New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked

An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, The Journal News caved under pressure of gun advocates and shut down the interactive maps which contained the names and addresses of licensed gun owners in upstate New York. The maps are still visible on the site, however they are simply static images. The Journal News published the interactive maps on December 23 which caused significant backlash. In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses. New York state Senator Greg Ball (Republican) called the removal of the data a 'huge win.' On Saturday, an anonymous user leaked the raw data used to build The Journal News maps."

Comments

rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

i have to say i agree
all a criminal would have to do is sit there wait till you leave and go get a few

Re:rob this person for guns here

[oodaloop]

And rob unarmed people everywhere else.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Let's All Be Chinese]

Agree with what? With creating convenient maps of information that's already somewhat public and therefore entirely public in the American No-Curtains-So-No-Privacy-For-You view? With protesting that convenient map? With taking revenge on the complainers by, er, dumping the adress of every permit holder whether they're part of the discussion or not?

There are a few issues here, not least of which is that this approach to privacy isn't tenable in the modern age with its proliferation of convenient data mangling apparatuses--even though there's a risk to trying to burgle a known gun owner. Or how exercising a constitution-enshrined right makes one a target--note that this trend in American Society[tm] bothers me independent of having that right, which I don't.

But what bothers me most is how the whole gun thing is again diving for the trenches. Much like how "seven bullets" is completely arbitrary, as is the labeling of some kinds of ammunition "cop killer", as are so many silly knee-jerk measures. As is the rallying "strategy" of the NRA, for that matter.

This isn't a mature discussion. And you're supposed to be the shining beacon of democracy for the whole world. All of you. Grow up.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Goaway]

Remember, guns are your best protection against crime! But don't you dare tell anyone I have them because they attract crime!

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Barsteward]

"This isn't a mature discussion. "

its not possible to have one with NRA supporters, its like arguing with a drunk or fundamental religionist, pointless as they they wouldn't change their mind in the face of evidence.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[SilenceBE]

Really as a European I always look at the American gun discussion with a lot of humor (because the arguments are sometimes so unbelievable funny) and I think this is the case for most Non Americans. Even for the assault rifle having (with no bullets) swiss that always seem to be abused in these discussion.

But I was under the impression that owning a gun was for the second revolution/protection. To put guns in the hands of the good guys. If the arguments is that it makes it easier for criminals to steal weapons , doesn't that just contradicts the believe that guns are needed for your own protection ?

This is why I always find these discussion funny and even as an non American I sometimes follow the discussions. It sometimes beat the best standup comedians if you hear gun nuts/NRA people make arguments.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[RoboRay]

its not possible to have one with NRA opponents, its like arguing with a drunk or fundamental religionist, pointless as they they wouldn't change their mind in the face of evidence.

FTFY

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Jiro]

. If the arguments is that it makes it easier for criminals to steal weapons , doesn't that just contradicts the believe that guns are needed for your own protection ?

Do you seriously think it's the gun owner's own choice to leave the gun at home where it can be stolen? Concealed carry permits are notoriously hard to get--New York is actively frustrating the ability of gun owners to use the guns to protect themselves.

Also, stealing weapons is different from protecting lives. It's not contradictory for the gun owner to have a lower chance of being killed by an intruder yet be more likely to be burglarized when he's not home.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[rubycodez]

your assertion about Swiss not having ammo is wrong. They can buy it at ranges and gun stores. you are perhaps confused by the "emergency packets" distributed by the government that need strict accounting.

most all the (non-suicide) gun crime is committed by two (non-european descent) minorities in our population, in inner cities. Take those away from the stats, and an amazing thing happens, our gun crime rate is in line with Europes. (Watch some idiots raise "racist" smokescreen out of my factual observation.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

Take those away from the stats, and an amazing thing happens, our gun crime rate is in line with Europes. (Watch some idiots raise "racist" smokescreen out of my factual observation.

No, it's not your racism I draw attention to. It's your lack of knowledge that Europe also has non-european descent minorities. Guns are the difference, not the mix of races.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[rubycodez]

quite true, those people are in a different subculture. over here in the USA, we have certain inner city subcultures that are violent. Obviously, the problem isn't race, but of course I did phrase things to provoke response and hopefully thought.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[rubycodez]

and of course, there are places in the world with even more guns per capita but less crime. so the problem can't be guns just as it can't be race in itself.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[mjwalshe]

and Cops use ammo which are banned for soldiers to use in wartime - go figure

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

But I was under the impression that owning a gun was for the second revolution/protection. To put guns in the hands of the good guys. If the arguments is that it makes it easier for criminals to steal weapons , doesn't that just contradicts the believe that guns are needed for your own protection ?

