***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[5 digit know nothing]

Sorry, rant not aimed at you Tim. I know most here arguing for gun control only want to see registration and some for magazine restrictions. It's just that as gun owners, we know the restriction doesn't stop there. It continues and progresses, like a cancer. Before you know it, it is entangled into just about every major organ and is terminal, with no hope of treatment or a fight. We are hoping to catch it early enough to make a fight possible. To protect this right, we have to fight at every sign of intrusion. I was not a "nut job" about gun rights before all of this, but have become one thanks to it. I can't disagree with you guys wanting registration and training and education. Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.[/George Carlin]. The more disturbing idea is to be judged in the same way by people like this.

But you don't know this. You fear it, but in fact you don't know it, because it's never happened. Gun ownership in Israel and China and all the other countries in the world that have registration hasn't decreased since registration started; it's increased. What's decreased has been gun violence. I think the registration has something to do with that. You're free to argue the point. What you're not free to argue, IMO, is that there is a slippery slope involved here that will eventually mean your guns will be seized, because that hasn't happened. In fact, so far as I know, there is not a single country in the history of this planet in which the registration of firearms was the first step in the ultimate seizure of those firearms. Perhaps you can find an example of this; I can't.

Seriously? Try this.

LOL! As they say in COD....SMOKED!!!

Really? Apart from some gun nut's theories about Hitler that are easily debunked by any reputable historian, I didn't see anything except the same old tired NRA arguments.

tired?

You mean aside from Cuba, China, Russia, and most other totalitarian states?

let's see...New Zealand, 1921 the ownership of revolvers were allowed in the name of personal defense, 1970s this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.

Canada...registration list 1990s, old guns grandfathered in, but this list is used for the state to confiscate the guns upon the death of the holder with no compensation to the estate

1996 Australia used it's list of registered semiauto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

The UK government instituted handgun registration in 1921, and about every 10 years or so they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.

How about Chicago, put in registration of long guns, used that same registration to confiscate semiauto long guns in the early 1990s

What about California, couldn't make up it's mind if the SKS was covered or not (1989), decided AFTER the registration period was closed that they needed to be registered, declared a second 'grace period' for registration...then about 5 years ago they decided that those SKSs registered during the grace period were illegal because the grace period was illegal, and in certain cities and counties sent law enforcement to the listed addresses demanding surrender of the firearm. Because there is the legal option of removing the gun from the state of CA, and these officers had no warrants, smart gun owners turned them away with the claim 'I gave it to a relative in Oregon (or whatever)' but MANY were seized with no compensation. (Cities and counties later on offered compensation for anyone who had a receipt, but the police weren't giving out receipts, only a few people who demanded them had them and they were basically notes scribbled on whatever spare paper the officer had)

Side Note, the SKS was the MOST common weapon in the hands of Korean Shop Owners who used them to defend themselves and businesses when the LA riots happened.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100626143039AAIVbUH

Yes tired. And with no direct causation, other than in the imagination of some very paranoid people,

So you deny that this has already happened in the U.S., in California?

Yes I deny it. The registration didn't lead to the banning. The banning led to the banning. There was no slippery slope; there never is.

California made owners register guns that they said were legal.They changed their mind about which guns should be legal and confiscated them, the registration enabled them to confiscate them.

It really does not get any easier than that. The U.S. could create a database of all guns in the U.S. and receive compliance on the premise that their guns are grandfathered-in. There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules and now have a roadmap to confiscate guns. If you don't think this is a possibility than you are more bat-#### crazy than the people you are calling bat-#### crazy.

This is what the UK has been doing for years, it's the whole chip-away defense the NRA has been preaching about that you are calling "tired".

 

[tom22406]

I would hate to even guess if the Constituion was wrote today how many pages it would be given some of our Mob-ocracy ways.

Over/Under set at 10,000 pages?

