I've posted a series of articles in the past describing the process for obtaining a firearm in Washington, DC before the Heller case overturned the city's gun laws.  Now, a DC reporter is trying the same thing.  It will be interesting to see if her experience is any easier than it was before the Heller case.  

So, a lot of people are posting NPR's list of the 100 best science fiction and fantasy books.  The idea is to bold the ones that you've read, and, I guess, compare with everyone else.  Speculative fiction is definitely my field, so I might as well join in.

1. The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, by J.R.R. Tolkien
2. The Hitchhiker?s Guide To The Galaxy, by Douglas Adams
3. Ender?s Game, by Orson Scott Card
4. The Dune Chronicles, by Frank Herbert (only the first)
5. A Song Of Ice And Fire Series, by George R. R. Martin
6. 1984, by George Orwell
7. Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury
8. The Foundation Trilogy, by Isaac Asimov
9. Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley
10. American Gods, by Neil Gaiman
11. The Princess Bride, by William Goldman
12. The Wheel Of Time Series, by Robert Jordan
13. Animal Farm, by George Orwell
14. Neuromancer, by William Gibson
15. Watchmen, by Alan Moore
16. I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov
17. Stranger In A Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein
18. The Kingkiller Chronicles, by Patrick Rothfuss
19. Slaughterhouse-Five, by Kurt Vonnegut
20. Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley
21. Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?, by Philip K. Dick
22. The Handmaid?s Tale, by Margaret Atwood
23. The Dark Tower Series, by Stephen King
24. 2001: A Space Odyssey, by Arthur C. Clarke
25. The Stand, by Stephen King
26. Snow Crash, by Neal Stephenson
27. The Martian Chronicles, by Ray Bradbury
28. Cat?s Cradle, by Kurt Vonnegut
29. The Sandman Series, by Neil Gaiman
30. A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess
31. Starship Troopers, by Robert Heinlein
32. Watership Down, by Richard Adams
33. Dragonflight, by Anne McCaffrey
34. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein
35. A Canticle For Leibowitz, by Walter M. Miller
36. The Time Machine, by H.G. Wells
37. 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, by Jules Verne
38. Flowers For Algernon, by Daniel Keys
39. The War Of The Worlds, by H.G. Wells
40. The Chronicles Of Amber, by Roger Zelazny  (only the first)
41. The Belgariad, by David Eddings (very good... for someone who is 11)
42. The Mists Of Avalon, by Marion Zimmer Bradley (awful)
43. The Mistborn Series, by Brandon Sanderson
44. Ringworld, by Larry Niven
45. The Left Hand Of Darkness, by Ursula K. LeGuin
46. The Silmarillion, by J.R.R. Tolkien  (most of it)
47. The Once And Future King, by T.H. White
48. Neverwhere, by Neil Gaiman (didn't much like it)
49. Childhood?s End, by Arthur C. Clarke  (as a kid, don't remember it)
50. Contact, by Carl Sagan
51. The Hyperion Cantos, by Dan Simmons
52. Stardust, by Neil Gaiman
53. Cryptonomicon, by Neal Stephenson
54. World War Z, by Max Brooks
55. The Last Unicorn, by Peter S. Beagle
56. The Forever War, by Joe Haldeman
57. Small Gods, by Terry Pratchett
58. The Chronicles Of Thomas Covenant, The Unbeliever, by Stephen R. Donaldson
59. The Vorkosigan Saga, by Lois McMaster Bujold
60. Going Postal, by Terry Pratchett
61. The Mote In God?s Eye, by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle
62. The Sword Of Truth, by Terry Goodkind (... and I regret it)
63. The Road, by Cormac McCarthy
64. Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, by Susanna Clarke
65. I Am Legend, by Richard Matheson
66. The Riftwar Saga, by Raymond E. Feist
67. The Shannara Trilogy, by Terry Brooks
68. The Conan The Barbarian Series, by R.E. Howard
69. The Farseer Trilogy, by Robin Hobb
70. The Time Traveler?s Wife, by Audrey Niffenegger
71. The Way Of Kings, by Brandon Sanderson (This shouldn't be on the list.  Sorry, Brandon, it's the first book in a series projected for 10 books, and it's not that good.  The rest of the series may improve.)
72. A Journey To The Center Of The Earth, by Jules Verne
73. The Legend Of Drizzt Series, by R.A. Salvatore (and oh boy do I regret it).
74. Old Man?s War, by John Scalzi
75. The Diamond Age, by Neil Stephenson  (Started, got bored)
76. Rendezvous With Rama, by Arthur C. Clarke (Loved it.  Yes, the beginning is slow.  Stick with it, well worth it.)
77. The Kushiel?s Legacy Series, by Jacqueline Carey
78. The Dispossessed, by Ursula K. LeGuin
79. Something Wicked This Way Comes, by Ray Bradbury
80. Wicked, by Gregory Maguire
81. The Malazan Book Of The Fallen Series, by Steven Erikson (The first 4 or 5.  The author's grasp of exposition is very shaky and did not sit well with me.  Good stories, but something about the narrative voice is just wrong for me.)
82. The Eyre Affair, by Jasper Fforde
83. The Culture Series, by Iain M. Banks
84. The Crystal Cave, by Mary Stewart
85. Anathem, by Neal Stephenson
86. The Codex Alera Series, by Jim Butcher (Why this, and not the Dresden files for which he is better known?)
87. The Book Of The New Sun, by Gene Wolfe
88. The Thrawn Trilogy, by Timothy Zahn
89. The Outlander Series, by Diana Gabaldan
90. The Elric Saga, by Michael Moorcock
91. The Illustrated Man, by Ray Bradbury
92. Sunshine, by Robin McKinley
93. A Fire Upon The Deep, by Vernor Vinge (This should be higher on the list, and also include A Deepness in the Sky)
94. The Caves Of Steel, by Isaac Asimov
95. The Mars Trilogy, by Kim Stanley Robinson (Tried it.  Hated it.)
96. Lucifer?s Hammer, by Larry Niven & Jerry Pournelle
97. Doomsday Book, by Connie Willis (For a book about future historians traveling through time to the middle ages to study history, it's surprisingly good).
98. Perdido Street Station, by China Mieville
99. The Xanth Series, by Piers Anthony (The first couple only).
100. The Space Trilogy, by C.S. Lewis

