agree the developing world needs to develop faster. However, everybody knows this. Even the evil corporations which you believe have an imperative to keep wage prices artificially low know this.

The only problem is that corporations aren't evil, they have no imperative, and the wages aren't kept artificially low.

Good and evil are moral statements. As such, they cannot be ascribed to nonsapient entities. There is no imperative to keep prices low; there are, however, incentives. The wage prices are not artificially low: the Malays who work for $10/day do so because it's a higher wage than they can earn in the fields. There is no cabal enforcing a $10/day price ceiling on Malay labor, which would be keeping wages artificially low. Instead, the wages earned by the Malays are the result of the free market.

If you want to posit the existence of coercive effects by the Malaysian and/or United States governments, fine, I'd probably agree with you on that. But the cure for that is to change the government, not to change IBM.

I repeat: your idea is bogus and counterproductive. To the extent you're saying "the game needs to change," fine, everyone agrees, which makes it trivial. To the extent you're saying "this is how we can change it," no, the economics doesn't work.

Free trade, for all its problems, has historically been not just the most effective way of lifting people out of poverty, but the most effective by such a huge margin that nothing else even comes close.