Issues of exploit

[cjlarsen]

I'm going to apologize, I had high hopes for this since I read some of your articles and correct me if I missed something.

My issue is that I could very easily see something like this becoming a popularity contest or, even worse; as a way of disenfranchising people or a group of people. Guns aren't the internet and they are not ssl certs. Everyone on the internet is devoid of race, religion, sexual identity, etc until they let it be known.

I don't see anything in this that would protect against say a racist local community leader and their 4 friends from being the only shooter network in a small town. This would give them the power to deny anyone of color a firearm. This isn't a new thing, there was a point in time where african americans were denied firearms. An example from history would be MLK being denied after he requested a permit because of the alarming number of death threats he was receiving.

As much as I'd love to believe there are no motivated racist, sexist, and/or homophobic gun owners that's just not the case and it never will be. I could see this system being easily gamed by groups of people with ill intent.

I also don't agree with the loner comment, some people are loners in one group, but thrive in others. It's just not their tribe. I grew up in the suburbs and felt very outside of the community, but found other communities of like minded people and that's not a unique experience. My community happened to be spread across continents instead of blocks. As someone working in tech and with a creative community, you have to have encountered hundreds of people like that.

Part of the reason I like the 2nd amendment is that everyone can buy them, that doesn't mean everyone should buy them. I just don't think this is the answer.

[jonstokes]

I'm don't think it follows from the proposal that only one group in an area could get licensed from a central authority, though. What are you seeing in here that you think would stop, say, a group of black gun owners in Ferguson from coming together and forming a group, despite what local racists might want?

[timspencer]

What are you seeing in here that you think would stop, say, a group of black gun owners in Ferguson from coming together and forming a group, despite what local racists might want?

What I see is a structural problem. How are poor people going to be able to learn how to jump through all these hoops, gain trust in a network or make their own, keep ahead of everything required to retain that trust, etc? This all seems to take time, energy, and money, all of which are in short supply for many people. Many folks have a hard time connecting to people in their own community, let alone finding a virtual community somewhere else. These people would be disenfranchised not because of their ability to be responsible gun owners, but by their lack of resources and connections. Think homeless people, or immigrants, or people who never can get to the library to use the internet because they work 3 jobs.

This barrier to entry is also actually much higher than you think because once you get your firearms, you are in constant jeopardy of becoming a felon because of somebody else in your network being a bad actor coupled with some inattention, if I understand your proposal right. Like it sounds like many people would look at this and say "this seems like a great way to set me up to get arrested. I guess I better not." Which is great for the people who want to kill Gun Culture, but I think that it's wrong to try to discourage the exercise of a civil right. For instance, I would be in jeopardy of a felony because I let my son go shoot his rifle outside at our cabin while I sit inside and read, because he's not supervised. Or I couldn't let him go hunting on his own.

Another problem is that of timeliness. I haven't read through all the issues yet, but if a hypothetical cousin were to have problems with an ex threatening her, I would want her to be able to acquire a firearm as soon as she were threatened. Time is of the essence here, because when the threat is issued, it's not unreasonable to expect that it would be carried out pretty soon. It seems like this network requirement is going to, again, be a significant barrier for them being able to go to the store and get a firearm in time for her to use it against the immanent threat, or be lent one by me or a friend legally.

On the other hand, if this reputation system were all actually advisory for firearms transactions, rather than a legal requirement with felonies on the line, I'd be all for this. Like if you don't have a network card, then people doing private transactions might be more inclined to go do a transfer through an FFL or decline to sell, but if you did have one, then they could sell to you with less fear just like they do with CCLs now. FFLs could use it instead of a NICS check, like some states do with CCLs. This would be less like the Thawte Web Of Trust ecosystem, and more like the antispam reputation systems. I would love for there to be a good way to know that the person I'm transferring a firearm to is not a prohibited or dangerous person. I have some ideas on that, but this response is supposed to be about barriers to entry, and I've already made this too long of a response. :-)