General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsNo, I'm not going to register my guns.
I've a grand total of four guns in my house, two shotgun, a twenty two single shot rifle, and the black powder wall hanger that went through the Civil War. Nothing major, about what you would expect to have in any rural household. They were handed down from my father, and once in a long while I use them, mostly for varmint control around my farm, and for target shooting every now and then.
In Missouri, I'm not required to register them, and I'm not going to, even if it becomes a legal requirement in this state. Why? Because I don't want my residence to become a potential target for thieves.
When the Journal News published the names and addresses of registered handgun owners, every single one of those people and households became a target. It was an epic piece of stupidity, since most of the flood of illegal guns in this country come from stealing the guns of law abiding owners. And the Journal News just gave those thieves a nice interactive map that allows them to plan their forthcoming crime spree much more effectively.
Yes, yes, I can hear you now, "Aren't guns supposed to be kept in a gun safe anyway?" Yes, they should be, but a few salient points here. A lot of people don't keep their guns in a gun safe. Some folks just have the single gun for self defense, stashed in their nightstand. Others keep all their guns but one in a gun safe. Some folks don't keep any of their guns in a safe, simply stash them in the back of a closet or in a drawer.
But even if they did keep all their guns in a gun safe, that still won't deter the determined and skilled thief. Most gun safes aren't that tough to get into, and some safes are so lightweight that a couple of people can simply move them out, throw the safe into a truck for later opening. In fact, about the most foolproof "gun safe" I've ever seen is my father in law's safe. When he built his new house, he build a special room, installed a bank safe door that he picked up at an auction, and put all of his guns in there.
But even if the thieves that come in are deterred by the gun safe, the rest of the house is still open for pilfering, and thieves aren't the pickiest people in the world. If they don't get the guns, they can still get the electronics and other valuables lying around.
Is that what the Journal News is wishing upon those law abiding citizens, making them a target for thieves? Do they deserve to be a target for criminals simply because they own a gun? Is this how the Journal News really wants to honor the victims of Sandy Hook, by creating an interactive map for thieves? How very irresponsible.
What is the purpose of this map? To let people where the big bad scary guns are? Really, are you going to change who you associate with just because they own a gun? Are you that shallow. Hell, out here in the country people simply assume that everybody has a gun in their house somewhere, it's no big deal. The kids still come over and play, neighbors still visit their neighbors, and nobody is freaked out by a gun. Perhaps it is because they've grown up with them, see them for what they are, a tool, and aren't bent out of shape by lawful gun owners. Geez, if you folks are weirded out by the mere possession of a gun, don't come around during hunting season, you'll freak from the sound of all the gunfire.
Here in Missouri, I'm not required to register my guns, and frankly I doubt that I will have to during my lifetime. However, if per chance it comes about that I will be required by law to register those guns, that will be a law that I break. I do not want my house to become a target for thieves, I want to keep my guns in my hands, not stolen by some thief to be used in some killing somewhere else. That is, in my opinion, the most responsible position one can take.
A shame that the Journal News didn't exhibit that kind of responsibility.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)Official registry = bad
Unofficial internet who knows who knows = no problem
progressoid
(53,134 posts)
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)All you know is some guy on the internet owns guns.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)It could even be 1x1 white pixel that you didn't notice loading.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)No need. DHCP is just a system by which IP addresses are automatically assigned. It doesn't mask anything.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...you get a new IP address. Even if your IP isn't static, it still traces back to your computer.
LP2K12
(885 posts)Log into my Verizon FiOS router right now and release the IP address and get a new one within 30 minutes.
It's not that hard...
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)The vast majority of individuals connecting to the Internet will be using an RFC1918 (private) address that will be NATted and overloaded to a registered, routeable address. So even if someone finds the user's internal address, they'll just be finding the same 192.168.1.X address that millions of other people are also using.
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Wouldn't his ISP service provider be the only ones who could map his IP address to his home address? or did I miss something there?
Response to Electric Monk (Reply #57)
Post removed
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)It's like those people who have a "Protected by Smith & Wesson" sticker on their truck, but object to having their address published. Okay, players.
Igel
(37,516 posts)They've long dropped the actual protective service, but kept the stickers. A lot of other people in the community have the same stickers and, I'm guessing, do pay for their security systems.
Now, imagine the effect of publicly announcing who actually has active alarm systems. Easy enough to take the list into the community and tick off those addresses with non-valid protection stickers.
Sticker = words.
Gun = object that can kill.
Security system = quick response and loud reaction to intruders (potentially, at least)
Best to keep words in their own category--they reflect electrochemical signals in the brain of the speaker (and hearer) and are compression waves in the air. That's pretty much it. Ineffectual little bits of energy all by themselves.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)take these guns. Not worth it. Then add that he said rural Missouri, I can assure you, it would be a really bad/dumb thief to dare those areas of that state.
However the point is something to think about in the sense of letting out those addresses. It is legal to have a registered gun. To treat law abiding citizens like we do sex offenders is just wrong.
It also strengthens the NRA side and could swing people over. It is hard enough to push for better gun control without this!
samsingh
(18,416 posts)
frylock
(34,825 posts)
rrneck
(17,671 posts)After the gun has left the FFL I don't see any way to control them. You're left with controlling the people. That's why we have laws regulating who can and cannot have a gun, where they can have it, and how it can be used. Putting people on a list of any sort when they haven't done anything to deserve being watched makes no sense to me. If somebody has done something that warrants placement on a government watch list they should simply have their firearms confiscated.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)The irony seems to be lost on some, though.
thucythucy
(9,096 posts)touting their willingness to resist government tyranny by joining some right wing fantasy rebellion, citing this as the reason they need unlimited access to unregistered weapons. It seems these people never heard the term "Internet Protocol Number."
Note: I am in no way trying to imply that the OP is a right winger. I'm talking about posts I've seen on other chat boards.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Probably, if you have the skills to hack into DU's servers and find my real name. Otherwise, you're going to have to choose between the five million people who live in this state.
But, if my real name and address is published in a newspaper, it makes it so much easier for thieves to find out where the guns are, the Journal News is providing a map to the front door. Not a terribly bright thing to do, don't you agree?
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)Any novice hacker can trace you. You have just informed the world of your unregistered guns and your intention to shirk the law should you be required to register.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Major invasion of privacy to law-abiding citizens.
rbixby
(1,140 posts)the information was publicly available before they were published anyway
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)request to get the information. It's not like it was already available on the internet or in a public file someplace.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Your connection to the Internet is not anonymous. Unless you have deliberately made an effort to obfuscate where you are connecting from, finding who you are, or ate least where exactly you sent that message from, is not difficult.
crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)reading your name and address in the newspaper.
how do you argue with that logic?
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
how do you argue with that logic?
crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)I said, now read this carefully......
"your wasting your time with this group, they think tracing your ip to your address is as easy as
reading your name and address in the newspaper. "
since you think i said something about figuring out what IP is assigned to my router, which anyone who knows how to use google could figure that out, I will add some explanation that will help you to understand, ok?
"your wasting your time with this group, they think tracing your ip to your address ( as in home address, like where the mailman delivers your Batman comics to ) is as easy as reading your name and address in the newspaper. "
Now stop making a fool of yourself and go bother someone else.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)While you familiarize yourself with the PATRIOT ACT, you might also want to brush up on the proper use of apostrophes as well. Good day, sir.
crazyjoe
(1,191 posts)to do with the discussion. My original point is valid, despite your lame attempts to discredit what I was saying. Based on your support of the Journal printing private, lawful gun owners names and addresses, I'll just consider you to be a huge supporter of the Patriot act. After all, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about....right?
spanone
(141,524 posts)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Bad things happen anyway, so why bother? 
Patiod
(11,816 posts)
Skinner
(63,645 posts)But I thought the logic of gun proliferation was that bad people would be less likely to do bad things if they knew there is a good chance a law-abiding citizen nearby had a gun.
In other words -- by the logic of gun proliferation -- declaring to the world "THIS HOUSE HAS A GUN!" would make the occupants of that house more safe, not less safe. Because after all, if you're going to rob somebody, you aren't going to rob the house where the owner has a gun.
But now the argument is that a gun makes you a target for criminals? This is confusing.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)The argument seems to change as the wind blows.
EX500rider
(12,562 posts)....if you had thieves who wanted to steal guns the list would make them less likely to break in when you are home and more likely to break in when you are gone.
hack89
(39,181 posts)Most burglaries take place when no one is home.
BeyondGeography
(41,075 posts)The last thing they want/need is to deal with a witness and/or actual conflict. Which is another reason why owning a gun for home invasion self-defense is only slightly less absurd than walking around with a lightning rod on your head in case an electrical storm hits.
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,484 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)No, you, like most other people, have things to do that take you out of your home. Work, recreation, vacation, etc.
Thieves, for the most part, look for homes that are unoccupied. It isn't that hard to determine if a house is unoccupied. So now, with the publishing of the names and addresses of gun owners, all they have to do is check out which of those particular houses is unoccupied, break in while the people are away and Voila! They walk out with the guns.
Or are you expecting that gun owners should stay in their homes 24/7?
loli phabay
(5,580 posts)If someone is determined to hurt you then you want to have the advantage. We always tell abused women if they get a gun dont tell anyone then if the abuser finds them hes not as likely to come armed and that will give them an advantage.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)whether it's worth stealing or not.