 

[timschochet]

California made owners register guns that they said were legal.They changed their mind about which guns should be legal and confiscated them, the registration enabled them to confiscate them.It really does not get any easier than that. The U.S. could create a database of all guns in the U.S. and receive compliance on the premise that their guns are grandfathered-in. There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules and now have a roadmap to confiscate guns. If you don't think this is a possibility than you are more bat-#### crazy than the people you are calling bat-#### crazy.This is what the UK has been doing for years, it's the whole chip-away defense the NRA has been preaching about that you are calling "tired".

Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For those arguing for registration and government lists, does an occurrence like the recent newspaper "gun map" really not disturb you?

Not only does it not disturb me, I'm a big fan.

Why?I always want the bad guys to think I might have a gun, even if I don't.

My family and I have not been attacked in our home. I think very little of that is attributable to bad guys thinking that I might have a gun.

 

[timschochet]

I would hate to even guess if the Constituion was wrote today how many pages it would be given some of our Mob-ocracy ways.Over/Under set at 10,000 pages?

This thread is devoted to a discussion of gun control ideas and legislation. None of what's been seriously proposed has anything to do with the Constitution, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I would hate to even guess if the Constituion was wrote today how many pages it would be given some of our Mob-ocracy ways.Over/Under set at 10,000 pages?

The FFA Constitution thread went about 100 pages and I think all we agreed on was what font to use.

 

[Rich Conway]

For those arguing for registration and government lists, does an occurrence like the recent newspaper "gun map" really not disturb you?

Not only does it not disturb me, I'm a big fan.

Why?I always want the bad guys to think I might have a gun, even if I don't.

My family and I have not been attacked in our home. I think very little of that is attributable to bad guys thinking that I might have a gun.

That's not an answer as to why you want everyone to know exactly who owns a gun and who doesn't.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

California made owners register guns that they said were legal.

They changed their mind about which guns should be legal and confiscated them, the registration enabled them to confiscate them.

It really does not get any easier than that. The U.S. could create a database of all guns in the U.S. and receive compliance on the premise that their guns are grandfathered-in. There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules and now have a roadmap to confiscate guns. If you don't think this is a possibility than you are more bat-#### crazy than the people you are calling bat-#### crazy.

This is what the UK has been doing for years, it's the whole chip-away defense the NRA has been preaching about that you are calling "tired".

Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.

This is your opinion. You cannot say with certainty there is no politician alive today that would like nothing more than for this to happen. By allowing registration you allow this person to get 1 step closer to their goal.ETA: There are many levels of confiscation, I am not saying the day after registration a bill is passed banning ALL guns.

 

[tom22406]

I would hate to even guess if the Constituion was wrote today how many pages it would be given some of our Mob-ocracy ways.Over/Under set at 10,000 pages?

This thread is devoted to a discussion of gun control ideas and legislation. None of what's been seriously proposed has anything to do with the Constitution, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up.

Never brought this up before so no idea what you are talking about.Just making a comment,sorry to derail your serious legislation talk.

 

[boots11234]

California made owners register guns that they said were legal.They changed their mind about which guns should be legal and confiscated them, the registration enabled them to confiscate them.It really does not get any easier than that. The U.S. could create a database of all guns in the U.S. and receive compliance on the premise that their guns are grandfathered-in. There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules and now have a roadmap to confiscate guns. If you don't think this is a possibility than you are more bat-#### crazy than the people you are calling bat-#### crazy.This is what the UK has been doing for years, it's the whole chip-away defense the NRA has been preaching about that you are calling "tired".

Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.

Even if it wasn't the intent at the start the result was the same. (Though I am certain Feinstein would do it for exactly this purpose). Just like a drunk doesn't intend to kill someone in a car accident. Both has happened

 

[jafo]

California made owners register guns that they said were legal.They changed their mind about which guns should be legal and confiscated them, the registration enabled them to confiscate them.It really does not get any easier than that. The U.S. could create a database of all guns in the U.S. and receive compliance on the premise that their guns are grandfathered-in. There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules and now have a roadmap to confiscate guns. If you don't think this is a possibility than you are more bat-#### crazy than the people you are calling bat-#### crazy.This is what the UK has been doing for years, it's the whole chip-away defense the NRA has been preaching about that you are calling "tired".

Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.

Trolling at its finest right here...

 

[tom22406]

California made owners register guns that they said were legal.They changed their mind about which guns should be legal and confiscated them, the registration enabled them to confiscate them.It really does not get any easier than that. The U.S. could create a database of all guns in the U.S. and receive compliance on the premise that their guns are grandfathered-in. There is nothing stopping them from changing the rules and now have a roadmap to confiscate guns. If you don't think this is a possibility than you are more bat-#### crazy than the people you are calling bat-#### crazy.This is what the UK has been doing for years, it's the whole chip-away defense the NRA has been preaching about that you are calling "tired".

Registering the guns did not make banning them "easier." They were banned because the state decided to ban them. Had they never been registered, the state would still have decided to ban them. There is no connection between the two events. Registration is for law enforcement purposes, to fight crime by allowing law enforcement to isolate the illegal transfer and ownership of firearms. It has NOTHING to do with planned confiscation. Obviously there is no way to convince you or other NRA supporters of this, but hopefully the general public is not as paranoid as you guys are, and we will find a way to make this happen.

Trolling at its finest right here...

He should have posted under his alias again to throw this gem out.

 

[tom22406]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

Seems pretty clear to me what the goal is when she says "Mr and Mrs America,turn em all in!"

 

[boots11234]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

Ya think? I was not a gun guy before this but I see the righting on the wall and have made 4 purchases since.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For those arguing for registration and government lists, does an occurrence like the recent newspaper "gun map" really not disturb you?

Not only does it not disturb me, I'm a big fan.

Why?I always want the bad guys to think I might have a gun, even if I don't.

My family and I have not been attacked in our home. I think very little of that is attributable to bad guys thinking that I might have a gun.

That's not an answer as to why you want everyone to know exactly who owns a gun and who doesn't.

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

For those arguing for registration and government lists, does an occurrence like the recent newspaper "gun map" really not disturb you?

Not only does it not disturb me, I'm a big fan.

Why?I always want the bad guys to think I might have a gun, even if I don't.

My family and I have not been attacked in our home. I think very little of that is attributable to bad guys thinking that I might have a gun.

That's not an answer as to why you want everyone to know exactly who owns a gun and who doesn't.

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

 

[Chaos Commish]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

There's two people in this world I'd likely spit on upon meeting and one is Diane Feinstein. However, she was referring to all 'assault weapons' above, not all firearms. Also, she had a ccw in the 70s and carried a small handgun after receiving death threats. Her ccw expired in the late 80s. She does not carry a gun, but I'd spit on her even if she did.

 

[tom22406]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

Agreed on that was her intend the last time,one look at this bill shows her true intentions if she gets her way.But some say it's no slippery slope?That statement alone baffles me.

 

[Guest]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

 

[Power Monster]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

Feinstein is a statist loving despot that hates everything to do with a free society. These dregs keep pouring out their hate for your Constitutional rights. Sadly- they pick up a check and have taken an oath to protect these very Constitutional rights. These despots are dangerous lying devils. Americans better wake up and realize that these rats will put every effort into running America right into the pit of destruction.

 

[timschochet]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

One of the most decent and honorable people on either side of the aisle and you would spit on her? This conversation has become so ugly, just as all of these gun debates end up. Unfortunately, it's mainly because gun rights supporters have become so fanatic...

 

[jonessed]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

One of the more ignorant comparisons you have made in this thread.A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

 

[Guest]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

I was thinking of the gun registration argument. You could say that they could be held personal, similar to income taxes, but then the inevitable, "slippery slope" would come in. So I was just trying to save ourselves a few back-and-forths and cut to the chase.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

I was thinking of the gun registration argument. You could say that they could be held personal, similar to income taxes, but then the inevitable, "slippery slope" would come in. So I was just trying to save ourselves a few back-and-forths and cut to the chase.

The discussion is about gun maps and you are interjecting that they can be made private?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

I think it's possible it could happen, but it strikes me as unlikely. Criminals already know the houses that could have a substantial amount of valuables in them. They're the big ones that rich people live in.