Tam wonders what modern phones could be used as a club to beat an intruder with and still work afterwards to call 911?

She's right, most of them won't serve well in that roll, but it's not because modern phones are poorly designed. Instead, the role of the phone in home defence has changed.

"What? Changed you say?"

Well, yes. We have advanced beyond the days of the solid American phone-club. Today's phones are mostly manufactured by the Japanese and are designed to serve as disposable tools for distracting an opponent, in a manner similar to the way "ninja stars" have been historically employed.

The new tactical phone home defence doctrine goes something like this:

1) Hear an intruder.
2) Dial 911.
3) Put the 911 operator on speaker phone.
4) Throw the phone at the intruder.

The intruder will be struck by the phone and distracted from attacking you. He will leave, clutching his new phone and trying to explain politely to the 911 operator what is going on. If he does not leave, the user is instructed to ask his girlfriend, spouse, room mate, or minor child for their cell phone and repeat steps 2-4. For especially persistent intruders it may be necessary to use your phone from last year or the year before. Eventually, the intruder will become frustrated and depart. At that point, the phone's camera and microphone can be secretly activated to identity and apprehend the intruder.

Of course, no tactical doctrine is perfect. Americans have found it necessary to add another step:

5) Shoot the intruder.

Most reports indicate that this seems to work even if steps 1-4 failed utterly. In fact, some people argue that steps 1-4 are entirely unnecessary. However, most experts recommend maintaining the five-step process in order to provide something for liberals who don't own guns to do in an emergency.

Tuesday, November 2nd, is election day in the US.  If you haven't already voted in this election (via absentee or early voting) and you are reading this weblog, go vote instead.  Preferably for someone who will make a difference.

A Geek With Guns points to yet another case of incorrect terminology about guns in the news.  This time it doesn't seem to be the journalist's fault, but Mayor Daley's (Chicago, I presume) instead.  It seems the Mayor is worried that his police may be out-gunned by people carrying "semi-fully-automatic" weapons. 

At first I was sure that a semi-fully-automatic weapon couldn't exist.  We all know about semi-automatic (one bullet per trigger pull, very common) and fully-automatic (fires until the trigger is released, very heavily regulated).  But semi-fully-automatic firearms don't exist, right?

That's what I thought too, until I actually went looking for some.  It turns out that semi-fully-automatic firearms are available after all.  Some of them are indeed really scary.  Others are smaller, but still enough to ruin your day.  There are some early examples of the deadly semi-fully-automatic technology.  And some are just plain weird.  I certainly wouldn't want to run into a criminal carrying any of them.  Or, err, leading a team of horses hitched to one, either.