A gun can be used for defense or offense. People that don't like guns fixate on their offensive capabilities, people that like them fixate on their defensive capabilities. Hence the controversy.
A gun in a home where the residents are not criminals, which is the vast majority of homes, is a defensive item. It is a part of the homeowners security system, and as such information about the details of someone's home security should not be published in a newspaper.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Might not make the paper, but it will be public record.
And you'd better hope that you're never the victim of burglary, because the police blotter--and certainly the police report--will contain information about what gets stolen.
For that matter, you'd better be careful about what you dispose of in your trash, because an enterprising would-be burglar could learn a lot from the packaging that you throw away.
In short, if you're uncomfortable at the thought of your top secret private info getting into the public eye, then a newspaper article that lists gun owners is the least of your worries.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)and a news outlet collating that information for public dissemination. We all give up a measure of privacy when we interact with others, and some things should be more private than others. Inside a person's home is considered, in this culture, to be worthy of the highest form of protection from public intrusion.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)A comforting illusion, perhaps, but that's all. Anybody with the will to collate the info can freely do so, and as was noted elsewhere in the thread, it's no crime to disseminate public information.
I'm sorry that this makes you uncomfortable, and it's true that some info is more private than other info, but all information is not equally privileged.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)how complacency follows ideology. I don't know if this applies to you, it just got me thinking.
The complaint "so I guess we'll just do nothing then!" pops up with fair regularity. Somebody wants something legislated, and somebody else tells them how hard it is to get that done, which prompts great wailing and gnashing of teeth.
So there is a tragedy involving guns and lots of people want to enact all kinds of legislation. Other people tell them how difficult or impossible that is going to be. Wail and gnash. On the other hand, some people want to know where the guns are, and those who don't want that information to get out wail and gnash. And round and round we go.
I think what goes on inside someone's home ought to be their business as long as it's legal. I don't think it's right for news outlets to make public the contents of people's homes or activities related to those contents. Publishing what people have in their own homes is a violation of their privacy, even if it is legal. Here is where I argue principle while others may argue the letter of the law. I say it ought to be illegal.
Those who desire the registration of firearms would do well to consider how much damage is done to their cause by whoever made public this information. Pointing out the permeability of the boundaries of one's home against public intrusion is a conservative dog whistle and will surely energize our political opponents. Supporting any legislation to increase that permeability will only divide us and unite those on the other side of the aisle.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)You're equating the publication of registered gun owners' names with the publication of the contents of their homes, but I'm not convinced that the two are the same.
As I understand it, the article publishes the names of people who own registered firearms, not the names of people who keep registered firearms in their homes. It's a subtle but important difference.
Consider these two very different announcements:
1. rrneck owns a registered firearm.
vs.
2. rrneck has a 9mm Beretta in his desk drawer.
The first sentence states something that is (or IMO should be) a matter of public record. The second sentence reveals the contents of your home, which IMO should remain private (assuming, as you noted, that it's legal). You might keep the gun in your garage, or in your glove compartment, or in the wall safe in your office three miles away.
I understand that many gun owners are uncomfortable with the thought of a gun registry, and invariably someone raises the spectre of fascist, gun-seizing oppression. It's ultimately a matter of perspective and degree. IMO it's a reasonable part of a "well regulated militia."
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Marriage licenses are public record too. What do you think of the Westboro News Network filtering for names on marriage licenses to display pairs of masculine or feminine names and publishing their addresses?
Knowing what people own, whether it is in their home or not, tells us a lot about them. We all have to sacrifice a measure of privacy in the interest of civil society. Society has to offer some measure of remedy for that sacrifice. Knowing who has a gun does not make the police respond any faster, nor does it lessen the probability of home invasion. In fact, it may increase it for the owners of guns from those wishing to secure them illegally, or for the non owners of guns for those who are looking for an easy mark. Owning a gun indicates you are equipped, and probably willing, to put up a spirited defense. So both of your examples reveal a great deal about "me" to the world without just compensation.
That newspaper did not publish those names in the interest of public service. It did it for profit. Guns were in the news, and it published a divisive and inflammatory violation of people's privacy whether it was legal or not. It was bad journalism and it set a bad precedent. It was a fine example of disaster capitalism and I find it interesting that so many progressives would support it while chanting "99%" at the same time.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)You want to be paid because publicly available information about you is publicly available? Um... What?
Do you really expect to be paid for every scrap of information that people can find out about you? Based on what possible justification? Are you really that interesting?
Your example about marriage licenses makes no sense at all, and as a matter of fact I don't care one bit if that info is published. Heck, I figured that it was already available to anyone who wants it.
I have to come right out and say that this whole "they're going to steal my guns" perception strikes me as more than a little paranoid, especially in the absence of any information documenting that known gun owners are more likely to be targeted for burglary.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Everything isn't about money. If someone gets murdered their family cannot seek vigilante justice. When the perpetrator is captured the court docket will read "The State vs. John Doe". If you want to compel people to live in a glass house constructed by the media, you have to offer them some measure of added security in compensation.
Yes, marriage licenses are public record. It is wrong to publicize the personal relationships of people in the media especially when the publication of those relationships can cause them harm. Your preferences on the matter are hardly germane.
I'm not arguing in favor of guns. I am arguing if favor of privacy. What people do or own in the privacy of their own homes should not be the subject of indiscriminate exposure by the media. That right to privacy includes security precautions (guns), sexual orientation (GLBT rights), occupation (abortion doctors, officers of the court), or any other personal possession or activity that could cause them danger or inconvenience at the service of profit for the media.
What right do you have to know who owns a gun and what right does the media have to make that information available to you? Do you have a right to know who is taking AIDS medication? Of course not. And there are laws protecting that information. As it stands now, your right to know who owns a gun is uncontested. If it becomes a big enough issue, the courts will get involved and settle the matter for us.
> Society has to offer some measure of remedy for that sacrifice.
One remedy already exists - Delicate Flowers get a Rambo Fantasy Hardon every time there is a gun slaughter in America.
If I had a nickel for each one of the distinct ways that Delicate Flowers are scared, I'd be able to pay Wayne LaTerrorist's yearly salary.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)I've seen you write coherent statements, so I know you know how. But when it comes to guns, you hide in juvenile babble and name calling.
Why is that?
Orrex
(67,080 posts)And your claim to some right of compensation for the revelation of publicly available information is still foolish, even when you rephrase it, and even if you're not talking about money.
Why is it wrong to publicize personal relationships when those relationships are a matter of public record?
Why does your alleged right to secret gun ownership trump my right to know if the lunatic living next door to me owns an arsenal?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Yes, my right to privacy trumps your suspicions about your neighbor. Now, if you suspect your neighbor is a danger to society I suggest you contact the authorities immediately. Hopefully you are adept at remote psychological evaluations. If the responding officers feel it necessary they will take him into custody, bring an actual expert and make some sort of evaluation. And if you're wrong you may well have to deal with his attorney. You will be held responsible for your actions. A newspaper that publishes his name and address with the same implication that you just made will not be held responsible for the same claims. See? No remedy.
Of course, that all depends on how unreasonable are your misconceptions about gun owners. If you think your neighbors lunacy is related to his sexuality, a notion that is equally preposterous, you may act on your bigoted evaluation and accuse him of molesting your kids just to get rid of him. A horrible possibility facilitated by a news outlet that would never be held responsible for giving you the information you didn't deserve.
You simply don't have a right to know what goes on inside peoples homes. Nor do you have a right to sub contract the acquisition of that information to others in the interest of "public safety". Especially when public safety really translates into "your peace of mind about something you don't like".
Orrex
(67,080 posts)I wish that you'd revealed this at the outset, instead of trying to pass yourself off as a sensible human being. You could have saved me a lot of time.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)What right do you have to know what other people own or what they do inside their own homes? What right does the media have to publish that information?
Or is calling everything I say preposterous and calling me a gun nut your version of reasoned discourse? I'm actually a little disappointed since you haven't called me an NRA shill yet.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)So it didn't seem right to besmirch them by your association.
And here's a tip about remote psychological assessments, since you appear to think that you've hit on something clever: if it walks like a paranoid gun nut and quacks like a paranoid gun nut, it's most likely a paranoid gun nut.
I'm done here. You can have the last quack, if it helps to keep your barrel straight and smooth and oiled.
Since you seem to have been reduced to insults instead of reasoned discourse.
The question still stands:
What right do you have to know what other people own or what they do inside their own homes? What right does the media have to publish that information?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,761 posts)...target people for robberies and some target homes for burglaries. I would imagine a gun would be prime target for theft and for that reason, if the addresses of homes with guns become known, they become burglary targets. A criminal just needs to wait for the owners to leave. Folks that own guns are often outdoor types that hunt, fish, hike, camp or even just go to the range for practice. Once the owner is gone...
Just a thought.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Your neighbors may know and some friends/children's friends parents may know, but they are extremely unlikely to rob you. If a thief wanted your guns, he'd watch your schedule and hit the house when you were away.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That's an absurd concept.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)It's an obvious reality and had been for ages.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)http://www.lawrenceburgnow.com/031510thieves.html
http://www.radioiowa.com/2000/10/20/cedar-rapids-thieves-target-guns/
http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S2829674.shtml
It's well known that guns are easy to sell off for thieves. Steal them and you can easy fence the goods.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)You posted links about burgularies where guns were found and taken. That happens all the time. When thieves come across guns, they take them.
