Hacker News Reader

Comment by Maarten88 | Hacker News Reader

> In my experience USA lot less corrupt than most other countries. Lobbying overall is a net good thing for a democratic society.

You rightly mention lobbying and corruption together. But somehow you miss that they are on the same continuum. From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.

The situation around guns itself is a clear example: as I understand it, a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights (banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals) but politicians are only expanding gun rights (open carry etc).

If democracy would work as intended then "common sense" limitations would have been introduced long ago.

Note that I am not talking about corruption in the criminal sense: US politics and supreme court have fully legalized and embraced it, conflating it with lobbying.

View on HN

With regard to your gun control points, there is a bit of nuance you missed that people (like me, if I wasn’t trying to help you steelman your argument) will criticize.

Specifically, there are already heavy restrictions on automatic weapons, which are basically never used in criminal acts. Every automatically gun in the US has to be registered with the federal government for $200 and a lot of paperwork. In effect it means if you’re wealthy you can own automatic guns, which is a violation of the 2nd in a lot of people’s opinion.

What I think you meant when you said automatic is “assault “, which is what most of the gun debate is currently center on, so called “assault rifles”. The issue is that the term is not clearly defined, and under most proposed bans would include many rifles which were traditionally considered hunting tools. Even that is a bit of moot point, because the 2nd was not written with hunting in mind.

Another hot point recently is “ghost guns”, which like “assault rifle”, sounds scary enough on the evening news to grab eyeballs. “Ghost guns” are being used to justify government overreach by banning the sharing of gun plans for DIY construction. The issue is that again, almost no DIY guns are used in crimes. What are used are stolen handguns that have had the serial number scratched off. The stolen guns are grouped in with DIY guns as “ghost guns”.

Automatic weapons were only ever rich people toys. Unless you've got a squad of buddies and one of them is laying down covering fire they're not very useful and they convert money into noise real fast.

SKS rifles cost over US$600, a $200 licensing fee isn't infringing any rights compared to the right to a fair and speedy trial.

The term 'assault rifle' is used loosely by us, but in terms of law there are definitions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296...

One of the many things you're ignoring is that $200 was originally over $4,000 in today's dollars. And had quite the chilling effect, even if at the last minute handguns were removed from the remit of the NFA of 1934, that's why it has the bizarre "Any Other Weapon" category, it was intended to effectively ban for almost all citizens in the middle of the Great Depression all concealable weapons, as well as full auto.

And you don't get to decide if $200 today plus a very intrusive application process infringes on our rights.

>> As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.

https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/national-firearms-...

Also, the supreme court already weighted on some rights regarding weapon registration:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Freed

>> United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

> SKS rifles cost over US$600, a $200 licensing fee isn't infringing any rights compared to the right to a fair and speedy trial.

$600 for an automatic rifle? I will literally pay you as much just to connect me to the seller.

Many people in the US cannot afford that. It’s an arbitrary 33% increase on an already expensive purchase. That’s a pretty strong disincentive for a lot of people. Not to mention people who would prefer to engage with the federal government as little as possible, for a wide variety of reasons.

As for the definition, if you read the definitions of the prohibited components, they are broad enough to ban essentially all rifles, which is likely the goal. For instance, “pistol grip” seems like a well defined thing at a glance, but it is later defined as “ 45) The term ‘pistol grip’ means a grip, a thumbhole stock or Thordsen-type grip or stock, or any other characteristic that can function as a grip.”

That last clause especially is extremely broad. Define functioning as a grip. Is that any piece that enables holding the rifle?

> The term 'assault rifle' is used loosely by us, but in terms of law there are definitions: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1296...

"Assault rifle" has a very specific meaning: an intermediate-caliber, magazine-fed military rifle capable of both semi-automatic and automatic fire. That common meaning has been more or less fixed since WWII when it was adopted from the German word Sturmgewehr.

"Assault weapon" is a legal term that is defined by law (e.g., California's assault weapons ban or the failed federal Assault Weapons Ban of 2019 that you cited). "Assault weapon" includes not only semi-automatic rifles, but also shotguns and pistols that have certain characteristics. The definitions are long and complicated because they attempt to ban only weapons having the visual and ergonomic features of military weapons, while ignoring weapons of similar caliber that do not have those features.

Try putting a pre-emptive background check, $200 fee, and 10-12 month waiting period for approval on any other constitutional right, whether that right be explicitly stated, or implicitly "discovered".

Correction.

SKS is semi-automatic.

So don't need the $200 ATF machine gun stamp.

Small correction. The term "assault rifle" is pretty well defined.

I think you're thinking of "assault weapon" which gets thrown about a lot and for which there isn't a clear definition.

Just to clarify, fully automatic rifles ("machine guns") in the U.S. cost tens of thousands of dollars (and have, thanks to gun control legislation, been an absolutely amazing investment). For instance, an M-16 would cost you maybe $30-35k plus the regulatory hoops.

Strange, isn't it, how polling organizations don't quite seem to capture what the people actually want and vote for.

Actually, your list of "banning automatic weapons, screening psychiatric patients and criminals" is already in place, although the first is limited to a few hundred thousand in civilian hands. Two last time I checked had been used in crimes, the first incident a murder by a policeman.

> From my EU perspective lobbying in the US is corruption, as the lobbying comes with money and paid-for political promotion.