What? 

Sorry, Geek, I don't know where you can buy any of those examples, but I think the last one may be available at your local nerf dealer, or even a street corner near you if you live in the right area.

[... a left-leaning somewhat-independent friend of mine suggested I read this NY Times opinion piece recommending that the tea party not push too hard.  I got... a little carried away.]

There is no wisdom there.  All he's doing is reading the tea leaves for the November elections (a remarkably apt analogy!), then curling into the fetal position and whimpering "Please don't hurt me too badly."  Comparing our current government to what was in place under Lincoln or even when the Whig party was in power is patently absurd.  The comparison to FDR is a little more accurate, since he started most of our big government projects... including, I should note, Social Security, one of the entitlement programs that are about to bankrupt us.  I don't consider that a particularly good role model to follow no matter how politically popular it is to force the relatively young and healthy to pay for the health care and retirement of the elderly.

Fact is, the Tea Party as a whole is damn tired of politicians telling us how far we can go.  Look at Obama -- how far has he gone, with his majority in the house and supermajority in the senate?  If we take the house, we'll pass everything that we can possibly ram through the senate.  If we capture the senate, we'll pass everything we can ram through the filibuster.  We'll force the president to veto everything.  And when he does, come 2012 he'll have a record to run away from.

Has the department of education accomplished anything more than increasing federal control over schools that continue to fail just as badly while funnelling union dues to democrats?  Eliminate it.

Has the department of energy accomplished anything more than blocking new nuclear reactors from serving the energy needs of the country?  No?  Eliminate it.

Did the recently-renamed department of mineral resources accomplish anything other than spending our tax dollars inspecting drilling rigs that failed anyway and spending more tax dollars pretending to buy cleanup equipment that somehow wasn't available when it was needed?  No?  Eliminate it.

Has Obamacare accomplished anything more than bankrupting medicare faster and raising the cost of health care?  No yet -- and what it plans to accomplish is horrifying, so we'll eliminate THAT before it has a chance to do more damage.

I can go on for hours like this.  2010 is just the opening volley.  2012 will clear the rubble.  I fully expect Presidentess Palin to veto any bill that she can't roll up tightly, sharpen the tip, and stab into the heart of some vampiric beaurocrat.  She's like Chuck Norris, only cuter.  And she shoots wolves.  From helicopters.  With frikkin' laser beams.  (Well, I may be exaggerating about the laser beams).

UPDATE: FDR can't be blamed for Medicare.

[A minor debate about gun control broke out in a blogged re-read of a fantasy series I have enjoyed.  The comment below is taken from my contribution to the debate.]

Gun control: Leigh, you're way off base in considering gun control to be the more "civilized" option.  In many ways, the existence of firearms enables civilization.  Consider the saying: "God made man, but Samuel Colt made men equal."  With a firearm, an honest man can face an attacker on terms close to even.  It matters little if he is old and frail, rich or poor, trained or not, noble or serf.  To attack the honest man armed with a firearm is to risk everything on even odds. 

Significantly the odds do not change even for small groups of attackers; a criminal gang is no safer than a lone bandit.  Though such a gang may overpower a man with a firearm, they may not do so without risk to their own members; trading one for one with honest men will shortly reduce the supply of criminals to nothing.

What does this say for the rights of women, whose physical qualities (on average) make it difficult to defend herself on equal terms when attacked by a male criminal?  The right to carry a gun is the right to face a rapist on equal terms, the right to say no and make it stick.  The right to carry a firearm has done more to ensure the equality of women in society than any other single factor, with the possible exception of the right to vote.

Finally, consider what happens when civilization breaks down and must be enforced.  With a sword or a knife held by the defender, an attacker may feel that he has a chance of success.  He may be willing to risk and even to take injury in order to complete his attack.  The result is a bloody melee where neither party escapes unscathed. 

With a firearm the vast majority of defensive uses involve mere threats.  "Freeze or I'll shoot!" leaves no blood on the ground and the police can sort out who was at fault at their leisure.  The threat of instant death often removes any necessity for actual harm, resulting in a civilized resolution of the dispute in a court of law.

I don't consider it hyperbole to state that modern civilization was built upon the gun -- and I consider this to be a very good thing indeed.