No more than owning a car makes it easier for a car thief to steal it. Still doesn't obviate (eliminate) the need/desire for a car.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

over here in the USA, we have certain inner city subcultures that are violent.

So do other countries. The difference is the extent to which they have firearms.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

No, there is no other country with more guns per capita. The USA really is the worst.

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

Re:rob this person for guns here

[atriusofbricia]

i have to say i agree
all a criminal would have to do is sit there wait till you leave and go get a few

http://newyork.newsday.com/news/nation/journal-news-map-listed-guns-permits-stolen-from-new-city-home-cops-say-1.4463741

Like they actually did. It wasn't just pressure from the implied evil gun advocates that got them to took down the list. It was the two break-ins directly related to the list and likely the word from their corporate lawyers that yes, they could be held liable for such reckless endangerment.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[CodeMasterBob]

Exactly right, they'll case the house and when they believe no one is home, break in and steal guns and anything else of value. Releasing this list will have the unintended consequence of putting MORE illegal guns on the street. People should be pressuring the DOJ to pursue this act as vigorously as they did Aaron Schwartz.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

assault rifle having (with no bullets) swiss

Until 2007, most Swiss males between the ages of 20 and 30 years had the ammunition in their homes along with a matching auto rifle (both issued as part of military service). It didn't seem to be a big problem. True, the box of ammo wasn't supposed to be unsealed unless an alert was issued, but obviously if someone decided to "go out in a blaze of 'glory'" like in Newtown, that rule would not stop them as (I don't think) the Swiss prosecute dead bodies.

Males in that general age range are high risk, yet the Swiss have a firearm related homicide rate that is 14% that of the United States (in both countries, of course, suicides using firearms are overwhelmingly the largest source of gun related deaths). So, clearly the availability of guns isn't a significant factor. The problem in the United States is related to culture, not hardware.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[rubycodez]

that's one 2007 survey, there are others with switzerland and finland at the top (maybe the phrase "privately held" is qualifier that makes difference in your suvery?)

anyway, why are the states with the highest per capita guns
  Wyoming (59.7%)
Alaska (57.8%)
Montana (57.7%)

not the cime centers of our country?

And I say "best" where you say "worst" if your survey is true. Note the people who live in the crime cesspools like chicago, washington D.C. couldn't even have guns until recent supreme court ruling, but they have the violent crime. because of who is there, subcultures where family structure has broken down

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

Take those away from the stats, and an amazing thing happens, our gun crime rate is in line with Europes. (Watch some idiots raise "racist" smokescreen out of my factual observation.

No, it's not your racism I draw attention to. It's your lack of knowledge that Europe also has non-european descent minorities. Guns are the difference, not the mix of races.

You're both wrong.

While a mix of different social and cultural norms does correlate (very slightly but significantly) with increased violent crime, it is by no means a large correlation. Gun ownership rates and gun control laws, have little to no correlation with rates of violent crime. Look at some of the high gun ownership rates in northern europe and the very low violent crime rates. Look at the relatively high mix of different races and cultures in places like Anaheim that have very low violent crime compared to the rest of the region.

You know what correlates very, very well with violent crime rates around the world? Wealth disparity. Yup, determining the difference of the real incomes between the top and bottom within a region is an excellent way to predict the rate of violent crime (and often correlates in the US with race as well).

So no, you both lose. It's not "the mixin' of the races" or "the guns." It's about the basic inequalities of our society that drive those without to violent action to try to change their lot in life. Real measures to reduce violent crime, measures that demonstrably have worked elsewhere include: social safety nets like free healthcare; levels of tax progressiveness that balance or more than balance wealth condensation; free education; and programs to encourage new, small business for those without capital. Your pet fears need not apply.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[CptNerd]

So, if we take from the people that have "too much" and give it all to the potential criminals, they'll decide not to be criminals anymore.

Brilliant. Worked so well for the Romans and the barbarians.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

So, if we take from the people that have "too much" and give it all to the potential criminals, they'll decide not to be criminals anymore.

That sounds like a strawman, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood my post. This has nothing to do with taking from those who have "too much". It has to do with balancing the inherent advantage conferred by inherited wealth to the extent that we have a stable economy instead of one where that advantage results in wealth constantly consolidating into fewer and fewer hands. People who don't contribute to society and just live off the wealth of their forebears are fine, but that should not be a stable aristocracy, rather the wealth should be spent and the next generation should have to actually, gasp, work and do something if they want to live in our society. Trust fund bums are a drain on society and I do not abide the useless and neither should society... especially if they want to have a stable economy and the lower level of violent crime that comes with it.