Show us STATISTICS showing that guns make homes burglary targets..
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)And no, I'm not doing any more searching. You are using the invincible ignorance fallacy.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)and failed to post 'statistics'.
EOM
Orrex
(67,080 posts)There are two basic assumptions commonly put forth:
1. The known presence of firearms in a house acts as a deterrent to would-be burglars
2. The known presence of firearms makes a house a more attractive target for burglars
Do you see how these two propositions are difficult to reconcile? It's not impossible for both to be simultaneously true, but the apparent contradiction is worth discussing.
No one's placing a monumental burden of proof upon you; we're simply asking for a discussion of the apparent contradictition. In short, do guns make you safer, or do they make you more vulnerable?
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)1. The NRA argues that guns make you safer, and if in the extremely rare chance that there was a home invasion, it probably could. Part of that logic is that no one knows which house has them, so it's "Russian Roulette" for the invader. In my personal case, I own for sport purposes. I am not afraid that someone will break in during the night. So much so that I only have the screen doors closed at night in summer (no AC).
2. Many gun owners also understand that guns are a hot commodity that will fetch a nice price on the street. If it is well known that you have a nice collection, a thief looking to make a nice buck might go after it when the owner isn't home. Obviously when you aren't home, there won't be any resistance. In this instance, gun owners see a map of guns as about as usual as a map of owners of diamond necklaces and fine jewelry. Once again, if you aren't home, you can't defend your stuff.
I could support registration if it was kept confidential, releasable only to law enforcement. That is how the pistel permit laws in CT work now. I'll never end up on some map. Obviously NY needed that protection.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Is your complaint that the information is available, or that someone is distributing it in an accessible format?
Guns may indeed be a hot commodity, but that's simply an argument for greater caution on the part of the owner; that's part of the responsibility of gun ownership, in fact.
I've recently participated in a thread here that lamented the ease with which gun safes can be breached. That's a damn shame, considering what they cost, but that's likewise part of responsible gun ownership.
If your fear is that your guns will be stolen in spite of your precautions, then you need to weigh this fear against your desire to retain those guns. Do you need all of them to be kept on site in order to keep you (and them) secure? Could they be stored off-site in greater security, especially those guns that you don't feel you need on a daily basis? How many guns do you need to keep in your home, and why? That last one is a rhetorical question; I'm not asking you to declare how many guns you own.
Lastly, can you appreciate the irony of your greater fear of burglary as a result of the guns that are purported to keep you safe?
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)And it wasn't readily available in NY. The Newspaper had to file a Freedom Of Information Act request to each county and then compiled that information into the interactive map. The public was very unlikely to be able to tease that out of the county office without some clout. In my state the law itself specifically does not allow that info be released.
As for the questions about precautions - I take them. But why make it so much harder on me by publicizing what is unknown to all who want to see? I don't want to store personal property off sight in someone else's hand. It's my property. Guns also require maintenance, such as being regularly oiled to prevent rust. You want to be able to do this at home. In the end, it's my right to own one, and I may choose to store it where I want.
Some DUers support the maps because they want to harass and punish gun owners. And I can see how it's tempting if you absolutely oppose private ownership. It's a disgusting position to expose all owners, but they happily embrace it. Talk about a massive violation of privacy.
And it's not ironic. Guns will never keep you safe if you are not home to use them. YOU ARE NOT HOME! I personally don't fear burglary any higher than normal as I'm not on a map. But the fear of being mapped like that is valid.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Before I can accept that argument, someone will need to demonstrate to me that the known legal ownership of firearms specifically makes the firearm owner's home more likely to be burglarized with the intent to steal those legally owned firearms. I'm not talking about burglaries in which a bunch of stuff is stolen including the guns; I'm talking about burglaries whose critical motivator is the presence of firearms. You might assert that this is unknowable, but if you do so then you've undermined the entirety of your argument; how can you claim that the presence of guns makes burglary more likely if you can't demonstrate that this is true?
More to the point, can you demonstrate that homes with firearms are burglarized for their firearms more than homes without firearms are burglarized?
If this can not be demonstrated, then you're left with nothing but fear as your motivator. Why?
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)You have gone right back to an unreasonable burden of proof, set in motion by your apparent position that gun owners should be exposed publicly. It's well known that guns are a hot theft item. Extremely well known.
More to the point, can you demonstrate that homes with firearms are burglarized for their firearms more than homes without firearms are burglarized?
Gun owners were not exposed until recently. Too recent to have statistics. If you think it's a BS argument, prove otherwise.
And behind it is the unjustifiable position that owners be treated like child rapists ion the first place. What crime have I committed? Why is my privacy to be violated? And how is that not harassment for merely exercising my Rights as a US Citizen?
Orrex
(67,080 posts)You're saying that A is true. I ask you to support the claim that A is true, and you say that it's well known that A is true.
You understand that that's circular reasoning, right?
I'm not putting an unreasonable burden of proof on you, unless by "unreasonable burden of proof" you mean "any proof at all."
You complain that gun owners are "newly exposed" and therefore no information is available, yet you also demand that we accept your analysis based on... what? Faith that you only speak the truth about guns?
So here's where we are: you have no real data to back up your claims, you cry foul when asked for any supporting data at all, and yet you expect us to believe that your concerns are based on logic and reason rather than on fear and paranoia.
Your entire argument is unconvincing, to put it kindly. If that means that we have to disagree, then so be it.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)The best we will ever do is yell past each other.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)If having guns makes your house a burglar magnet, why would you have guns?
How many damn times do we have to ask this question?
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)'Guns make your house safer, except that they make your house a burglar magnet'
Burglars are now queuing up to break into houses of armed homeowners? Absurd.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)I restated your position, and you accuse me of "Arguing NRA talking points". You just shot yourself in the foot, pun intended.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)I own guns for sport purposes, not protection.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Strawman fallacy.
Response to AgingAmerican (Reply #114)
NutmegYankee This message was self-deleted by its author.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)n/t
Crackinrocket
(25 posts)Does that qualify as a retort in anyone's eyes? That's just a blanket statement that is completely void of any real meaning.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)I don't have a neon sign saying you own guns. And I own them for target shooting (a sport I love) and hunting. I don't own because I fear something.
It's an NRA talking point that knowing you have guns would reduce crime. It's bullshit.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)All perfectly good reasons to have guns.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)when the point of this whole thread is about how having registered guns makes you vulnerable.
You wanna hunt and target shoot, fine. Obey the laws and be careful.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The problem, as I have stated dozens of times, is that some of the people who have gun permits have addresses that are not listed in regular public sources such as phone directories.
Some of those people have unlisted addresses because they have been stalked or threatened, for example by a former spouse against whom they may even have a restraining order.
Publishing the names and addresses of all gun permit holders wholesale puts that sub-set of them at risk. That for me is a good enough reason for A) the law not to allow that kind of disclosure, as we have done with DMV records here in California, and B) for a newspaper to show some restraint and refrain from publishing what amounts to an enemies list.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Why do you feel the need to keep moving the goal posts?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...about people who own guns, and their reasons for doing so.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)makes him vulnerable. Yet he just put it out there himself.
So does having guns make you vulnerable, or does it not? And if it does, why have them?
What am I parroting?
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...them kept confidential makes you vulnerable.
Guns are NOT THE ISSUE.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)I live in one of the areas on the infamous map. I looked at it. Not a whole lot of guns in my particular neighborhood, but a few. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about the whole thing.
Okay?
But generally, I'm not a fan of guns, I don't want to be around them, and I want them to be tightly regulated across the country. We have too many shooting deaths. Other developed nations have stronger laws and fewer shootings. There is a correlation.
And now you know pretty much what I think about everything, and can move on to the next victim.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)...one of my neighbors has a handgun permit.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Move on to someone else now. Bye.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)"And the Journal News just gave those thieves a nice interactive map that allows them to plan their forthcoming crime spree much more effectively."
Burglars are not going to target armed homeowners. That is absurd.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)any armed homeowners to worry about.
Just my opinion but I'd be interested in seeing burglary stats from that area in say, 3 months.
safeinOhio
(37,593 posts)Are dumber than a bag of rocks. Please visit your local county jail. They don't read the papers. The only serious planing they do is where to score some more drugs.
shadowrider
(4,941 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)burglars is to target homes of recently deceased people (info from obit) at the time of the funeral. It happened to a distant relative of mine in Minneapolis.
blueamy66
(6,795 posts)in those "other" homes.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)a burglar to steal. Burglars do not target occupied homes. If they know there are guns in a home, if they are so inclned, they will break in when nbody is home. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)slackmaster
(60,567 posts)If not knowing who is armed has any suppressive effect on crime, which I personally doubt, making that information available to the public would negate that effect.
neverforget
(9,513 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The newspaper says the other three in the street are all clear, bro...
You loaded up?
Yeah, man...
You?
Damn straight!
