Question

[Whovian]

If gun owners are so proud as to their weapon ownership why should they wince at others knowing of it?

[slackmaster]

1. In 1989 Rebecca Shaeffer was murdered by a stalker who got her address from the California DMV

Maybe it's time for states to make it a little harder for personal information about citizens to be released wholesale to anyone.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

[Whovian]

3. Was she a weapon owner?

[slackmaster]

6. It doesn't matter whether she was or not. Her address was public information at the time.

And someone accessed it in order to locate her so that he could kill her.

[Whovian]

8. If you have a phone book, 99 percent of our addresses

are available to the public. Next straw man please.

[slackmaster]

14. People have the CHOICE to not have their addresses published in phone books. Mine is not.

I'd like to see where you got that "99 percent" figure.

On second thought, let's not go there. It's probably a dark place.

[Whovian]

20. Dark place my ass.

When people decide not to be included in a phonebook and the loops and hoops that have to be taken to assure that there is usually a reason that is less than honorable.

[slackmaster]

25. Here are some facts to shed a little light on your baseless bogus statistic

Nationally, 27.6% of households have unlisted numbers.
In many cities the unlisted rate is over 50%.
California is especially bad, with most cities over 50% (Los Angeles is 56% unlisted).

Those figures are for households that aren't listed in public phone directories AT ALL. Of those that are, a very large portion have just a phone number listed and no address.

Source: http://www.busreslab.com/index.php/articles-and-stories/research-tips/general-research-tips/the-science-of-sampling-telephone-samples/#phone

[Whovian]

48. Okay, lets make it simpler for simple minds,

Someone drives past your house, they can record your address.

[slackmaster]

51. Yes, but they don't know that it's me who lives there

Only Google knows that.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. My, delicate flower

Anybody committed to finding an adress in the World Wide Web age can do so in ten minutes flat.

There are so many ways of doing this in the current age your mind would real if you realized this.

When that law was written you still could, sort off, expect that privacy. These days it s pretty much gone.

The only effective way (sort off) to cut yourself from the world is to stop posting and having a digital trail.

I am being serious as a heart attack.

[Recursion]

2. The "proud" ones don't mind

The ones trying to keep their head down until their ex's court date on battery charges might.

[PeaceNikki]

4. I thought the gun nuts would LOVE the idea. Won't that deter 'bad dudes' from taking YOUR shit?

[hack89]

7. Care to explain your "logic"? nt

[PeaceNikki]

10. It's based on the gun nuts' 'logic' that gun-free zones = criminal haven.

Alternatively, confirmed gun owners' homes should be the ones 'bad guys' avoid... no?

Why is that hard to grasp?

[hack89]

12. Thieves would simply wait until the owners are gone

and then steal the guns. Thieves are not stupid. Is that hard to grasp?

Why would you publish a shopping list for gun thieves?

[PeaceNikki]

15. I know, there's always an argument against regulation/public record.

Luckily for the gun nuts AND criminals, gun registration is not required is many states.

[hack89]

21. You know that by law criminals cannot be held accountable for failing to register their guns?

some interesting 5th Amendment case law behind that.

[PeaceNikki]

24. "Of the 142 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally.

The arsenal included dozens of assault weapons and semiautomatic handguns."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

[hack89]

26. And how would registration stop such killings?

Registration is useful to solve crimes - there are no unsolved mass killings. We know who did them.

[PeaceNikki]

27. I don't claim it would. But I think guns and the owners should be registered.

And the loopholes around background checks closed. And I think someone should knock on your door if you purchase thousands of rounds of ammo.

[hack89]

29. So while they would not actually make anyone safer

expending the time, money and other resources to do so makes you feel better so why not?

I agree with the background checks.

The ammo not so much. I only buy ammo once a year to save money. So do millions of other - a lot of people band together and consolidate their orders to save money. It is so common that personally checking each large order would be a colossal waste of time and money. And would not make you safer - mass shooters and criminals are not stupid. They would simply buy quantities under the limits that trigger a knock on the door.

[PeaceNikki]

34. They're registered in Canada and LEO's accesses those records 14,000 times per DAY.

It clearly can help LEO's do their job, which can only help keep us all safe.

It's not about 'making me feel better', but thanks for the patronizing bullshit.

[hack89]

39. Auditor General appears to disagree with you

However, the Auditor General's report found that the program does not collect data to analyze the effectiveness of the gun registry in meeting its stated goal of improving public safety. The report states:

The performance report focuses on activities such as issuing licences and registering firearms. The Centre does not show how these activities help minimize risks to public safety with evidence-based outcomes such as reduced deaths, injuries and threats from firearms.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Firearms_Registry

[PeaceNikki]

40. Keep reading your own link....

"There are many conflicting views on how effective the Gun Registry is for ensuring public safety.

In a Canada Firearms Centre (CAFC) survey, 74% of general duty police officers stated that the registry "query results have proven beneficial during major operations."