I'm not advocating for a welfare state, I'm advocating for a meritocracy, and the fairness of a meritocracy leads to less violent crime as many a sociologist can demonstrate.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[CptNerd]

The problem lies in how the "meritocracy" gets created when the ones who inherit wealth refuse to give it up. Unless you're willing to apply force to take it from them, or otherwise restrict the freedom of people who inherit great wealth such that they can only spend and not invest or otherwise grow that wealth, your "meritocracy" is doomed.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

The problem lies in how the "meritocracy" gets created when the ones who inherit wealth refuse to give it up.

Not really. 100% inheritance tax is one way, although it inserts large amounts of waste into the system. Traditionally, we just tax wealth at increasingly high rates as you go up the scale so that while those with money can still use it to make money, they have to make proportionally more money to offset the higher taxes. Heck, the income taxes in the late 50's through the early 80's did just that and the relative proportions of wealth in society remained quite stable. Then we slashed taxes on the high end and now more and more wealth is in fewer and fewer hands. This isn't rocket science. It is fairly basic economics.

Unless you're willing to apply force to take it from them, or otherwise restrict the freedom of people who inherit great wealth such that they can only spend and not invest or otherwise grow that wealth, your "meritocracy" is doomed.

I don't really understand your perspective. Income taxes are already by force and returning to historically normal rates instead of the extreme rates we have now is not some radical concept. It's been done. It worked. It is, in fact, historically more common than the unsustainable system we have now.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[CptNerd]

If you read more detail in history, you'll see that the "historically high rates" from earlier years weren't actually extracted from those with wealth, as they all managed (and still do) to gain loopholes.

As far as the fairness of a 100% inheritance tax, what does that do to the families of entrepreneurs who build companies in their lifetimes, sometimes huge billion-dollar companies that employ thousands of people and provide goods and services for millions? Should those companies be liquidated to pay that tax, in order to achieve your vision of "fairness" and "equality" simply because "it's worked before" (it really hasn't)?

Do you honestly believe that giving the government all the wealth that gets created by private citizens on their death is better than letting individuals decide what's best for their families? What makes government so much better than individuals?

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Foo2rama]

How is Data that is already public be leaked? AFIAK the data was public when the website was published, if it was not then that data was out in the open for more then a few days anyway.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, they use the different ammunition because it is the rational result of the exact same properties of ammunition as applied to two *very* different circumstances.

A police officer wants ammunition which won't go through the target into another person to minimize danger to innocent third parties (such as victims of the criminal being shot at). This means they use frangible ammunition. It causes more damage to anyone hit, but this is more acceptable because getting injured people to *high quality* medical care is comparatively easy. Armor piercing ammunition, on the other hand is *significantly* less likely to be needed to stop a criminal, and *much* more likely to be involved in collateral damage. As a result, cops don't usually arm themselves with armor piercing rounds, though many departments *do* have a small supply on hand in case it *does* become necessary.

A soldier, on the other hand, often needs firepower which will penetrate body armor, or even light walls. Frangible ammunition would be very *bad* at this, but when it hits an unarmored target will cause significant damage when that target *can't* be gotten to high quality medical care quickly *or* easily. Using frangible ammunition would result in *many* more unnecessary deaths *including* deaths of innocent third parties who are trapped in the combat zone.

So, as you can see, the different choice of ammunition to be used by soldiers and police officers is both rational and the best selection to meet the needs of the different circumstances.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

A 'simple' method is to apply taxes in such a way that the wealthy are encouraged to invest in infrastructure, rather than interest bearing instruments.

For example, tax 'capital gains' *more* heavily than pay for work done, not less.

(Note, there's a *world* of difference between 'simple' and 'easy', and in this case 'simple' is only 'simple' when compared to more complex, and in some cases thoroughly disproved, ideas such as 'trickle down economics'.)

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

If you read more detail in history, you'll see that the "historically high rates" from earlier years weren't actually extracted from those with wealth, as they all managed (and still do) to gain loopholes.

Not any more so than now, as far as I've read, unless you have some citation otherwise.

As far as the fairness of a 100% inheritance tax, what does that do to the families of entrepreneurs who build companies in their lifetimes, sometimes huge billion-dollar companies that employ thousands of people and provide goods and services for millions? Should those companies be liquidated to pay that tax, in order to achieve your vision of "fairness" and "equality" simply because "it's worked before" (it really hasn't)?