Let's roll.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)He'd chuckled and said "my sign is the only burglar deterrent I need". I told him that unless his truck was parked out front 24/7, it was only an advertisement that his place contained items a crook might find valuable. He had a security system installed the following week.
ileus
(15,396 posts)(normally unless we're hitting the range or field)
That leaves xx firearms remaining behind to be victimized by a thief. While I have a safe, and a DVR system that texts pics to me along with gun safes to protect my collection, I'd rather my home not be exposed to unnecessary criminal attention caused by agenda driven "journalist" . Of course stolen firearms or attacks are what those that release these lists hope will happen, it furthers their agenda.
A list also opens you up to Westboro type protesters showing up in front of your home to try and intimidate you into becoming a willing victim and/or it gives those same types more power to try and provoke an incident to further their anti-gun agenda.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)
madinmaryland
(65,726 posts)home. Something that seems to be a foreign concept to most gungeonites here. And silly me, thought all gun owners were responsible. That's what Wayne LaPierre says!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Failure to properly secure weapons should be a criminal offense if those weapons fall into criminal hands.
That said, locking up your guns isn't going to help protect your other stuff if a burglar picks out your home because some jackwagon published a list of permit holders.
madinmaryland
(65,726 posts)list of permit holders. What the fuck are you trying to say? A jackwagon will specifically target your home because you have a gun permit? Did Wayne tell you to say that?????
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Seriously? Do you think they're all barely-functional crackheads or something? Or that they dress up in masks and striped shirts like cartoon characters? LOL
"Did Wayne tell you to say that?"
Ah, you're one of those: a poster who has to insinuate some sort of insulting accusation if someone doesn't agree with you. Cool...thanks for the heads up. I really have no desire to waste my time with that kind of nonsense...and my Ignore button is on much more of a hair trigger lately than I'd ever want any of my guns to have. Buh-bye.
madinmaryland
(65,726 posts)you refer to will be stealing your precious gun, my delicate flower.
madinmaryland
(65,726 posts)Orrex
(67,080 posts)And I'd do it again in a heartbeat, you zealot.
madinmaryland
(65,726 posts)
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Neener neener not listening!!!!!!!!!!!!
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Just sayin'.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)someone who intends to do a home invasion would go to places not on the list. As for burglaries, it would be the same as making a list of who has valuable and easily fenced jewelry.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)So someone locks up their guns in a safe, and the safe gets broken into, or even the entire safe and guns flat out stolen, like over here:
“The safe probably weighed about 500 pounds, fully loaded with the weapons he had in there,” says Sgt. John Delaney of the Springfield Police Dept. “But it’s unfortunate that those weapons are now on the street, in the black market and getting into the hands of the wrong people.”
Delaney adds, “People always wonder where all these people get their hand guns — this is exactly where they get them from, in house breaks.”
And this a cop talking, not an NRA talking point.
leftstreet
(40,501 posts)Guns for Food program
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You're afraid of society, and you have guns. You're afraid that since you have guns, criminals would be drawn to steal from you even more than they would otherwise be drawn to your house. And because you feel this way, you've vowed to commit a federal crime in the event that the government attempts to make the country safer from gun violence.
If I got to write a gun control law, people like you would go away for a long, long time for flaunting a deadly serious law.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
rickford66
(6,064 posts)But, maybe only paranoid people need to carry guns.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)rickford66
(6,064 posts)
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)It isn't just a heightened sense of awareness?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)no. it's paranoia.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)here's the full study: http://nd.edu/~jbrockm1/WittBrockmole_inPress_JEPHPP.pdf
And I will c&p the final conclusion:
The familiar saying goes that when you hold a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The apparent harmlessness of this expression fades when one considers what happens when a person holds a gun. We have shown here that, having the opportunity to use a gun, a perceiver is more likely to classify objects held by others as guns and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior (in this case, raising a firearm to shoot). What mechanism gives rise to this bias? One possibility is that it arises from either perceptual or conceptual priming. According to this account, holding a gun could lead observers to adopt particular expectations regarding the presence of firearms. For example, just as stereotypes can evoke a bias to report “gun present,” so might the mere presence of a gun in the environment.
This explanation, however, is not supported by our data. While using a gun to respond to the stimuli increased participants’ bias to see guns, the conspicuous presence a real gun that was never used did not alter the bias to detect guns. Thus, the presence of a gun did not evoke additional priming above and beyond the images and nature of the task, suggesting that action is critical to this perceptual bias.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)1) Where their gun is at all times.
2) Who may be near their gun.
That is truly a heightened sense of awareness.
Not everyone should own or even hold a gun.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)A foam ball
A cell phone
A shoe
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Then let me put it this way . . . not everyone should have access to a gun.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)with the rate of those who don't carry.
That doesn't bode well for folks obsessed with "paranoia" arguments, does it?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)lol
Good on Texas. The results of the study are what they are. Even if you don't like them.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)CCLs are a safer bunch the general population.
If you consider murder rates an acceptable measure.
Funny, "paranoia" used to have a serviceable meaning in psychology, as well as in general discussion, to delineate between fear and anxiety. But like other terms, they serve now as weapons of mass opprobrium.
Have a better New Year!
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Does that gun owner become one of those who shouldn't "own or even hold a gun," in your estimation?
If not, then who, exactly, is ok to "own or even hold a gun?" How do you determine this? What do you do about people who aren't ok?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Cuz, seemingly otherwise people sure can mother-fucking snap.
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)I don't have the answer.
I wish I did.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Sanitized re branding of paranoia
"My schizophrenia has heightened my sense of awareness"
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 03:12 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2097265cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Every time I criticize my "democratically elected" government, I'm committing a future felony!
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)"I don't think there should be a gun registry"
is a far cry from
"I will break such a law if it is passed"
Study the two statements; you'll see what I mean.
rickford66
(6,064 posts)Having guns is supposed to be a deterrent against crime, but having guns makes you a target for crime? Since banning guns or confiscating them is impossible, registration, creating a trail of legal ownership seems to be the only solution. If and when a legal weapon is sold or transferred, without a background check, the seller and all others in the trail after that are felons and are accessories to all crimes committed with the weapon. Sellers will be a little more careful.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)get and use them. Makes it easier to feel like it's a harmless thing.
You also hear them argue it makes households without guns more likely to get robbed. Um... crazy, self serving logic.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)BTW -- I wish most gun owners were as sensible as you in the weapons they think they need, but they aren't.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)we need laws to ensure sensibleness.
No automatics, no semiautomatics, no handguns. And no grandfathering.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Crackinrocket
(25 posts)
Cirque du So-What
(29,696 posts)that, in your absence, your house is not robbed and those firearms subsequently used in the commission of other crimes. Besides the inconvenience of having to 'splain how those weapons came into the hands of criminals, can your conscience bear the knowledge that registering those guns could have precluded their free movement in the black market?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)and it should be the law with strict and hard hitting penalties as part of real gun control in this country. Short answer, suck it up and register the damn guns.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)and good untill someone in that family snapped
B2G
(9,766 posts)You don't.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)B2G
(9,766 posts)Which I find to be odd weeks after the tragedy.
TorchTheWitch
(11,065 posts)It's only been speculation where the guns were, and like you many made the assumption that they must have just been laying around the house. It has since been reported that there was a gun safe in the basement in which the guns were kept.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Perhaps this is why the UK murder rate is four times less than that of the USA.
Or could it be that Americans are simply four times as murderous as Britons?
RomneyLies
(3,333 posts)It would be of your own choice.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)and register them. just like family of gang bangers often turn in a gun stash they don't want when there's an opportunity to.
it's a big fallacy here that people are expecting a huge sweep or for tighter laws will solve things over night. most of us expect it will take a generation to make a difference.
and since it's unlikely your name is going to be published, i'm not sure how that factors into your decision to not secure your guns.
do you now feel impervious to robbery? isn't that a bit irresponsible?
since publishing your addy is not likely to happen, it appears you'd not like to be register your guns in the here and now, so violence cannot be traced back to them. evading responsibility.
same with all the people here gleefully claiming "unfortunate boat accidents".
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)With 300 million plus guns in this country, burglars can't swing a dead cat (excuse the kitty reference) without hitting a gun. News flash: Thieves don't need a map to your precious; they will find it anyway.
Your comments about safes are so stupid they would be laughable if not for the tragedies you and your ilk cause when you leave guns unsecured. News flash 2: most home burglars aren't Gentle Johnny the safe cracker. Most are Cletus the meth addict looking to grab what they can carry.
You admit you have kids come over to play with a loaded gun in your nightstand. Real fucking smart. Reading shit like this makes me want to applaud and encourage your name being released to publicly to your neighbors (I was ambivalent before reading this). I don't care HOW much kids have grown up around guns, a 4 or 5 year old doesn't know the dangers. Not everyone who lives in the country is an idiot who would want their kids playing around unsecured guns. In fact, people who keep unsecured guns on the premises should have to post signs on the door saying "Warning: I'm an idiot too stupid or too lazy to lock up my guns"
Re: Hunting season. It's not the gun fire that scares me. It's the fat slobs in ill fitting camouflage filling their trunks with beer at the IGA every weekend morning during hunting season that scares me. My father-in-law - a guy who grew up hunting and butchering and smoking his own food in Missouri BTW - says don't walk the dog on his fenced and posted land during hunting season because, and I quote. "those assholes slip under the fence and shoot at anything that moves"... so spare me the noble country folk responsible tool using hunter crap, OK?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
quinnox
(20,600 posts) 
catbyte
(39,116 posts)got shot at least once a year by drunken idiots. I hated those 2 weeks in November.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,457 posts)catbyte
(39,116 posts)Chorophyll
(5,179 posts) 
Walk away
(9,494 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Yes, you were all in favor of gun registration until that happened. Of course you were.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)That has them proclaim they would become criminals? I own guns and I have no issue with registering them. Especially given the travesty that the modern, right wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment has wrought upon this nation.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)So the reason many people have guns is to make them safer. But having a gun and having people know about it puts you in danger. What the hell? What does this mean?