Meanwhile, Edgar MacLeod, former president of the CACP, states that "while the cost of the registry had become an embarrassment, the program works and provides a valuable service. In a typical domestic violence situation," he says, "investigating police officers rely on the registry to determine if guns are present. Onboard computers in police cruisers, or a call to central dispatch, alerts [sic] officers to any firearms registered to occupants of the house."[14]

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police are strongly supportive of the gun registry, claiming that getting rid of the registry will make Canada less safe, and compromise the ability of law enforcement to deal effectively with gun violence."

[hack89]

41. Cops are authoritarian by nature.

what infringement on a civil liberty wouldn't they like? Talk to the NYPD about stop and frisk - they can rationalize it as useful and making the streets safe.

[PeaceNikki]

43. Registration would NOT infringe on your fucking 'civil liberty', dude.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html

[hack89]

46. It will never happen at the federal level so I am not really that concerned

it is a state issue. Some states will and some states will not. My state does not.

[Lizzie Poppet]

37. What specific purpose would registration serve?

I do, however, strongly support closing the private sale loophole in the background check system. It wouldn't prevent criminal access to firearms...but it would make it at least a bit more difficult.

[PeaceNikki]

42. read above. A tool for mental health professionals and LEO

Domestic violence, disgruntled employees, etc.

West Vancouver police Chief: "We get calls from mental-health providers saying 'We're concerned about a particular individual.' We'll do that check and go and seize (their firearms) so they don't harm themselves or someone else."

Psychiatrist Barbara Kane: “I think we've probably prevented some major events,” says Dr. Barbara Kane, a psychiatrist in Prince George, B.C. The RCMP has called Kane asking whether she is concerned about certain individuals applying to register a gun. She believes such a call prevented tragedy after a millworker was fired. “He could easily have gone into one of the mills and done something bad,” she says. “But we were able to get his guns away from him.”

http://themaplethree.blogspot.com/2010/09/some-anti-gun-registry-arguments-and.html

[Lizzie Poppet]

44. Thank you!

I've asked that question a number of times, and yours is one of only a tiny handful of substantive replies, and the first to present a compelling argument. I'll have to ponder the cost/benefit ratio here, but thank you very much for yoru response.

[PeaceNikki]

47. I know that a lot of the focus is on the mass shootings recently, but gun violence is a lot more

than just those. I don't think registration/restrictions will stop the violence. I know better than that. But it should be part of the conversation. I agree that the access to weapons is only part of the huge problem. But it should be a very serious part of the conversation.

Here in WI we have had 2 mass shootings this year. One was a DV case in which he was restricted from owning, but bought through private channel, so the sale was legal. Just this week, a former Marine with PTSD is being held for shooting his police officer wife 9 times: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014348240

I just think we should DISCUSS what we can do to make it harder for people to shoot each other.

[Lizzie Poppet]

52. Agreed...and that focus has frustrated me.

I understand it...but it's still deflecting conversation from the enormously greater problem of the larger, overall gun violence problem. It's producing call s for actions which will have little to no effect on that greater problem, but which might very well burn political capital better used on steps to combat the larger problem.

And I've let my self get deflected, too...into pointless flame exchanges and being part of the general nastiness that has become this community. I'm a bit embarrassed...

[PeaceNikki]

53. We've all been there, especially when discussing issues about which we're passionate.

Let's see, I've been there on:

Women's reproductive choice
The infamous Waukesha Country State Supreme Court election & recount.
WI Politics and my county in general

[madinmaryland]

31. Why would that matter?? Don't responsible gun owners lock their weapons up when they leave

their home in a well protected safe??

[hack89]

33. If it brings criminals to the house

regardless of whether they crack my safe or not, don't you think that besides stealing other stuff, there is a greater chance of a tragedy when a home owner walks in on a criminal?

But that doesn't concern you, does it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. Yes, responsible gun owners do just that.

That doesn't mean that some scumbag won't try to get them, anyway, possibly trash the place when he gets pissed off that he can't get into the gun safe, and take a bunch of other stuff. All because some idiot reporter and their irresponsible pinhead of an editor thought it would be cute to publish gun owners' addresses? Oh, hell no.

[hack89]

5. Since we keep hearing how criminals steal all their guns

perhaps we think broadcasting the location of guns is not wise? Why make it easy for thieves? But then, that doesn't bother you does it?

[HereSince1628]

9. I give up, tell us the answer.

[Whovian]

11. If one depends on logic

they should not.

[HereSince1628]

18. I think the fault in logic is yours.

You've mistaken the subjective experience provided by your narrow tunnel vision to be a constraint on the optics of others.

[hack89]

13. Why would you want to publish a shopping list for gun thieves?

if you are so proud of your concern for the safety of others?

[Whovian]

16. Didn't you know?

Gun owners are impervious to crime! They've told me so.

[hack89]

19. And you agree with them or do you believe that guns are frequently stolen?

If so, why do you think publishing a shopping list for gun thieves is a good idea?