As I said, it engenders waste, but it is fair, and it's not like the company needs be shut down, it just means ownership of the shares is transferred to the state for sale on the market. Mind you, I'm not proposing that as an ideal solution, merely the "fairest" one.

Do you honestly believe that giving the government all the wealth that gets created by private citizens on their death is better than letting individuals decide what's best for their families?

???

I'm not sure what you're talking about. How does being born poor as hell into a family that can't provide you with any opportunities and having to take out loans for school, college, and basic necessities such as transportation (loans paid to those born wealthy) mean any sort of freedom? Freedom to do what exactly, have no opportunity that does not benefit those born wealthy more than it does you?

The government is democratic and represents the people. It is by the people for the people. But more importantly, we're talking about the government redistributing wealth in ways that help level the playing field. Ever played the second round of monopoly? It was made as an educational game for economics students. Try it some time.

We're not talking about an untested hypothesis here either. Lots of other nations have much better social safety nets and they recovered from the economic collapse faster, have more stable economies, and less violent crime. Correlation does not imply a specific causation, but it does provide some great beginnings to testable hypothesis and those hypothesis have been borne out. Go ahead and look at violent crime stats around the world and just try to find one that does not line up well with wealth disparity. Maybe you don't like the answer because it does not fit with your preconceived notions, but too bad. Science works. Deal with it.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[CptNerd]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. How does being born poor as hell into a family that can't provide you with any opportunities and having to take out loans for school, college, and basic necessities such as transportation (loans paid to those born wealthy) mean any sort of freedom? Freedom to do what exactly, have no opportunity that does not benefit those born wealthy more than it does you?

Your argument might have more merit if you can explain how so many people who are poor and come from nothing but the clothes on their back and manage to become wealthy. Are they all, each and every one helpless to achieve without the government providing them everything?

As far as "the people" voting democratically to decide what gets done with the wealth created by some of "the people," what makes this mass of people more worthy of taking what I built and struggled for away from my family? Other than force of arms and sheer numbers, that is "might makes right?"

Why should I even try to build something for my family, when I know that it will never get to them, because "the people" decide they're not worthy of it?

My fervent wish is for people with your beliefs to live in the world you want to make, so lomg as I'm lomg dead.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

You know what correlates very, very well with violent crime rates around the world? Wealth disparity.

I absolutely agree. But whilst waiting for wealth disparity in the US to be dealt with (don't hold your breath) removing the guns helps too.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[tompaulco]

How is Data that is already public be leaked? AFIAK the data was public when the website was published, if it was not then that data was out in the open for more then a few days anyway.
The data is public, but not easy to aggregate. Criminals are lazy, but if some do-gooder news agency does the hard work of mapping out the data, the lazy criminal can now just wait until people leave the house and then break in and attempt to steal the weapons. I say attempt because most of the registered gun owners I know keep their guns stored in a gun safe.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Lord Kano]

Heck, the income taxes in the late 50's through the early 80's did just that and the relative proportions of wealth in society remained quite stable. Then we slashed taxes on the high end and now more and more wealth is in fewer and fewer hands.

In the 50s, it wasn't unusual for a family to not have home telephone service. Through the early-mid 80s, it was usual for middle-class families to only have one television set.

So, yes, the change in tax policy coincided with and perhaps even caused the disparity but the total amount of wealth for all increased.

You're talking about cutting off your own nose to spite your face. You don't want the rich guys to have so much more than you do, but you don't seem to understand that you would have less too.

LK

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Lord Kano]

As far as the fairness of a 100% inheritance tax, what does that do to the families of entrepreneurs who build companies in their lifetimes, sometimes huge billion-dollar companies that employ thousands of people and provide goods and services for millions?

What's ironic is that high inheritance tax rates empower corporations over small-medium sized businesses. A corporation will never age, never die, never have hairs. So while the government is extracting 25-50% of the value of a company every time an owner dies, corporations are just motoring along and paying the minimum tax allowed by law.

I do not wish to put words in the GP's mouth, but it's been my observation that people who want higher tax rates are often concerned with the domination that corporations have begun to wield over our society.

LK

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny thing is, your impression is more accurate than the majority of Americans, pro or anti gun ownership. That is indeed the purpose. Granted, it's not exactly politically correct to say so. Hunting or "sporting" has no bearing on the right to own firearms. Technically, neither does self-defense. Although my state specifically includes self defense as a right in its constitution. They may be implied as secondary purposes.