Which do you think it is, and how does it make you less safe if people know you have the gun? I'm getting answers in other threads like, "you lose the element of surprise" and "it makes you more of a target for thieves because they want the guns." Neither of these make sense in light of the insistence that guns make you safer.
Trying to make sense of these gun arguments is making my head go all oogly. 
What's your take?
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)and shotguns. I personally think that the newspaper printing the names of gun owners was a very stupid thing to do. I also think you stating that you would refuse to register your guns if required to by law is equally stupid.
You know, you can't have it both ways, you can't say that you keep guns as a defense against crime or a tyrannical government and then claim that having them makes you a target. Make up your mind please.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)self-defense WHILE THE HOMEOWNER IS AT HOME. Publishing a list of gun owners makes that HOME A TARGET WHILE IT IS UNOCCUPIED. It's really not that difficult to understand. Two of my brothers are cops, one urban and one rural. My father had a decal on his front door: "Nothing in this house is worth the risk of your life". There was an outline of a handgun. My brothers told him to remove the decal because it made his house a target.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)guns if required by law. And a newspaper overstepping their bounds is a separate issue from whether or not registering your guns with law enforcement makes you a target. In and of itself, gun registration would do nothing to make you a target, and not doing so in the off chance that hey, there's a really small chance that a newspaper might make it public and then all of these phantom criminals will come out of nowhere because they want your piss ant little .22 is really stupid.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)My father removed the decal, that was a smart thing to do. Yes, he has a few .22s but he also has a substantial collection (I'll leave the number at dozens). If you don't belive that publishing his name in the local newspaper as being a gunowner puts his home at risk for breakins, then you're just not facing reality.
Breakins specifically to steal guns happen all the time. The most frequent situations like this are when one criminal breaks into the home of another criminal and steals his stash and guns.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)on the argument that guns keep you safe from crime. If they really put you in that kind of danger then why keep them? And I already said I thought that the newspaper publishing the names was not okay. That's a separate issue from whether or not registering your guns with law enforcement is a good idea or not.
Oh and, if criminals are constantly breaking into homes to steal guns, isn't that yet another reason why proliferation of guns is a BAD idea, seeing as how simply having so many of them around, even legally owned ones, are just waiting for somebody to come and steal them?
If you think you're making a case against gun control, you're the one who has it all effed up. Because everything you're saying is an textbook case for why guns don't keep us safe.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)The entire point of this exchange is about knowledge of guns in the home. The only time there is an increased risk of getting your guns stolen from your home is when the bad guys KNOW about the guns. This happens when the names of registered gun owners are published and when it is a bad guy with guns in his home associating with other bad guys.
Are you just trying to be difficult on purpose, or do you really not unserstand?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Those bad guys who now own guns illegally have had to have gotten them from somewhere.
(as compared to say...those guys who will become bad guys/illegal gun owners simply because they refuse to follow the law)
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)family as we all have heavy gun safes.
Only about 10 to 15% of gun crime occurs using guns stolen from people who legally own guns.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)criminals get guns is through straw purchases. They get someone wuth a clean record to buy them a gun. The guy in New York who killed the firefighters got his guns by getting a neighbor to buy them for him. I believe she is now being prosecuted. Whatever punishment she receives will likely not be harsh enough. If tbere is any gun control legislation to come out of congress this year, it better contain increased enforcement and penalties for straw purchases of firearms.
Downtown Hound
(12,618 posts)I just think you're full of shit. I'd love to see how many of those on the published list of gun owners get their guns stolen in the coming days. My guess? Not a one.
But it's irrelevant anyways because I already said I don't support what the newspaper did, primarily because it was an invasion of privacy, not because I think it's making gun owners targets of crime. If anybody's sole excuse for not registering their guns is that they're afraid of being a target when a newspaper oversteps its bounds, that's a pretty lame excuse.
Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)Last I heard, the boogey men steered clear of ARMED homes cuz they just knew you'z waitin' at the ready in the middle of the nite wit yer white hat on and yer hands fondlin' the trigger at the ready.
Of course, I've also heard that all you responsible owners keep your guns locked up and no other person could possibly figure out how to unlock them. Ditto with the ammunition, which is of course locked halfway across the house.
I guess your superhuman senses allow all of you to wake from the Delta stage of sleep at the mere sound of footsteps of a criminal approaching your domicile, your psychic powers having already determined that it is indeed a criminal, and your superhuman powers allow you to dart about the many locations of your home where various keys, safes and cabinets, always so far apart and always locked reside, giving you time to assemble the needed instruments of virtuous killing, put on your white Stetson and blow that bad guy to bits.
You folks iz 'mazin.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)That is all.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Care Acutely
(1,370 posts)By far, mostly those I have known, or spoken with, and then a number I have seen on the teeee veeee.
It bears little allegiance to geography and instead appears more closely tied to a kind of generalized paranoia and intractable adherence to the power of myth before science.
Response to MadHound (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
mainer
(12,549 posts)Guns make you MORE vulnerable to crime!
Does the NRA know this? Maybe we should keep armed guards out of schools, because then bad guys will want to attack them.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)...gives birth to pretzel logic.
I do not understand Democrats who adopt RW/NRA positions on guns. Those positions are nothing short of madness. Those who push them have to tie themselves into pretzels trying to defend them. This is because they are indefensible positions.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)It's the only way to keep them safe from burglars.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)More guns to protect their guns. Why didn't the NRA think of this first?
timesamillion
(31 posts)Yes, let's make it a petition to the White House.
Iggo
(49,912 posts) Squinch
(59,444 posts) Walk away
(9,494 posts)
JustFiveMoreMinutes
(2,134 posts)
Sancho
(9,203 posts)and I'm a gun owner! I grew up on military bases and in a family with guns and hunters. Face it, the times have changed and the law needs to change too.
In my opinion, you should register all guns, have a background check, have insurance, and have a mental health clearance to possess or use a gun.
All purchases of registered guns or ammo should be recorded. If I had my way, if you possessed or used a gun without such registration and a license, you'd go to jail (just like a DUI) until a judge let you go, and that would be the last time you ever legally touched a gun.
If you want to keep a thief away from your guns, post a sign in the yard that all your guns are locked up in a locker at the gun club, buy a burglar alarm system (another sign?), get a dog, and get over it.
JohnnyRingo
(20,855 posts)And I believe it was done because the editor has a blatant prejudice against gun owners in general, as do so many here.
It's a real stretch that the newspaper is motivated by public safety like when we warn neighbors about pedophiles. Publishing the list assumes the gun owners are potential or actual criminals, and that's a very good example of outright prejudice against a particular group. What the editor is doing with this list, is irresponsibly inspiring the possibility of hate crime (and theft). The editor could just as well be "pro-life", and publish a list of women who obtained an abortion because he believes that's murder, even though the law says otherwise.
What if the newspaper's editor was prejudiced against homosexuality? Certainly more than enough people are. Would there be any support here if he published a list of known gay people's name and addresses? He could use the same bogus rationale, that gays spread a deadly disease and are more likely to commit sex crimes, including pedophilia.
I absolutely don't believe that BTW, but I also don't believe a significant number of people on his list are potential criminals ready to slam in an extended magazine and go on a shooting spree. Publishing this list, as well as supporting it, is based solely on a preconceived notion that a certain group of people are fundamentally evil, despite the fact they've broken no laws and present no real danger to the public.
It's none of our business who legally owns a gun, and that's the bottom line.
CountAllVotes
(22,207 posts)I hope that this arsenal that you have in your possession never gets lost, stolen, etc. etc. etc.
If I was you, I would not post anything like this on the internet.
Now everyone knows what you have, don't have, etc. at your disposal.
Best of luck. 
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Or at least against making gun registration information available to the public with out a search warrant.
lynne
(3,118 posts)- and imagine you're only one of many that feel the same way.
Only goes to prove that the published list is totally worthless as it reflects only registered guns.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)The maps show people who have acquired handgun PERMITS but not necessarily handguns.
Of course it doesn't show unregistered handguns, or long guns at all.
Smilo
(2,029 posts)don't treat criminals as dumb that would be a big mistake - they case places - they can see what people have and don't have - especially during hunting season. You also forget that people talk - "MH has an antique gun left to him....so cool, etc., etc."
If you are that worried get rid of your guns, or make sure they are so secure that only you can get at them.
Registering guns is not a problem and if they are stolen you should report immediately, that would help the police not hinder them.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Pistol permit information in Connecticut can only be released for law enforcement use.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)In fact up until the idiots at the Journal News published their map, I would have registered them even if the registry was open to the public to peruse. Few felons are smart enough or dedicated enough to go to the county records building to do in depth research.