[Lizzie Poppet]

30. Now that you've completely abandoned any pretense at actual rational discussion...

...do please tell us why we should bother engaging you at all?

[Lurker Deluxe]

22. If everyone is so proud that they voted for "insert name here" ....

Let's make that public record as well.

Sometimes I wonder about both sides. I own a gun or three, and it is none of your business what they are and where they are. If the government decides I must register them, I will. But if that information gets out all you will see is people not doing what they are asked to do.

[benld74]

23. It is the fear of the government getting a copy of said list,

and coming to get their weapons of course.

[chuckrocks]

28. what happened to responsibility

I thought part of responsible ownership was locking your shit up when you left the house. Or is that against the 2nd as well.

[Lizzie Poppet]

32. I certainly consider it to be.

So then why should I tolerate having some scumbag break in anyway, trash my house when he gets pissed off that he can't defeat the gun safe, and steal some of my other stuff just because some jackwagon of a reporter thought it was cute to publish my address? That newspaper just made the best possible argument for not complying with registration requirements where they exist and ensuring they are never enacted where they don't. More "law of unintended consequences" fuckwittery...

[chuckrocks]

36. well I guess we'll find out soon...

How many break-ins result from the list.

[Lizzie Poppet]

38. Possibly so. Glad I don't live there.

That scenario is unlikely to repeat itself where I live: no registration requirements.

[oddoneout]

45. doing this is simply

letting all criminals and law abiding citizens know which law-abiding citizens own guns...once again the criminals carrying guns are the only ones not being identified, and they are now given information on which homes to target.

[patrice]

50. 1+++

[patrice]

49. Public v. Private is the focus of the question. Your guns your home, that's your business, NOT ours.

Your guns in our public places that's a different sort of question, because many of us do not want to be pulled into violent situations that we were not even allowed, to whatever extent possible, the choice options afforded us in the 2nd Amendment having to do with "the security of a free State", in which we happen to live with others who have made choices counter to our own security and my/our choices are prevented by concealed carry.

The PUBLIC question about the security of a free state also extends to the uses of our armed forces. This applies to limited types of guns suitable for assault.

I can't imagine what kinds of situations might provoke assault from a privately armed position upon public domain, other than criminal activity, but under some other circumstances perhaps there could be some situations in which private assaults public, for whatever reason, and "justified" or not, such rationale and such hypothetical activities would result in the use of public resources, armed forces, to respond upon to private assault upon public. This hypothetical possibility is the point at which I, as a member of the public, do have a right to mitigate against the effect upon public resources, not only in whatever the object of the private assault upon public is, but also in the effect of that assault upon a public human resource known as law enforcement and/or military, both of whom at minimum must expend financial resources to respond to private assault on public, and at worst, suffer injury and death, effects upon people who have committed themselves to public service, so we have responsibility for what happens to them, and so also, why we should accept our responsibilities to respond to the possibilities of private assault upon the public in any form of its public resources.

Now, we should consider the reciprocal hypothetical scenario: public assault upon private. I know that there are examples in our history that reveal people's concerns for how this can and has happened, I cannot deny that possibility, but I believe that history would also show that in most such incidents, alternative forms of public response to private actions were not explored, though that leaves aside the questions of whether whatever alternatives there were their potentiality were mitigated or prevented, intentionally or otherwise, so the question of whether there are/were alternatives to public assault on private is a moot point. Let's just leave this point that there are likely alternative responses to public assault on private. I don't accept that public entities unilaterally assault private entities out of the clear blue, but I do accept that there are probably alternatives that, for one reason or another, intentionally or otherwise, are not pursued.

One hypothetical scenario I have left out is: private assault upon private. This is an important possibility because it is directly germane to the question of certain kinds of information being made public as illustrate by the story that prompted this thread. If the factor representing privately owned assault capabilities says, TTE, "Public has no concern of assault from this private assault power, because ___________________ " they could be accepted at their word, unless that "... because __________________ " is broken , again intentionally or otherwise, and the nullification of that "because" could come from factors internal to the private assault potentiated domain, in which case public could be considered responsible to protect private assault from private assault, for the security of a free State, or the nullification of that "because" could also come, intentionally or otherwise, from public assault potentiated factors external to the private domain.

In any case: private assault upon public, or public assault on private, or private assault on private, we end up once again and again in the position of the use of public resources, with or without m/your consent, BECAUSE of the inherent reciprocity of assault capabilities.

I'm okay about people owning guns in the privacy of their homes. That private information about a private context should not be shared. When any gun become a factor in any public domain, that affects the rest of us and assault weapons have the potential of becoming such factors in ways that are not characteristic of other types of guns. In any case: private assault upon public, or public assault on private, or private assault on private, we end up again and again in the position of using of public resources, with or without m/your consent, BECAUSE of the inherent reciprocity of assault capabilities, all of which are beyond the control of most of those who can be affected by the, intentional or otherwise, use of assault weapons by ANY assault potentiated element in any situation.