Nothing says 'accountability' like picking one of the most law abiding groups (CCW holders, who are required to have on paper a relatively clean criminal background), and then releasing their private information regardless if they've committed or crime or even been suspected of one. I don't know if the reasoning here is the interest of public safety, but if it were that would be odd since on paper this group is less violent than the general population; people who have been pre-vetted not to have an unexpunged/unpardoned felony or record of domestic violence. Many of these people were victims of domestic violence and other harassers and abusers who very much don't want their location known publicly to these abusers, and got their CCW for protection from these abusers. Many were judges who have sent lots of angry people to jail.
Taking a group, the vast majority of which have done nothing wrong, and wholesale holding them 'accountable' by releasing their private information is senseless and indefensible.
The short of it is that I fought alongside YPG against ISIS nearly a decade ago, and some boneheads at CBP/DHS flagged my passport. Ever since they've had a craw up their ass to try to catch me doing something, and problematic detentions whenever I re-enter the US (as US citizen with valid passport). The last time was the worst, where I got some particularly corrupt individuals who were willing to lie to get a warrant. Of course nothing was found, because in reality I'm not doing bad/illegal things overseas nor at the border.
I'm not a lawyer but it's my understanding you never lose constructive possession if you are present with the firearm. For instance, you can take a firearm to an engraver to have it engraved while you wait, so long as you are present for the engraving operation it isn't considered a transfer. I'm unsure if 922 (a) (5) even applies in that case, but IANAL.
I would be quite shocked if anyone was prosecuted under 18 U.S. Code § 922 (a) (5) for a firearm loaned exclusively for sporting purposes, but this is not legal advice. Personally I can think of at least one long-running skeet/trap range that will lend out shotguns for sporting purposes without any representative being anywhere near present while you use it, and they've been on the radar in plain sight doing this for decades across thousands of people (and they'll lend to any tom/dick/harry without any scrutiny).
Arguing for 'accountability' against the innocent is not a good look. Particularly when those innocent are people who merely applied for a CCW and did nothing wrong.
>If anything more public detailed information about who owns guns is better so that people can properly avoid dangerous gun owners
Included in the 'leak' were people who merely _applied_ for a CCW. Not necessarily that you have a weapon or even a CCW license.
And where does this 'so we can avoid dangerous <x>' end? For instance, controlled substance prescriptions become government owned data when they are relayed to the DEA. Shall we publish private information of anyone prescribed anything related to conditions that increase their chance of being at risk of committing a violent crime?
>if your car is involved in a crime, the cops will come looking for you.
Sure, they'll come looking for you. Registration and titling of cars just makes that even worse, not better, for innocent people who lend out cars. If that's your argument, that's one against having registration / serial numbers / record of transferring firearms.
The police can also rake you over the coals for anything. I had a search warrant once served to me because a few corrupt DHS agents (CBP and HSI) fabricated a warrant that suggested I had drugs up my ass (not even embellishing here). Police can come looking for you for any reason they want.
Hopefully innocent people are eventually vindicated (as I was), but it's definitely better to never be identified in the first place if you're an innocent.
I'm not aware of any federal law that makes it illegal to sell a car without registering it or titling it. I'm definitely not aware of any law that requires background check to buy or transfer a car (Dealership license may require it, but not private party transaction).
In general if you have no reason to believe someone will commit a crime with your car, you typically can't be found criminally liable for merely loaning it out. With firearms, it's actually a federal crime to lend a firearm to an out of state resident except for lawful sporting purposes (not general purposes, like lawful self defense).
The most 'common' event for someone buying a gun is that the shoot it at the range a few times a year, maybe hunt with it occasionally or put it in their waistband as a means of self-defense. If you want common to the exclusion of the less common, there it is.
If you're not involved in gang banging / drugs then in the extremely uncommon chance you die by firearm, it's most likely it was a choice of suicide. In Europe and many other developed nations with harsh firearm laws, suicide via physician is an option so a more comforting and society-approved solution rather than firearm becomes more favored for suicide.
Inflexibly benefit offerings are why I generally prefer structuring my employment as 'contractor' / B2B, but I realize many people are unable to structure their employment that way. You're right that it would be advantageous if total compensation were better understood so that employees and employer could negotiate what works for them.
>It would make more sense for a company to even offer a HSA where they contribute as much as they would to a plan to a savings account and allow the employee to also contribute their share pre-tax. And apply that to plans available on the open market.
Complaining about benefits would be a weird flex though. The alternative of not having employer tied is still available.
A more rational phrasing may be: "I can buy insurance isolated from my employment, but I am priveleged to have the benefit and OPTION of taking advantage of employer benefits."
Characterizing insurance products in the US as a 'benefit of society as a whole' is a charity in and of itself. A large component of the insane costs billed for procedures has to do with an unhealthy symbiosis of the medical industry with 'insurance' companies. This massive black hole, much a result of poorly designed regulation, leads to reduced benefit to society as a whole and a system that is not for everyone not today nor tomorrow.
If you are thinking of something that is for literally anyone, you are most likely thinking of universal healthcare or some other like system.
The unseen deaths are those who are unhoused or unsheltered due to building codes causing elevated building prices. Secondary effects (for those who can afford up-to-code) include less money to spend on healthy foods, good health insurance, quality child education, and other victimized children at the hand of building codes and other regulation.
You can virtually ramp up building codes ad-infinitum, until the house is as safe as can humanly be built, if your expense is to hurt a lot of children by bankrupting families of expenses to take care of other necessities in life.
I think as a society if we can't discuss this in an honest manner without deceptive terminology, we're doomed to be stuck in a bad spot. Perhaps phrasing it as charity of the healthy towards the less healthy would lead towards a more productive and honest starting point. It's something many, including myself, would be much more supportive of than feeling like I'm deceived by misrepresentation of a product. I'd feel like I'm taking part of a noble charity rather than this sort of deceptive 'insurance' product.
Can you really call it 'insurance' when it's a pre-existing condition? I realize we can call insurance whatever we want, but when I think of insurance I think of it a way to pool for mitigating risk of the unknown.
No one would sell insurance that would fix your already destroyed roof.
The game still exists in companies that build physical products, but I've found it's not quite as bad there. You're right, SV is the king of lying, along with any publicly traded company.
My experience is small privately held businesses that offer physical product are the most pragmatic and 'honest.' The closer you are to the source of income, the less everything but the money matters. I like being only 1-2 steps from the money, because it means no one gives a flying fuck about anything other than the almighty dollar at all costs. At least that's a game I understand. More than 2 levels from the source of money and you're shit-deep into authoritarian politics land, where the name of the game is to buy social capital in the authoritarian structure of a corporation, with little direct ties and influence on the source of corporate persuasion (income).
That is, when you're too far from the source of money, such as middle management or lower in a large corporation, your only real way to gain power is to become the most cunning psychopath rather than maximize profit. As an engineer, I've 'engineered' my personal solution by only taking jobs where I report directly to CEO/CTO/President so that politics dissolve into "make money or die." I much prefer it that way.
The game is to make those around you look good. Results may be a way to achieve that, but they are subordinate to making your boss and contacts look and feel good.
The 'game' is that what works at the free-market business level (maximize profit) doesn't work at the authoritarian non-free-market employee level (i.e. you win by making those with social capital look good and winning this social capital).
Taking a group, the vast majority of which have done nothing wrong, and wholesale holding them 'accountable' by releasing their private information is senseless and indefensible.