But putting up an interactive map just makes it so much easier, the only thing worse was if the Journal News had painted a "Guns here" sign on every house. What's next, publishing a map of where the homes with jewelry in them are?
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)That would never see the wide support that harassing gun owners sees on this board.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Squinch
(59,444 posts)published in the paper. Weddings and engagements are often advertised in the paper, which would indicate that there are many wedding presents in the home. None of these cause an outcry that their publication endangers the homeowner.
But having people know you have a gun puts you in danger... hmmm... seems pretty counterproductive to the stated purpose of the gun to me.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Please attach the links to any reply.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)compiled in one place.
"All of the private info" of the gun owners was not published. Just the fact that they are gun owners, which was already public information, was published in a local paper.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)And it wasn't easy to get. The Newspaper had to use a Freedom of Information Act request. Some the regular Joe is unlikely to do.
In my state, pistol permits are confidential by state law.
But if you believe that I and every other gun owner should get displayed on a website like a child rapist, then put your money where your mouth is and put your info up first. Make sure it has a list of all the cool expensive stuff you own.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)Home sale information including links to realtor sites which included the home address and photos of the home interior, engagement and wedding announcements, death notices, kids sports team activities including photos and school information on the kids. So actually, the list of all my "cool stuff" has already been made available by the Journal News.
The Journal News has already published my equivalent information. I guess I DID put my information up first.
Strangely, the publication of all that information about my assets and my family did not make me spitting mad as you seem to be about the prospect of people finding out you own a gun.
Why is that I wonder?
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Don't cop out. You want to post my name and address and a list of my possessions, so do the same or be outed as a hypocrite.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)"Out me" as your definition of a hypocrite if it makes you feel better. It still doesn't make your point.
And no one is posting a list of your possessions. Just your gun. And yet, you seem to think that makes you less safe.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Last edited Mon Dec 31, 2012, 11:52 AM - Edit history (1)
A gun is a personal possession. You won't post yours, but you sure support posting mine.
And I've been in the paper for a house sale, winning a soccer tournament, and making Eagle Scout and such. None are as invasive as an interactive map showing where I live and what I own.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)your safety is compromised by the prospect of people knowing you own a gun.
And as I mentioned, the searchable interactive map was part of the link to the realtor video walkthrough of my home.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)In fact you won't. It's easy to do this to other people.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)an unproductive place, so here's hoping your New Year is a good one. Bye.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Hell, I've been called many nasty names in these debates. I think it was very reasonable to use the descriptive term of hypocrite, pointing out that you obviously don't want to have your name, address, and personal property listed on a website. No one does. But you support listing mine. I sought to get you to understand how it feels to be in my shoes.
Have a great New year. Sorry if I upset you that much.
Squinch
(59,444 posts)
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)If it is assumed that everyone out in the country around you has a gun somewhere in the house, why would any thief then target you specifically?
Wouldn't any house chosen at random do just as well?
Why would they specifically bother you and not any of your neighbors?
If your neighbors register their guns, and you don't and that information becomes public, wouldn't the thieves target you before any of your armed neighbors? Wouldn't you be better off letting them know that you are ready to defend your castle?
After all, guns keep thieves away if they know the homeowner is armed...or they attract thieves because guns are sought out by criminals...or something, I'm not sure what they do anymore, the damn story about guns being both a deterrent to crime and an attractant at the same time is confusing the hell out of me.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)1. No dogs. This is rule #1 by far.
2. No people home, because that escalates the crime to robbery and you might get yourself shot..
3. No exposure to major streets or other homes.
4. Presence of something that can easily be fenced such as guns, or drugs.
An alarm system makes little difference to them because they know that response times are usually more than 20 minutes.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)They were sitting in their new apartment watching TV when the door came crashing open. Dog went nuts, and within seconds, the guy who had broken down the door had a gun pointed at the dog and told them to hold their dog. So friend grabbed the dog and restrained him while one guy held a gun at them and second guy started trashing their apartment. Took their TV and stereo and a few other things and left.
Friends called 911 and cops told them previous tenant had been a drug dealer who was currently in jail. So bad guys were probably looking for drugs or cash.
They got out of their lease and moved.
I think of this anytime anyone say their dog will protect them.
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Thanks for the pointer.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)She does a great job of ridding the world of squirrels.
mainer
(12,549 posts)Since the bad guys crashed in and had a gun pointed right at them before the dog could react.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)rickford66
(6,064 posts)The mother of a friend of mine said she would never wear a seatbelt. She saw a movie where someone was killed by a lion because their seatbelt jammed and they couldn't flee. This is no lie. There's always a situation to disprove the rule. The dog is a good security device. Ours barks whenever someone or some animal approaches the house. No one knows if we have guns or not, but they'll know we have a big dog. I almost forgot. Our neighbor's house was robbed a number of years ago. During daylight, they hauled away his gun safe. He eventually recovered everything. They were only after his guns. We live in rural NY. It's assumed that everyone here has guns.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)By far and away, #1 reason they turn around.
I have attack cats.
If some sumbitch ever breaks in they'll be sorry.
Their allergies will give them hell after being rubbed up by all the kitties seeking attention from a visitor.
Runny nose and watery eyes for a week, that'll teach 'em.
ileus
(15,396 posts)proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)It's a way to assure that people who should NOT own guns don't have them - legally. I favor gun registration for the same reason I favor licenses to run businesses.
Taverner
(55,476 posts) Kaleva
(40,342 posts)They actaully only obey the laws that suits them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...there would be no United States. Because laws are not always fair and ethical (or a good idea), every person has an ethical decision to make about whether or not they will comply. That decision has to include consideration of the effect on the concept of "rule of law," too. Most of the time, the decision is simple and obvious because most laws make sense. Others are pointless and stupid...but not particularly harmful, so it's probably best to comply and not erode respect for the rule of law concept. However, some laws fail to achieve a positive ethical cost/benefit ratio...the "path of least harm" is to disobey them.
Would federal gun registration fall into the latter category? I wouldn't have thought so...but the interactive gun owner map publication incident has me re-examining the question.
Kaleva
(40,342 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And I'll post the exact same response...
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)
Kaleva
(40,342 posts)NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Consent of the governed. If a law was passed to force everyone to turn in all Hispanics for concentration camps, I'd gladly disobey it. Hell, I'd probably risk my life to hide them.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)And each person makes their own decisions about the ethics of compliance...
hack89
(39,181 posts)Lots of people disregard laws.
Kaleva
(40,342 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I'd have probably complied with a federal registration requirement...before those utter fucknozzles in New York published that interactive map. Now I'm not so sure.
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)I'm adamantly pro gun control but think that map was a really bad idea.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I think it will prove so harmful to the cause of gun registration that it will effectively kill any chance of Sen. Feinstein's bill advancing as written. I could even see those Senators opposed to the bill in general blocking amendments to remove the registration requirement to ensure the bill fails. I'm largely okay with that, as I consider most of the bill's contents to be pointless window-dressing that won't change a thing...but it does extend the background check requirement to all gun transfers, which I strongly support.
I'm positive it will destroy any effort to institute state-level registration in those states which don't already have it.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)---bvar22
Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas
The publishing of the names and addresses of those legal & responsible gun owners who did everything right was an incredibly STUPID thing to do.
Good Luck getting ANYBODY to voluntarily register their guns after that.
MadHound has a long DU history of Common Sense, Independent Thinking and Good Judgement. It is revealing that to some here, he has suddenly morphed into a wild eyed psycho nut.
My Wife & I are Liberals Democrats....AND Gun Owners
We live in a very rural area (Ouachita Mountains, Arkansas) surrounded by National Forest.
We are committed to living as sustainably, independently, and Green as possible.
We grow most of our own food,
keep chickens and Honey Bees,
Veggies, Fruit Trees and various cultivated Berries.
Next year, we are going to add either a few yearling calfs, or pigs, or sheep (haven't decided which yet).
We are staunch FDR Working Class Democrats who own several long guns, and a hand gun.
We maintain them, and shoot them at least twice a year on our rural property.
We keep them all loaded, readily accessible,
but out-of sight and covered on a wall rack in the back hallway.
(We have no children or adolescents in our home.)
We have used them to protect ourselves, our property, our stock and our pets,
and will do so again if the need arises,
though I prefer to Live Trap & Relocate.
At the current time, we are not hungry enough to hunt,
but would do so if the need arises,
and will have the necessary skills and tools to do so effectively and efficiently.
That was Part-of-the-Deal we made when we moved out here from the Big City in 2006.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)Last week another gun owner on DU proposed a gun registration system that was not controlled by a government agency and was only accessible by a warrant. That's seems more responsible than failure to obey a law.
It was an epic piece of stupidity, since most of the flood of illegal guns in this country come from stealing the guns of law abiding owners.
Failing to register a gun, in defiance of a law, would prevent you from reporting your stolen weapons...exactly how does that help anyone? You would have zero hope of ever regaining heirlooms passed down from your father and there would be more guns in the hands of criminals.
I agree the Journal was incredibly stupid, but that's to be expected from the extremists on both sides of this issue. State Laws, like the one in NY which make gun licenses public record need to be changed.
eilen
(4,955 posts)because it is illegal to publish a list of names and addresses of people taking anti-psychotics and anti-depressants.