Our Supreme Court acknowledges this, barely. Our Executive branch by and large actively does not. Our legislative branch tries to ignore it. Virtually no anti-gun person acknowledges this. The overwhelming majority of pro-gun folks don't either. But it's still relevant. The last time it came into play was the Battle of Athens (1946).

Citizens of McMinn County, TN waged a small scale war against the local corrupt government. You will never read about it in a history book. WWII vets tried to run a non-partisan election against the corrupt local government. The corrupt local government refused to allow public count of the votes and engaged in voter suppression. Specifically, a Sheriff's deputy shot Tom Gillespie, an elderly black farmer attempting to vote, in the back. To which the vets basically reacted with "oh it's bloody on now". Then they laid siege to the police department. The vets raided the local NG armories as well as obtained personal weapons. The police surrendered after the veterans bombed the jail with dynamite.

The "insurgents" locked the police in their prison for their safety ( and released them immediately after things calmed down), publicly counted the liberated votes, returned government weapons to the armory (after cleaning them) and instituted reforms after the election to limit corruption. On one hand, it's an isolated incident. On the other hand, this is an example of why the Second Amendment was incorporated as a fundamental enumerated right. The local government used violence to suppress the rights of the citizenry, the citizenry tried to vote them out, the local government tried to ignore the votes, and the citizenry forced the local government to follow the democratic process.

History doesn't have to be boring. I always wonder why things like this were never taught in my history classes.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Outta_the_way_peck!]

Probably because it is necessary to have a gun just to walk outside, unless you want to be eaten by a bear. Also, I'm pretty sure Alaska has the highest crime rate per capita in the US (at least for rapes and murders). There are loads of nutcases just living in the woods in tents.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[shutdown -p now]

its not possible to have one with NRA supporters, its like arguing with a drunk or fundamental religionist, pointless as they they wouldn't change their mind in the face of evidence.

It's not possible to have one with a typical gun control proponent, either, because they also don't change their mind in the face of evidence. The problem is that advocacy groups on both sides are fond of citing cherry-picked evidence that supports their argument, and ignoring the rest. For example, Brady's like to talk about "firearm injuries and fatalities", ignoring the fact that this statistic includes all legitimate self-defense uses, and also ignoring all other means of incurring said injuries (which might well go up as firearm-related ones go down - e.g. in Australia, next year after the gun ban, firearm suicide rate went down sharply, but overall suicide rate actually went up by 10%). On the other hand, NRA likes to ignore suicides and accidents, and focus solely on homicides and violent crimes. They also love to quote high violent crime and murder rates for states with strict gun control laws, like New York and Illinois (which is true), and present it as evidence that fewer guns mean more crime, while conveniently ignoring states with liberal gun laws that also have similar crime rates (like Texas and Arizona).

If you actually look at the entire wealth of data available to us without cherry-picking, across countries and country subdivisions, as well as comparing the data before and after gun laws are enacted in various locations, there are three points to be made:

- gun availability (roughly speaking, how easy it is to buy a gun) does not correlate with violent crime at all - note that this includes murder rate, which counts fatalities from killing sprees;
- higher gun ownership rate weakly correlates with lower violent crime, but it seems to be a US-specific phenomenon, and there are reasons to doubt a causative link (too many other factors involved, esp. socioeconomic ones);
- higher gun ownership rate weakly correlates with higher suicide rate, though that is not universal (Australia was one example where it didn't).

What you take away from these three points is up to you.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[shutdown -p now]

your assertion about Swiss not having ammo is wrong. They can buy it at ranges and gun stores

To the best of my knowledge, specifically the kind of ammo that is used to feed their service rifles (i.e 5.56), can only be purchased at ranges, and can only be used there - you can't take it home.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Mab_Mass]

Your argument might have more merit if you can explain how so many people who are poor and come from nothing but the clothes on their back and manage to become wealthy. Are they all, each and every one helpless to achieve without the government providing them everything?

The argument is not that it is absolutely impossible to achieve if you come from a poor background. That argument is patently false, as you well know.

I think what the previous poster was getting at was the fact that if you take two people of equal ability and plop one down in a rich family and one down in a poor family, it is extremely likely that the person in the richer family will end going to college, finding a better job, etc. whereas the person in the poorer situation is much more likely to turn to crime as the best way of getting by.

I think that to a certain extent, a certain amount of such disparity is unavoidable, but I also think that we should, as a society, try to avoid these kinds of differences as much as possible by investing in schools, healthcare, etc. to try to give each person an equal chance at success.