I mentioned earlier that Obama has redefined NASA's mission, so that the ex-space-agency is now focused on making Moslem nations feel better about themselves.  This is bad enough as it is, but I'm worried that it may well mean we will be helping Iran build ICBMs to deliver the results of their "peaceful nuclear reactor project".

Today's news cycle includes NASA's new mission, direct from President Obama.  It's a three-point plan:

1. Re-inspire children
2. Expand our international relationships
   
3. Reach out to the Muslim world

Notably missing from this list of goals is the exploration of space.

I admit to having a certain amount of ambivalence about NASA funding.  I believe very strongly that exploration of space is necessary and vital.  Yet, I also believe strongly that for that to happen, it must be both possible and profitable for private industry to go into space.  Governments may be the only institutions capable of mustering the initial investment in technology and capital to get us into space, but only private industry can make it self-sustaining.  So, when Obama announced that he was changing NASA's mission to deemphasize things like keeping the shuttle flying and sending expeditions to Mars, I was hopeful that private industry would be able to figure out how to turn a profit keeping the International Space Station in food, water, air, and tourists.

But now that NASA's administrator has revealed the goals that Obama set for him, I can say emphatically that it is wrong.  NASA is supposed to be about space exploration, not making other countries feel good or improving international relations.  The best way to inspire children is to give them something inspiring to be a part of.  Rocket scientists and astronauts join NASA to boldly go where no man has gone before, not to "inspire children."  Inspiring children is a side effect.

We have lots of other agencies that are dedicated to inspiring children and improving international relations.  If Obama thinks those other agencies are more important than NASA, he should be honest about his belief and submit a budget to Congress that reflects those priorities.  Instead, he's playing a dishonest shell game with our money.

Lengthier analysis later.  For now, be happy we won.  Reports say 5-4 in favor of incorporation, with 4 votes for due process and 1 vote for privileges and immunities by Justice Thomas.

... and why we don't have it anymore, spelled out by the washington times.

... appears to involve a swat team ready to kill you if you don't agree to surrender voluntarily.

This particular incident wasn't even prompted by a crime.  Someone with a clean criminal record happened to buy guns with his tax refund after being put on administrative leave over a work dispute; someone brought this to the attention of the police, who felt it warranted a pre-emptive mental health evaluation.  Well, if you can use "warranted" for cases where the police don't bother to get a warrant.

The man has been released, his guns have been returned, and he has not been charged with anything.  I hope he sues.

See Orin Kerr's take on the Volokh Conspiracy.  One of the reasons I've been so quiet lately is that I'm spending a lot of time working on something that will fix this.

Of course, some would argue that we don't have any 4th Amendment protection left in our homes, either.

The transcript is available here (PDF format).  Early takes on the argument indicate that incorporation through the due process clause is almost certain, but incorporation through privileges and immunities clause (Gura's main argument) is unlikely.  This is a somewhat disappointing result, since the Slaughterhouse Cases which originally denied the privileges and immunities route are generally accepted to be bad law.  But it's not unexpected.

I may have more to say when I've read the transcript.

Remember when Nazi Germany insisted that members of a particular religion wear identifying symbols so they could be ostracized and oppressed by everyone else? 

You may find that situation uncomfortably close to reality if you live in Maryland.  Legislation introduced in both the state House and state Senate will require that gun owners have a special license to purchase handguns, and will mark their status as a license holder with a "scarlet G for gun owner" on their existing drivers license. 

UPDATE: SaysUncle notes that he can't find that language in the bill.  I looked, and I can't find it either; in my original post I was relying on the summary at Ammoland, specifically this language:

It is uncertain whether or not a "gun owner" designation on a driver?s license will constitute "probable cause" to search a vehicle during a routine traffic stop.

It could be I jumped the gun a bit by not checking the language myself. 

The Supreme Court has issued a decision striking down the vast majority of the Campaign Finance Reform Act, normally termed McCain-Feingold for its two primary authors.  This is a good decision that restores the right to free political speech.  But our politicians are already promising to ensure that new restrictions on political speech are enacted.  Why can't we have politicians who respect free speech and seek to advance it, rather than pass laws that are offensive to the Constitution and the First Amendment?

It's worth noting that the decision was 5-4.  The 4 dissenting votes came from the so-called liberal wing of the court.  It used to be that the rule of thumb was "vote Republican for economic freedom, and Democrat for social freedom."  That's clearly changed.  The new rule seems to be, "vote Democrat for tyranny now, vote Republican for slightly less tyranny."  But occasionally they do get it right.