Why would that be illegal? Apparently some people have the right to privacy.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Leave it to gun owners to condemn the publishing of public information about gun owners as though it constitutes some kind of threat to them. Um, hello... YOU HAVE THE GUNS!
Sorry, but this post is completely idiotic. If you don't like the public knowing you have a gun, then quit your whining and prepare to defend your very sad castle.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)People have been known, on occasion, to actually leave their homes (try it some time...). Not coincidentally in the least, burglars tend to target...wait for it...empty homes.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)Lock the guns up... unless you agree with the OP that gun safes are actually no better than plastic bags, and are a massive fraud being perpetrated on the poor, naive population of responsible gun owners. Then I guess you're fucked. Hey, if the gun is putting you at risk, maybe you should get rid of it!
Yes, I thought it through...there is so much wrong with the OP that it's beyond pathetic. Gun owners are a simple-minded, wishy-washy group who are obsessed with feeling like victims. I have no sympathy for their self-obsessed, nonsensical world view.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)In fact, as I often state here (in this thread, in fact) I support laws mandating proper firearms security measures and providing for criminal penalties should inadequate security measures allow a weapon to fall into criminal hands. Preaching to the choir there, pal...
However, that gun safe isn't going to do fuck-all for the other stuff in my house, should it be targeted because some jackwagon decided to publish the addresses of gun owners.* It isn't going to stop my house from getting trashed when the burglar gets pissy because he can't get into the safe.
You actually thought this through? Your failure to note the above, utterly obvious problem belies that. Well, that or you're not so good at that whole thinking thing, I s'pose... Your broad-brush attack on all gun owners does nothing to counter that impression, either. Might want to hold off on calling tens of millions of people "simple-minded" until you get your own cognitive house in order.
*Not likely to happen to me, as I don't live in a registration state, and CCW permit records are explicitly closed w/o a warrant here.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> However, that gun safe isn't going to do fuck-all for the other stuff in my house, should it be targeted because some jackwagon decided to publish the addresses of gun owners.
Oh, so even if your guns are safe everything else is at MORE RISK because you're a Delicate Flower?
The utter terror you Flowers have at, pretty much everything, is pathetic. Grow up and get a set of balls.
TroglodyteScholar
(5,477 posts)You keep bouncing around, and then insult me for not having my thoughts go directly where yours did? Ridiculous. Again, if you don't like the effect, don't produce the cause--get rid of the guns. It's so remarkably simple, but it's not even considered to be an option by the terrified masses of gun owners.
As for my "broad-brush attack," I don't see anything in your post that addresses it except for the fact that you disapprove of my view. Maybe you're implicitly acknowledging the fact that the desire to own guns, in many cases, arises out of a situation in which a person lets fear override reason. Why else would people be so willing to ignore the FACT that having guns in the home puts you at greater risk of being a victim of gun violence?
My own "cognitive house" is quite in order, thanks. Those of you who need a security blanket that might ultimately kill you, though... you guys are a fucking mess and a danger to the rest of us.
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)You elected to initiate the resort to insult, chum; don't whinge when you get a little of it back. I suspect there is precisely zero point to attempting rational discussion with someone who trots out bullshit amateur psychoanalysis mixed with transparent dicto simpliciter fallacies. But what the hell? I've got nothing better to do for a few minutes.
Are there those among the tens of millions of gun owners whose fear of coming to harm can reasonably be describes as being "terrified," whose fear can be said to override reason? Given that total, I'd say that's a statistical near-certainty. Are they anything more than a statistical blip? Not bloody likely. Certainly not if one's definition of irrational fear isn't so broad as to have already encompassed the fear of being victimized by a spree killer with an "assault weapon." The probability of the latter for any given American is so remote as to barely exist...yet take a look at all the shrill hand-wringing over it on DU for the last couple weeks.
As for the research demonstrating a correlation between gun ownership and gun-violence victimization, trust me: I understand the difference between correlation and causation. I understand how other factors effect the applicability of those studies' correlation percentages. I understand that even the studies whose analytic methodologies aren't a complete horrorshow do not result in probabilities that can be blindly applied to any given individual. And so forth.
Make of any of that what you will. Given your last post, I suspect it will merely be another vulgar output of broad-brushing. So surprise me.
Or don't. It's not like there's a limit on ignore lists.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Your hobby is a very dangerous thing that very obviously requires regulation. Should you buck that, you will be a criminal and you should be sent to prison.
Tikki
(15,131 posts)NO WORRIES..you won't be liable because no one will know it was your gun...Heck, why not rent it (them) out
for services. You could make a killing off them.
Tikki
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...the gun owner who failed to properly secure their weapons should face criminal liability. The primary responsibility still lies with the criminal, of course, but the irresponsible gun owner should be held complicit. I consider proper security to be an implicit responsibility of gun ownership.
Tikki
(15,131 posts)Tikki
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Form 4473 shows the last legal owner of the weapon in most cases.
That doesn't help with private sales, though...which is one reason I support extending the background check requirement to ALL gun transfers of any kind...
CTyankee
(68,156 posts)see if their guns are properly safeguarded. I'm sure you would be happy with that here since you have stressed the "implicit responsibility of gun ownership."
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I might not be just anywhere (not all police departments in the US are what I'd call trustworthy...just ask any Occupier), but here in Portland, the PPD have a good, if not perfect, relationship with the rest of us.
CTyankee
(68,156 posts)told them about this and other Norway restrictions on gun ownership...
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Orrex
(67,080 posts)Obiviously the only solution is more guns.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)a seat. Less work to get rid of to. Add to it any electronics, that can be a nice haul.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)A dark, empty house is way easier to get away with.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)How many, after what The Journal News did, is looking at the same thing? The law does not make people in certain places register their guns if they have been acquired as MadHound has his. How many will now not do so, even if the law is changed, due to this type of attack?
We post register sex offenders, people who have broken the law, in this manner. We are now treating Law Abiding Citizens the same way? That is a BAD precedent.
Now let us look at this from the propaganda way. The NRA will use this stupidity on the side of THAT PAPER to strengthen their weak arguments (plural). Remember how the Bush administration used 9-11 as the answer for everything? Well here is the NRA's 9-11 answer! And do you really think the teaparty will let grass grow under their feet on this? Our side will take a pounding on this. The fight for better gun control has now hit a big problem, we just don't know how big at this time.
And let's take this to the nightmare point. How many gun sales will now be under the table due to people not wanting the world to know their business? Have we opened a bigger illegal market with this? Only time will tell on this, but the nightmare has a foothold.
So now what? The jinn is out of the bottle. I can assure each and everyone of you that the other side will fight to keep it out!
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Sad that so many people don't.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)Placing law abiding people in the same class as dangerous criminal can not help those that want to make better gun control rules/laws.
We need the ones that follow the law on our side. This pushes them to the other side.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)registration?
MineralMan
(151,187 posts)those who refuse are no longer "law abiding citizens," now, are they? The reality is that no such requirement is the law in my state, either. If it were, I'd follow it. I have to have a city permit to own a pistol, but none of my other firearms are required to be registered. If they were, I'd register them, because I am a "law abiding citizen."
Here's the reality. In Minnesota, where I live, the odds are that most houses a burglar broke into would have at least one firearm in them. Nobody would target my house, particularly. Is there a pickup in the driveway? If so, there's probably a gun or two in the house. I have a set of deer antlers mounted on the front of my garage, from a hunt years ago in Wyoming. Deer antlers = gun in the house.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)specialty shops, flee markets, decorating magazines, etc?
And as I have said in an earlier post. When everyone watches the NRA Spin Doctors go to work with what that paper did and starts to yell, I will be here saying "I told you so". Instead of coming up with ideas on how to keep this from hurting the cause, too many are going to set back and watch the other side win.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I wanna go 150 or 160 MPH in my car (which it will do). If I get it registered, I might get caught and ticketed. Thus, to avoid problems I'll follow your lead and break the law.
Gun nuts and their Precious. Lawbreakers.
Lady Freedom Returns
(14,198 posts)And guess what? The law does not make people in certain places register their guns if they have been acquired as MadHound has his.
That includes the State of Missouri!
bongbong
(5,436 posts)His OP was not about current law, it was about his reaction to a possible new law.
So, current law is out the window with respect to his hypothetical.
TheMadMonk
(6,187 posts)...already deliberately and serially break the law;
do so in a manner which makes guns readily available to criminals;
oftimes fail to report stolen weapons which may later be used in a crime;
And because of this you now want to say that's why it's a bad idea for anyone to know where guns are.
"since most of the flood of illegal guns in this country come from stealing the guns of law abiding owners."
No they're not LAW ABIDING. They are CRIMINALS.
YOU JUST TOLD ME THEY ARE.
Iggo
(49,912 posts)
mokawanis
(4,489 posts)if you are being prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm. You'll deserve whatever consequences the prosecutors put on you, even if they demand you give up all your precious weapons.
The whole argument that being forced to register a weapon makes you a target for burglars is asinine in the first place. I doubt many burglars choose a house because they want to steal a gun. I think they're after cash, jewelry, and other goodies, and any guns that get stolen during burglaries are simply being grabbed up with all the other stuff they take.
Crackinrocket
(25 posts)Massive noncompliance. No one really seems to care anymore.