How to create equal opportunities is a much larger discussion...

Re:rob this person for guns here

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's not capitalism!

Sure, a poor guy might turn to crime. But if society was truly capitalist, that's no problem - because all the rich guys would have hired guards and advanced security systems to protect them from the poor guy!

The poor guy won't manage to steal much, if anything, and remain poor. Poor guy either resigns themselves to that fate, or smarten up and actually change his behavior (i.e stop being a criminal)

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

You know what correlates very, very well with violent crime rates around the world? Wealth disparity.

I absolutely agree. But whilst waiting for wealth disparity in the US to be dealt with (don't hold your breath) removing the guns helps too.

As far as studies have been able to determine, neither rate of gun ownership, nor any gun control laws have had any significant impact on violent crime levels, so... no not really. Maybe you'd like that to be true, maybe you believe it to be true, but the science just doesn't back it up.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

Your argument might have more merit if you can explain how so many people who are poor and come from nothing but the clothes on their back and manage to become wealthy. Are they all, each and every one helpless to achieve without the government providing them everything?

Sure people manage that, but statistically, it is not really relevant. Some short people are excellent basketball players, that doesn't mean you're not an idiot if you build your team based upon that as a premise. In general, taxation levels that don't balance wealth condensation simply result in long term instability and wealth consolidating into fewer hands until the system collapses.

As far as "the people" voting democratically to decide what gets done with the wealth created by some of "the people," what makes this mass of people more worthy of taking what I built and struggled for away from my family?

Because your family starting out with more than some other family is unfair, just as the king's family starting with more legal power than any other family is unfair. By your argument why shouldn't president Obama be able to name his children as president after his term, after all he worked hard to become president. Who are you to say he can't pass it on to his family?

Why should I even try to build something for my family, when I know that it will never get to them, because "the people" decide they're not worthy of it?

That's fine. Don't build something for your family. Build it for society and make the whole of society better for your family and everyone else's. Or don't. That's your prerogative.

My fervent wish is for people with your beliefs to live in the world you want to make, so lomg[sic] as I'm lomg[sic] dead.

Well get to it then chum.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

In the 50s, it wasn't unusual for a family to not have home telephone service. Through the early-mid 80s, it was usual for middle-class families to only have one television set.

And then technology advanced and become more commoditized and cheaper.

So, yes, the change in tax policy coincided with and perhaps even caused the disparity but the total amount of wealth for all increased.

Not really, people make less in inflation adjusted dollars than they used to, well most people. A small subset off people make orders of magnitude more.

You're talking about cutting off your own nose to spite your face. You don't want the rich guys to have so much more than you do, but you don't seem to understand that you would have less too.

You are going to need to support that hypothesis. What we were talking about wanting was lower violent crime, and places with less wealth disparity have it. They also seem to have just as many televisions and telephones in the average home as we do... plus more effective health care, better upward mobility, etc. The american dream exists, it's just been moved overseas where there is now better chance of moving up the ladder than in the U.S., for shame.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

Comparing rate of gun ownership with numbers of violent crimes is naive. A violent crime consisting of someone being shot is clearly worse than someone getting punched or stabbed. And all the statistical evidence is that more people do get shot when gun ownership is up.

Unfortunately most of the stuff you'll find if you google is pro-gun blogs interpreting the limited data to their own advantage. What is really needed is rigorous scientific study, including measuring raw data, not just adapting what scant resources are already out there. Unfortunately as such science tends to back the gun control lobby, the pro-gun lobby cynically pushed through legislation banning the government from financing such proper research.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[CptNerd]

Wow, that's...

So many assumptions, so flawed...

I assume you don't have children? And likely don't want any? If you do, are you planning to leave them destitute when you die, so that they can "work for a living", starting from zero? And you want others to go along with that idea for their families, enforced by state seizure of estates? Your ideas are frightening, you want to trade liberty for "fairness." God help us if you succeed.

Based on the assumptions you seem to be making, it appears you believe that there is a limited amount of wealth, that it isn't created by effort, and that someone who has more "didn't build that" and thus doesn't deserve it.

Have you lived as a citizen of these supposed "successful" meritocracies you believe exist? Which ones, and when?

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

Comparing rate of gun ownership with numbers of violent crimes is naive. A violent crime consisting of someone being shot is clearly worse than someone getting punched or stabbed.

