I, along with many others, believed that the subsequent session of the Virginia General Assembly would undoubtedly witness the closure of the now infamous “gun show loophole.” In a brief but legitimate summary, this loophole allows for the unregulated sale of deadly weapons at gun shows in the Commonwealth of Virginia, despite the fact that the sale of the exact same weapons at licensed gun shops requires a background check be performed prior to an exchange. An immediate, convenient, and rational background check that is.

As often occurs in the Old Dominion, reason was tossed aside and the deleterious loophole was allowed to stay on the books.

I presume that nothing would be solved by delving into a diatribe and I know that I could easily write at length on this matter (and indeed I did write on the subject quite a few times during an internship at the Virginia Senate); however, that is not my intention (especially not at 12:18 a.m.). I simply wish to bring to light that this is another matter that would seem to benefit from the “Nudge”-inspired practice of defaulting to the best choice. Given the fact that instantaneous background checks have been performed without complication for years, exactly what harm would occur by requiring that ALL transfers of firearms be preceded by an instant background check? I would like to get the opinion of a variety of people on this issue: gun control activists, gun rights activist and anyone in between.

Posted by Lewis

I believe that my assertion that regulations on trans-fats and public smoking are not parallel holds up. As I indicate in my piece, trans-fats should be regulated, but not in the same manner that public smoking is regulated.

Once instituted, public smoking bans make smoking in pre-determined public places illegal. Because the act of smoking can cause direct harm to persons in the vicinity of the smoker (not solely the willing smoker), a regulation is put in place to minimize that danger for the protection of public health.

The regulations I have proposed for trans-fats are not of the same nature. If a consumer is confronted with multiple reminders that the item(s) they are considering ingesting holds serious negative health implications, maybe they will reconsider their choice, maybe they won’t, but it is completely their decision. Never in my proposal do I advocate making it illegal for a willing adult to consume trans-fats if they choose to do so. Such a decision is a personal dietary choice that has no effect on the health of surrounding persons.

The proposed trans-fats regulations, unlike public smoking bans (which I should repeat, I support whole-heartedly because of their protection of public health) do not at any point make consumption illegal. That significant difference is why I claim that trans-fats and public smoking regulations are not parallel.

Quiz time!

Hmm…I’m going to choose option A, although I’m not too keen on that report idea.

That said, do you not put yourself in a bit of a quandary by asserting that trans-fat and smoking in public are NOT parallel. Consider – can one now argue that you shouldn’t regulate trans-fat because it does not affect anyone else like public smoking does. If an activity does not hurt anyone else should we implement as high a duty on the bureaucrat to regulate it? Preemptively, my answer is yes, but with more subtle regulation; hence the nudge/push principle. Again, warning labels and possible health risks of ingestion would suffice. You do go on to suggest this, so maybe we just disagree, again in name rather than practice. That said, one must acknowledge as part of the nudge principle, the idea of framing – if we label things as “more informed choices” rather than “strict-ban” (although, they effectively mean the same thing under our nomenclature) then you may achieve your desired effect – trans-fat phobia – more effectively.

I think the automatic voter registration makes a lot of sense because it definitely retains individual choice. The person wouldn’t even have to un-register as you suggest, but could just not vote if he/she were uninspired!

Nudge pop-quiz re: “I guess I really should get around to reading this book…”

Should I, Kenneth, as the rightful owner of said book:

a. Leave on Lewis’s desk open to page one with an assignment to do a book report on it in two weeks or else…(still coming up with or else “what”? — I dont have that much leverage, heh)

b. Leave on my bookshelf encumbered by 100+ other books of varying degrees of entertainment value and intellectual growth opportunities without really ever discussing the books.

c. Continue to discuss the finer points of the book and leave on the shelf next to Bill O’Reilly’s Who’s Looking Out for You? (clearly, the saturated and deep-fried fat of books).