Blasphemer
(3,622 posts)When debating potential avenues of gun control. Without adequate enforcement of registry requirements, would it be akin to jaywalking laws? I have no problem with gun registries (in theory, setting aside the realities of application) or the publication of public information. I am concerned that our politicos are likely to enact meaningless legislation and pat themselves on the back for it.
RC
(25,592 posts)Canada has nowhere the gun violence we do. And you do not want to be caught with an unregistered hang gun. The do care very much about that. Normal hunting rifles, not so much anymore.
ecstatic
(35,066 posts)Interesting.
Anyhow, I agree with another OP that said the records should be collected, but privately (like our car registrations). SOMEONE has to keep track of where these deadly weapons are located, but it doesn't necessarily have to be public knowledge. Enjoy your guns!
JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Though I'm pretty low risk for burglary, so having my name listed won't bother me much. My cruddy .22 rifle is to protect my animals, not to protect my house.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)If it becomes one? Or do you pick and choose which law you obey?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)no traffic on the road. I come to a stop light. I'm sitting there waiting. I get spooked...I'm all alone, it's late...I see one set of lights far in the distance behind me.....do I run the light, so I can avoid any danger? Or do I cont. to wait for the light to turn green, obeying the law, but risking trouble from whoever the hell is the only other person on the road this late. I run the red light, after looking carefully to make sure the way is clear.
Safety comes first.
AldoLeopold
(617 posts)You getting spooked doesn't justify a violation of the law.
And even so - that is not analogous to the OP.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)mainer
(12,549 posts)When I see another car approaching, I feel a little better that there's someone around in case I get stranded.
And did you ever think that the other driver might be even more scared of YOU?
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)My first concern is my own safety. Being a woman, alone, in an isolated area, sitting at a red light for no good reason except that it's the law, and being aware that women are targeted by criminals, and being aware of the spate of carjackings that have taken place in recent years....I would run the red light, after carefully looking both ways to ensure the way is clear.
When a woman is alone in an isolated area late at night...it's best she STAY alone and not risk being one of two out there, not knowing who the second will be.
I'm not paranoid at all. But I try to be aware of potentially dangerous situations.
Note: I've been followed before in my car, touched and yelled at by strange men, and have had several attempted break-ins/sneak-ins. So I know what some men are prepared to do, when they decide to target a woman alone. I avoid potentially dangerous situations, so I won't have to think about how to get out of a dangerous situation.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Then you could be on your merry way without having to be terrified by that scary driver 100 yards behind you.
Safety comes first, after all.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)but I guess not too heavy for a two or three thieves to carry it out to their van. They got into it somehow, and got the guns. He knows this because the guys were caught, when the girl accomplice was caught trying to cash a forged stolen check. The guys still had the safe and some of the guns when they were picked up. I guess they had sold some by then.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I never saw his safe to see what it looked like. But my brother said it was one of those old, really heavy ones.
Tab
(11,093 posts)What utter self-righteous crap. "I'll be a target for thieves".
You're so precious, so special.
Get over yourself.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)being targeted by...criminals. And especially when they are so willing to become criminals with guns just to defend them and theirs against other criminals - yep -with guns!
BRILLIANT!!
If you break a future registration law and become a criminal, would you be tempted to defend yourself from...yourself?
And if you become a felon by breaking said future law, THEN would you turn your guns in since they would be illegal for you to own (or would you break that law too?)?
Nutsmustbecracked
(4 posts)Implying that someone who doesn't register their gun is the same as a violent criminal.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And in this hypothetical case, armed illegally?
And both could/would/should go to jail if caught and convicted?
Yep - you are right - no equivalence whatsoever.
Either you are law abiding, or, in this case, you are a criminal.
SO - which is it?
RC
(25,592 posts)Which is a good reason they should not have access to guns in the first place.
Brigid
(17,621 posts)But if MO ever does pass legislation requiring gun registration and you don't do so, don't come whining to us if you wind up in the slammer.
VOX
(22,976 posts)And they're not junkers, either. If what you say is true -- "out here in the country people simply assume that everybody has a gun in their house somewhere," then what does it matter if that's actually a published fact or not? If everybody assumes gun ownership in every household where you live, malefactors are assuming the same thing.
Now, as Skinner wisely posted upthread, does your gun ownership make you safer or more vulnerable? Only you can answer that one.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)or pay anything by check or credit cards.
as for the law --you only have to follow the ones that you like.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Hey everybody....
Look at me!!!!
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)licensed and all handguns to be registered. In about 1993 they began a long gun registry. They had a difficult time getting all of the gun owners to declare their long guns. They had several deadlines followed by amnesty to encourage compliance. Eventually, they estimated that at least 25% of gunowners did not declare all of their guns. (It seems that some gunowners declared some, not all, of their rifles and shotguns). Last spring they ended the national gun registry and destroyed the data (Quebec sued, their data still exists). Since they never collected the needed crime data, there is some dispute as to how much impact the registry had on crime.
Response to MadHound (Original post)
Post removed
flvegan
(66,243 posts)I have "Beware of Dog" signs all over.
If you think you become a target because you have a gun, then you're doing it wrong. That "forthcoming crime spree" didn't include us.
I'd be more than happy to spread the message that if you come after me, my property, those I care about, that you will die.
Govern yourselves accordingly.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)Have guns to protect yourself from boogeymen but can't let the boogeymen know where you live.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)printed address even MEAN anything??
I live in suburbia. As far as I know, our homes here aren't invisible to potential thieves, who can PROBABLY GUESS THAT WE ALL HAVE COMPUTERS, TVS, OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES, & JEWELRY!
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)Then, with the guns unavailable, they'd move on to other valuables. But the possibility of there being guns to steal would be what made them select a house off such a list in the first place.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Do you have some rational basis for this fear? That is, why do gun owners assume that their guns are a prime target, in preference to electronics or prescription meds or the like?
Let's see the evidence. How often are guns the primary motivator for home burglary? We're not talking about burglaries in which guns are stolen along with other property; we're talking about burglaries that would have been less likely to happen if the guns had not been present.
If you don't have that information, then can you tell us why you think that guns are likely to make you a more tempting target for burglars?
Response to MadHound (Original post)
ann--- This message was self-deleted by its author.
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Those that are paranoid about having their name on a list don't have the mental capacity to act responsibly firearm.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)I'm done with you radical nuts.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)We'll just wait until your name is posted in the paper, and presumably your guns will be stolen shortly thereafter.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Orrex
(67,080 posts)And the fact that you missed the joke proves your paranoia.
NutmegYankee
(16,477 posts)Invasion of privacy never is.
Orrex
(67,080 posts)Who's there?
Paranoid Gun Nut.
Paranoid Gun Nut who?
WHY DO YOU WANT TO TAKE MY GUNS?!?!?
Response to Orrex (Reply #304)
Post removed
MineralMan
(151,187 posts)Neither does mine. However, if it did, I'd certainly obey the law. I wouldn't worry about my firearms becoming a target of thieves. Most of my neighbors have them, too. There's no reason anyone would single my home out for a firearms theft, and my firearms aren't that attractive to such thieves.
But, the law is something I obey. If laws are passed requiring registration of existing firearms, I'll do that.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and other criminals then they are about becoming criminals themselves, and/or going to jail.
But then that's THE problem...having so much more fear of becoming victims so that holding onto guns, even illegally, is worth it.
lynne
(3,118 posts)- and the published list didn't include long guns as registration isn't required for them in that area.
The publishing of the list is the problem. IMO, the concern is more about being vilified by non-gun enthusiast friends and neighbors. Certainly there is concern that it would make them a target for thieves but I feel that's only one aspect.
There is something wrong in following all the rules - doing everything the law requires - and then having your name and what you feel is private information published without your consent.
Unless the rules and regs are changed that the registration list remains private with the exception of law enforcement, then I would anticipate that there will be many who won't register their current guns should registration become law.
MineralMan
(151,187 posts)My name and address is published for many reasons. I own a landline phone, so my name and address is included in telephone directories, both on paper and online. I own a home, and you can look up my home in the county tax records, and even see how much I paid for the house and what my property tax payments are. I contribute to political campaigns, and you can look up that information, too.
I have no desire to be a recluse. I own some firearms. I used to hunt. I used to compete in pistol shooting competitions. Most people who know me know that information, and they don't seem inclined to vilify me over that.
I am a law-abiding citizen. If the laws of my state someday require that I register my firearms, even my long guns, I'll do that. Public records are public records. I won't worry a bit about someone knowing that I own them. Why would I worry about that. I won't worry about my friends vilifying me over my firearms ownership, either. They know me well enough to know that I'm not some wacko. I will continue to be a law-abiding citizen. It's that simple.
Floyd_Gondolli
(1,277 posts)Thanks for the memo.
allrevvedup
(408 posts)As several posters have mentioned you can get better security from a burglar alarm to which I would add security bars, which run about half the cost of a Bushmaster .223 if I have my prices correct, depending on the size of your house and who you get to install the bars. But my personal experience is that security bars are very, very effective and don't have to be unattractive.
So: if the actual value of the guns is as heirlooms, and you'd be foolish to keep loaded guns in your house anyway, making them essentially useless for security, why not permanently weld them closed and just insure them? That way you can display them proudly and pass them on to your next of kin, and you don't have to worry about registration or domestic tragedies.
lillypaddle
(9,606 posts)your unregistered guns.