People with money and influence will always try to impact law. In EU it happens through actual bribes which is far worse. (Pretty much like India). In USA an immigrant like me can join hands with 10K immigrants and find enough support in congress openly by hiring lobbiest to advocate for the cause I care about. That is how democracy should work.

It is easy to see lobbying as bad by taking examples you don't like but in reality it is a great example of how people can convince their representatives to pass right kind of laws, legally and with enough regulation. In most countries this happens to secret middleman and nights in shady hotels.

> a majority of US people is in favor of more limitations to gun rights

It is not clear if that is the case. Of course majority of people is irrelevant because this is not a mob rule. That is why we don't allow crowd in SF determine what people in Montana want. It is all fair game.

Secondly, people like me who care about guns care about it lot more to actually form lobbies. On other hand folks who dislike guns only talk about it but will not lobby or donate for the anti-gun causes.

I recommend this excellent video about why NRA despite with a shoe string budget is so much more influenced than many other lobbying groups.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pdt6Jj64TVU

> shoe string budget

> Revenue (2018) $412,233,508[0]

I don't know what shoestrings you're buying, but I suggest shopping around.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

That's pre-embezzlement revenue. Perhaps the remainder is just a shoestring?

> shoe string budget

> Revenue (2018) $412,233,508[0]

That could buy a lot of machineguns, according to the ATF.

https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-mach...

> In EU it happens through actual bribes which is far worse. (Pretty much like India).

What on earth are you talking about?

Please note that automatic weapons are already banned from civilian possession. Regarding psychiatric patients and criminals, this has an exact opposite effect that you want. People are far more scared of seeking psychiatric help when they know that they’re going to lose their rights. This is an open secret in gun community to never mention to a doctor that you have guns, and this is an indirect message to not seek psychiatric help unless you wanna lose your guns. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive#The_origina...

As someone who both owns guns, has a concealed carry permit, and has been in therapy and takes anti-depressants, the pervasive fear about getting red flagged and having your firearms taken away seems like overblown fearmongering.

Can someone point me towards some statistics or reports of such occurrences?

No stats, but I have been placed under a 72-hour involuntary hold and even I could still purchase guns in my state.

Being committed by judicial order for having a mental illness/developmentally disabled, or being found not guilty by reason of insanity or incompetent to stand trial are the three disqualifiers for gun ownership in my state. It is likely different in each state, so YMMV.

There's a reason that national, electronic, centralized medical records happened before we started hearing these pushes for red-flag laws.

I don’t understand what are you trying to challenge here? My claim that people think that, or their belief that this does not happen?

I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing. My own gun trainer told us the story of a man going to the doctor for getting his hand hurt while doing repairs at home, the doctor chatted with him and he mentioned that he lost his job recently that’s why he had all this free time to do his work, the doctor reported this and his guns were taken away. (Please note no more details were provided than the story).

The point is that mental health is a very tricky game, there is an immediate loss of trust due to the fundamental nature of what it is. I personally don’t think you should own guns if you’re taking antidepressants.

> I don’t understand what are you trying to challenge here? My claim that people think that, or their belief that this does not happen?

> I don’t know how can I prove that people think that. You just need to be in the gun community and talk to people who would never put it in writing.

I wasn't trying to challenge anything, just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue. Contrast this against your own, opposing anecdata from your trainer.

I'm well familiar with the belief and that people live with such fear, I've heard it plenty at ranges, gun stores, sporting goods stores, from colleagues and in bars. Recently, my girlfriend quit her job and her father was near frantic in his insistence that she not cite 'stress' in her resignation letter as that alone would supposedly start some rube goldberg slippery slope mechanism to her losing her right to own guns. Again, to me this feels like such an overblown fear of the evil eye of big government boogeyman and near incredible, which is why I was asking for stats or reports to try to put some numbers to the stories. I certainly won't discount that guns are, on occasion, taken away from their rightful owners without proper due process; but are there any DOJ, FBI reports, etc?

> just presenting my own anecdata that I personally have not run into gun ownership issues even with my own mental health trials. Nor has my brother, who like another commenter got put into a 72-hour involuntary hold and continues to own and purchase firearms without issue.

Ok, so your point is, that making laws which stigmatize mental health (which is what it is) have no impact on people seeking out mental health counseling?

No, my point is that I haven't seen, and am asking for, data to back up the belief that the pursuit of mental health is causing mass seizures of people's belongings.

If anything, my point is that maybe this pervasive (and possibly unfounded, which is why I'm wondering if there is any actual hard data) fear of having guns stolen is impacting people's mental health by disincentivizing them from seeking the help they need.

> No, my point is that I haven't seen, and am asking for, data to back up the belief that the pursuit of mental health is causing mass seizures of people's belongings.

Ah, but that was not my claim. My claim is, association of mental health and guns will cause (and is causing) people to avoid seeking mental health.

I don't know how can I be any more clear, but you can read my past comments again.

you have got it almost completely backwards. :P Automatic weapons are for all intents and purposes banned. Politicians are constantly passing new gun control. It is far easier to pass new gun control laws than it is to remove them. "Common Sense Gun Control Laws" is a term coined by the Democrats that is used to refer to any gun control legislation that they are currently trying to pass. If they pass the law than the next thing they want becomes "Common Sense"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com