... then it becomes very tempting to invent a crisis.  Governments do this a lot, because it works.  That explicitly includes our present government (as admitted by Rahm "Never waste a crisis").  It explains global warming and gun control; both are artificial (and inflated) crises designed to transfer political power and money to those seeking to "solve" them. 

See also, swine flu, avian flu, and the World Health Organization.

If you haven't already seen Sebastian's scoop on the secret plans of the Mayors Against Guns to implement stealth gun control, go read it now.  The short version is that they plan to lobby a friendly administration for whatever gun control measures they can get by implementing rules changes, policy changes, or other administrative hurdles.  They won't try for new legislation, because they are (correctly) afraid of the political backlash, but they will do their best behind the scenes to mess things up.

Remember when Bush's White House allegedly fired Department of Justice career prosecutors for political reasons, and how that was a huge scandal?

Obama's White House has allegedly transferred a Department of Justice career prosecutor in order to stifle criminal charges against the New Black Panther Party voting rights incident.  You may remember that case as the one where two individuals in uniform and with police batons intimidated voters outside a polling place.

It's not conclusive proof of any wrongdoing, but it sure is suspicious.

I got the tip from John Lott's blog.

UPDATE: Big Lizards has a detailed post with the complete timeline.

... in any context other than advising more hearing protection, I would find a new doctor.  Thankfully, I've never had any issues with doctors trying to pry into my personal affairs like that.  Presumably, it's one of the advantages of living in Texas.

However, I do occasionally see articles by misinformed physicians encouraging other doctors to ask their patients about guns, and try to give advice about gun safety.  Such articles never fail to annoy me, but usually they are from doctors, to doctors, and heavily reliant on the arrogance of doctors who believe their expertise in one field extends to every area of human endeavor. 

This is the first time I've seen a physician's assistant try to give advice about gun safety to other physician's assistants.  I suppose that having no success with doctors capable of recognizing their lack of expertise means that the gun bigots have to try the next level down. 

I would fisk the whole thing, but Bitter already has.

Remote controlled zombie deer fight poachers?  Sure, people should follow the laws regulating hunting and only hunt deer in season.  Not being much of a hunter myself I am not sure how much of a problem poaching usually is.  But this sort of stunt strikes me as a waste of time and money if conducted by lawful authorities, and ... to be blunt... criminally insane if conducted by the sort of anti-hunting zealots I suspect are hiding behind the nice, friendly exterior of this operation.

Hunters wear the highly-human-visible orange for a reason, and if you're trying to hide from (never mind tackle!) a hunter, you're just asking for something tragic to happen by mistake.

I figure that this article has hit on something that explains a lot.  The basic idea is that the level of trust held by a populace in its government influences the murder rate in that society.  When people trust their government and feel justice and respect can be obtained through the system without resorting to violence, murder rates are low.  When the government is not responsive to the people, and is not trusted to deliver justice for its citizens, murder rates increase:

In his analysis, Roth found four factors that relate to the homicide rate in parts of the United States and western Europe throughout the past four centuries: the belief that one's government is stable and its justice and legal systems are unbiased and effective; a feeling of trust in government officials and a belief in their legitimacy; a sense of patriotism and solidarity with fellow citizens; and a belief that one's position is society is satisfactory and that one can command respect without resorting to violence.

When those feelings and beliefs are strong, homicide rates are generally low, regardless of the time or place, Roth said. But when people are unsure about their government leaders, don't feel connected to the rest of society, and feel they don't have opportunity to command respect in the community, homicide rates go up.

America has always distrusted its political leaders; we practically founded our nation on that principle.  It's not likely to be something that can be fixed -- if it even should be -- by just electing the right person.  Instead, what needs to happen is to elect leaders who will respect the rights of the people rather than advancing their own beliefs while disparaging the beliefs of others.  That gives people confidence that their own lives are safe and won't be arbitrarily interfered with by government.  That's a judgement not necessarily based on the system of government, but having a government that explicitly lacks the power to destroy its political opponents certainly helps a lot.

If you've been following the news (not necessarily the mainstream news) then you may have heard of a recent package of damaging data liberated from one of the major climate science research centers.  I say "liberated" because it was supposedly released by a team of hackers who broke into the computer systems and collected the data.  There are arguments about whether it may have been an internal leak trying to disguise the source.  While the provenance of the data is somewhat questionable, official sources have confirmed that there was a data leak and so far have said there's too much data to verify whether or not it is real.  That's a careful avoidance of saying it's faked, and it's a treasure trove of information about so-called scientists' efforts to stifle investigation and debate into the anthropogenic global warming myth.