I disagree. It's not clear at all. For example, murder is murder, but according to your hypothesis murder rates would go up with rates of gun ownership, since "being shot is clearly worse" and you don't get much worse than death. But that correlation does not happen. By singling out "gun violence" you logically misstate the problem due to your own assumption that anything involving guns is worse somehow.

And all the statistical evidence is that more people do get shot when gun ownership is up.

Allow me to demonstrate in a hypothetical example the flaw in this measure. An axe murderer breaks into an elementary school. Lax gun laws mean the teacher is packing. He shoots the axe murderer. By your measure that means no statistic is entered into our equation. Now imagine strict gun laws prevent him from having a gun and he kills the teacher and a dozen children. By your measure no statistic is entered into our equation. Despite this gun control laws make a difference of over a dozen murders. Do you see the flaw in your approach? You're intentionally ignoring the data because you've focused on only part of part of the problem, ignoring even direct consequences of the laws you promote.

And all the statistical evidence is that more people do get shot when gun ownership is up.

Yes, that's true. More successful suicides in general as well. But in many instances you also have somewhat lower overall violent crime and fewer murders.

Unfortunately most of the stuff you'll find if you google is pro-gun blogs interpreting the limited data to their own advantage.

Yes, and you hear just as misguided limited interpretations of the data from "the other side" yourself included. You were just arguing that we should be limiting the data to only crimes with guns, instead of considering the whole problem and real solutions. Just the other day I heard reporters mention that the National Science Foundation study in the US found no correlation between any gun control laws and the level of murders or violent crimes imposed. The reporter interpreted this to mean that we should pass gun control laws in addition to other laws and thus they will be effective. What was that opinion based on? It was just a justification for ignoring the scientific evidence he just presented.

What is really needed is rigorous scientific study, including measuring raw data, not just adapting what scant resources are already out there.

There has been significant study and I'm certainly in favor of more, but don't mistake data you don't like or which does not support your preconceived opinions with lack of data. We have data, but you have not used it to form your opinions, but have dismissed it because it does not re-inforce those opinions.

Unfortunately as such science tends to back the gun control lobby, the pro-gun lobby cynically pushed through legislation banning the government from financing such proper research.

I've heard this myth repeated a great deal lately and you'd think people would be more informed when discussing this particular article. Legislation was passed to stop the CDC from collecting information about this because people were concerned when the CDC started building a database of personally identifiable information on gun owners, you know kind of like the one this article is about and which the government released to the public before public outrage made them change the policy. Other government agencies and government grants have been part of gun control studies for decades (like the NSF study I just mentioned).

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

For example, murder is murder, but according to your hypothesis murder rates would go up with rates of gun ownership, since "being shot is clearly worse" and you don't get much worse than death. But that correlation does not happen.

Yes it does.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2007/01/6601/

Legislation was passed to stop the CDC from collecting information about this because people were concerned when the CDC started building a database of personally identifiable information on gun owners

It was the CDC, But I see no evidence for that. Indeed if it was that, they could have simply banned the collection of such personally identifiable information. The truth is the ban came about simply because of lobbying by the NRA, because they dislike data which shows gun control is a good thing.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[ninetyninebottles]

You seem to have failed to respond to my points.Do you now accept that violent crime is a much more useful measure of the efficacy of particular legislation?

Yes it does. http://arstechnica.com/science/2007/01/6601/ [arstechnica.com]

Have you read that "study". It tries to control for so many factors it basically looks like they are obscuring the numbers and it certainly does not correlate with international numbers. I can't even find what the un-adjusted numbers they used were.

Legislation was passed to stop the CDC from collecting information about this because people were concerned when the CDC started building a database of personally identifiable information on gun owners

It was the CDC, But I see no evidence for that. Indeed if it was that, they could have simply banned the collection of such personally identifiable information. The truth is the ban came about simply because of lobbying by the NRA, because they dislike data which shows gun control is a good thing.

You assign motives that are not that stated motives and which don't even seem to make sense. Yes, the NRA was lobbying for action to stop the CDC and yes they got it. That does not by any means mean that the results of any study would have been contradictory to all the other major studies that don't seem to find any real benefit to gun control laws aside from lowering the rate of successful suicides, but it certainly did stop the collection of data about gun owners and for all we know may have prevented that information from being released to the detriment of many people's right to privacy. After all, that is what this article is about. The government cannot be trusted with this data, as demonstrated. More scientific study is needed, but certainly we need more precautions about the type of data and we need real evidence gun control laws will have a positive instead of negative effect before we pass some law out of empathy for children that would not have been helped by that law in the first place.