 

[Guest]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

One of the more ignorant comparisons you have made in this thread.A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

It's tough to keep up with you guys. I'm just trying to avoid getting lapped.

 

[Guest]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

I was thinking of the gun registration argument. You could say that they could be held personal, similar to income taxes, but then the inevitable, "slippery slope" would come in. So I was just trying to save ourselves a few back-and-forths and cut to the chase.

The discussion is about gun maps and you are interjecting that they can be made private?

I was presuming people would hold in their mind that an hour ago it was about gun registrations and that's where this whole "gun map" thing came from. Next time I won't over-estimate you.

 

[tom22406]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

I can't say I disagree with any of this.

 

[timschochet]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

One of the more ignorant comparisons you have made in this thread.A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

It's tough to keep up with you guys. I'm just trying to avoid getting lapped.

Trust me, you can't keep up with them.

 

[timschochet]

I thought it was widely known Feinstein wants to ban all guns but that seems to not be the case.

This was back during the first AWB when she said this

That's sad, because almost everything he wrote is objectively untrue.

 

[boots11234]

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.

That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

I think it's possible it could happen, but it strikes me as unlikely. Criminals already know the houses that could have a substantial amount of valuables in them. They're the big ones that rich people live in.

This guy disagrees with you My link sounds like he speaks from experience. But what do I know, I'm just a gun nut.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

I was thinking of the gun registration argument. You could say that they could be held personal, similar to income taxes, but then the inevitable, "slippery slope" would come in. So I was just trying to save ourselves a few back-and-forths and cut to the chase.

The discussion is about gun maps and you are interjecting that they can be made private?

I was presuming people would hold in their mind that an hour ago it was about gun registrations and that's where this whole "gun map" thing came from. Next time I won't over-estimate you.

 

[cobalt_27]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

One of the more ignorant comparisons you have made in this thread.A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found:

• 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

• 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"

• 69% personally knew other criminals who had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"

It's tough to keep up with you guys. I'm just trying to avoid getting lapped.

Trust me, you can't keep up with them.

Hysteria and lunacy prevailing? I'm enjoying the amusement park of elementary school logic, myself...comforted by the fact that significant change is around the corner. They know it, which makes them even nuttier.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

I think it's possible it could happen, but it strikes me as unlikely. Criminals already know the houses that could have a substantial amount of valuables in them. They're the big ones that rich people live in.

Professional burglars could look for easier targets, perhaps the not so big houses that usually have complicated security systems / cameras installed, but the smaller targets with specific types of guns that are quite valuable.

 

[Rich Conway]

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.

I really don't find any of these reasons persuasive. That someone wants to know something doesn't entitle them to know it. I also don't want my neighbors knowing my financial status, despite their possible desire to know. Put simply, whether my neighbors want to know my gun ownership status or not, it's none of their business.

That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

I think the balance is exactly the opposite. The interest I have in my secret takes far more precedence over a neighbor's interest in wanting to know something that's none of their business. I can't see any reason why gun ownership status, or say jewelry ownership status, should be any less private than medical records, sexual history, or financial status.

 

[Guest]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

I was thinking of the gun registration argument. You could say that they could be held personal, similar to income taxes, but then the inevitable, "slippery slope" would come in. So I was just trying to save ourselves a few back-and-forths and cut to the chase.

The discussion is about gun maps and you are interjecting that they can be made private?

I was presuming people would hold in their mind that an hour ago it was about gun registrations and that's where this whole "gun map" thing came from. Next time I won't over-estimate you.

Sorry. I did it again.

For those arguing for registration and government lists, does an occurrence like the recent newspaper "gun map" really not disturb you?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.

That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

I think it's possible it could happen, but it strikes me as unlikely. Criminals already know the houses that could have a substantial amount of valuables in them. They're the big ones that rich people live in.

This guy disagrees with you My link sounds like he speaks from experience. But what do I know, I'm just a gun nut.