So, without vouching for the data, or condoning the means by which it was obtained, I've put together a few links to sites that have done some careful examination of the data:

• Power Line
• Bishop Hill
• Pajamas Media
  

Assuming the data is mostly genuine, this seems like a classic case of whistleblowing.  We have emails talking about how to avoid releasing their scientific data to reviewers, including how to avoid freedom of information act requests; how to hide a decline in the warming trend; how to avoid accounting for the inconvenient medieval warm period; the unreliability of tree ring data on which vast amounts of climate science is based... there's a lot there, and perhaps worst of all, the complete datasets from major articles that were being suppressed.

The emails are very damaging and will likely be career-ending for some of the people featured in them.  The datasets, however, may well prove capable of destroying the entire global warming myth... simply by exposing their claims to real peer review.  

In addition to police-monitored cameras all over the country, the government of Britain has decided to track every single user's internet usage.  Data will be retained for a year and can be accessed without a warrant, simply by obtaining the authorization of a senior police officer or deputy head of department.  Over 600 different government agencies will have access to this information, including police, local councils, and tax authorities.

Sigh.  The death of privacy is complete.

Should an adoption agency be able to consider whether a household has firearms as part of a decision on whether to allow adoption?  The question has come to a head in Florida, where at least one agency is using forms that ask about firearms ownership as part of the adoption process. 

This one strikes a little close to home for me because I was adopted.  My adopted family did not have guns in the house while I was growing up, and I do not think that was a good thing.  Obviously it doesn't determine the outcome of a child's life, but it's made my own interest in firearms more difficult to pursue -- and I had more opportunities than most kids in a home without firearms would have, because I encountered firearms in a controlled and positive environment outside of the home.  Many others would have only negative experiences with guns in the absence of a family that can demonstrate positive gun ownership. 

So what are the pros and cons of considering gun ownership in the adoption process?  To start with, let's frame the question a little bit more.  Kids are not only adopted as newborns; some are adopted significantly older than that, even potentially as teenagers.  Some are adopted by strangers, others by family friends or relatives after the parents pass away.  There's a broad spectrum of adoptees to consider, and many of those who are no longer newborns are not exactly angels either.

So, on the pro side:

• Some children may not be responsible enough to handle firearms when adopted, through no fault of the adopting parents;
• Some children may intentionally misuse firearms.
• The adopting parents are taking an unknown factor into their home, and may not fully appreciate the necessary precautions.
• The decision to allow an adoption is one where a great deal of discretion is present on many different factors.  Gun ownership is by no means the only potentially discriminating factor.
• There is some evidence that responsible use of legal firearms helps children to avoid other negative behaviors.
  

On the con side:

• Asking about firearms ownership creates a registry of firearms in the possession of the government agencies charged with making that decision.
• Asking about firearms is likely to strongly, and irrationally, prejudice the people making the decision whether to allow the adoption.
  
• Making a gun-free home a prerequisite for adoption is likely to discourage an enumerated Constitutional right, even if such restrictions are not applied to a broad segment of the population.
• Nothing that I know of prevents adoptive parents from acquiring a firearm after the adoption decision has been made.
• The degree of scrutiny applied to potential adopting parents is almost certainly already sufficient to screen out felons, who are already prohibited from possessing firearms.
  

What it boils down to is simple.  There are people who can be trusted with firearms, there are people who can't be trusted with firearms, and people move between those groups in both directions.   Asking about gun ownership is not enough information (even if answered truthfully) to determine whether someone is a responsible gun owner, or whether a child is at particular risk for a bad outcome from being in a gun-owning home.  Asking the question by itself (regardless of how the answer is handled) creates some negative consequences.

And it's all unnecessary, because we already have a societal proxy for responsible gun ownership.  Quite simply, we treat felons (plus those convicted of domestic violence) as not being sufficiently responsible to own a gun; all other adults are considered responsible by default.  The adoption process almost certainly checks for a criminal record already.  Thus, we are already weeding out the "bad gun owners" earlier in the process, using a method which does not have privacy implications and does not impose a Constitutional right. 

Because felons are already excluded, asking about firearms specifically during the adoption process can only lead to negative results.  There is no positive benefit to asking about firearms in addition to checking for criminal background.

That should make the decision simple.