Good interview in that video, didn't even think of domestic violence victims and retired cops addresses being exposed.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Do you see these gun maps as a tool that could be used by criminals in the "home robbery" business? Both for picking soft targets as well as identifying targets that could have a substantial amount of valuables?

We probably should do away with income taxes. Filing that with the government just gives criminals a guidebook on who to rob. Or we could stop trying to guide our national policies on crazy hypotheticals that would never come true. But for this thread, I'll bet on the first one.

Well, income taxes aren't published online so not the best analogy.

I was thinking of the gun registration argument. You could say that they could be held personal, similar to income taxes, but then the inevitable, "slippery slope" would come in. So I was just trying to save ourselves a few back-and-forths and cut to the chase.

The discussion is about gun maps and you are interjecting that they can be made private?

I was presuming people would hold in their mind that an hour ago it was about gun registrations and that's where this whole "gun map" thing came from. Next time I won't over-estimate you.

Sorry. I did it again.

For those arguing for registration and government lists, does an occurrence like the recent newspaper "gun map" really not disturb you?

Maybe you should have replied to that post instead, you think?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

crazy hypotheticals indeed...

Westchester County Gun Map - so much for people's privacy

There's at least 1 gun on average on every street in this screenshot:

http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/7794/ctguns.png

 

[Guest]

CT Gun Map

If you don't want to help the criminals, you probably shouldn't be reposting that.Enabler.

 

[Rich Conway]

Westchester County is NOT Connecticut.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

CT Gun Map

If you don't want to help the criminals, you probably shouldn't be reposting that.Enabler.

I just wanted to point out one of your crazy hypotheticals.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Westchester County is NOT Connecticut.

you got me there, oops

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think that certain people are interested in knowing whether their neighbors have guns. Maybe they don't want their kids to go over there for a playdate. Maybe they have noticed the person acting in a suspicious manner and would like to keep an eye on it or report it to law enforcement. Maybe they know that the person owns the gun and they would like to know whether the gun is owned lawfully. I can imagine numerous reasons why a person might want to know.

I really don't find any of these reasons persuasive. That someone wants to know something doesn't entitle them to know it. I also don't want my neighbors knowing my financial status, despite their possible desire to know. Put simply, whether my neighbors want to know my gun ownership status or not, it's none of their business.

That interest needs to be weighed against the interest that a gun owner has in keeping his gun ownership secret (or, I guess, a non-gun owner's interest in keeping his non-gun owning interest secret). But it seems to me that gun ownership isn't really "private" the way that, say, medical information or sexual behavior is. I don't think a lot of people thing their status as a gun owner or non-gun owner is embarrassing or intrusive. Which is why folks seem to have focused on this "bad guy" argument that I don't really find persuasive either.

I think the balance is exactly the opposite. The interest I have in my secret takes far more precedence over a neighbor's interest in wanting to know something that's none of their business. I can't see any reason why gun ownership status, or say jewelry ownership status, should be any less private than medical records, sexual history, or financial status.

Well, I was explaining why I come out the way I do. I view guns as sufficiently dangerous to distinguish them from jewelry.

 

[Guest]

CT Gun Map

If you don't want to help the criminals, you probably shouldn't be reposting that.Enabler.

I just wanted to point out one of your crazy hypotheticals.

What did you just point out?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

CT Gun Map

If you don't want to help the criminals, you probably shouldn't be reposting that.Enabler.

I just wanted to point out one of your crazy hypotheticals.

What did you just point out?

That a map of gun owners could never be published since it was a crazy hypothetical, oh wait...

 

[jafo]

I'm not sure I have a problem with the news organizations publishing the addresses of gun owners. It lets the criminals know which houses are going to be easy to invade, and which ones will have a gun pointed at them.

My linkLooks like others are feeling the same as I do.

 

[Guest]

CT Gun Map

If you don't want to help the criminals, you probably shouldn't be reposting that.Enabler.

I just wanted to point out one of your crazy hypotheticals.

What did you just point out?

That a map of gun owners could never be published since it was a crazy hypothetical, oh wait...

Where did I say that as one of my crazy hypotheticals?