Re:rob this person for guns here

[BasilBrush]

You seem to have failed to respond to my points.Do you now accept that violent crime is a much more useful measure of the efficacy of particular legislation?

No. And my previous post told you exactly why. Nothing you said changed that.

Have you read that "study". It tries to control for so many factors it basically looks like they are obscuring the numbers and it certainly does not correlate with international numbers. I can't even find what the un-adjusted numbers they used were.

It has numbers you don't like.

Yes, the NRA was lobbying for action to stop the CDC and yes they got it. That does not by any means mean that the results of any study would have been contradictory to all the other major studies that don't seem to find any real benefit to gun control laws aside from lowering the rate of successful suicides

That is misstating the balance of the evidence out there. As I already said, the problem is that the internet is flooded with NRA and other pro-gun sites and blogs, virtually all of which distort and cherry pick. The only reason the NRA opposed the CDC doing research is that they don't like the truth. It has nothing to do with personally identifiable information. Research studies publish statistics, not names and addresses.

Go USA

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pro-war, pro-torture, pro-nuclear weapons, pro-life and a fervent supporter of freedom of speech as long as that speech doesn't concern me.

Re:Go USA

[Iamthecheese]

Straw men, straw men everywhere. Not to mention hyperbole, ad hominem, argument from ignorance, proof by verbosity, shifting the burden of proof... I could go on and on. but I won't bother. I just said this so anyone reading your post would stop and think a minute.

Now crawl back under your bridge.

Re:Go USA

[Hentes]

Freedom of speech guarantees speech free of governmental censorship. It doesn't defend you from public opinion. If anything, this case strenghtened free speech because it showed its opponents that even without governmental oversight, unacceptable speech is not without consequences.

Re:Go USA

[Let's All Be Chinese]

That merely lists the main ingredients for what appears to be the gold standard for political discourse in the country. Including that last bit. Yes.

Re:Go USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Meds...

Re:Go USA

[AndyKron]

Don't forget Obama ordering the murders of Americans overseas without due process.

Re:Go USA

[Bengie]

I remember that one. Those "Americans" were bunking up with known terrorists that had explosives and military weapons and were already about to be bombed. The military was about to do a surgical strike on the terrorists when they found out some US citizens decided to stay over and help them with bomb making and it went all the way up to the President to find out if they should continue with their strike.

I'm sorry, but if some US citizens decided to head over to Russia during the war, I don't see why we should have stopped our attacks against a known enemy just because someone decided to defect.

If they were kidnapped, that would be one thing, but to be a traitor is entirely another. Throughout history, most countries treated traitors worse than enemies.

Re:Go USA

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but, how do you know? You need men on the ground that are able to make a determination that they aren't in jail and are in fact helping, and even then, how do you know they're not helping from jail? It takes time to verify this. How do you know they haven't been kidnapped and then went stockholm syndrome on their captors? That's kind of a grey area.. You can't just decide that they're enemy combatants without at least some semblance of a trial.

Own goal?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're proving that they're responsible adults who can handle a device designed to kill people, by threatening violence against those who publish publically available records?

please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

more children are killed by firearms each year than by the people listed in certain databases who have already fully paid their debt to society yet will continue to be persecuted by the public, by the media and by the government, forever.

Re:please think of the children

[arth1]

Thus speaks someone who thinks with his guts and not his brain.

When did all sex offenders become pedophiles? Most of them are not.

When did all pedophiles become criminals? Most of them never commit any crimes. You don't commit rapes because you are sexually attracted to women (or men), do you?

Do you know the recidivism rate for child molestation compared to other crimes? Like, for instance, gun crime?

Did you know that when you are willing to deny some people their rights, you also say that it's okay to deny you your rights when you disgust enough people?

All violent/abusive crimes are bad, whether they're sexual or not. But people are capable of changing for the better, which is why we do not give them life in prison, and consider their debt to society paid when they have served their sentence. In civilized societies, at least.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, because most sex offenders do other things like molest, rape, etc. If they were killers, they'd still be in jail.

Re:please think of the children

[Gordonjcp]

It's true! <These> kill more children each year than pedophiles, so let's ban those!

To be fair, I don't think foot fetishists kill many children at all. It's kind of not their thing.

Re:please think of the children

[thomasw_lrd]

We are not denying them their rights, when they commit a crime and break the law, they are voluntarily giving up their rights.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

a) It was obviously a joke. A very bad joke.

b) Do not feed the trolls.

Thank you.

Re:please think of the children

[swillden]

We are not denying them their rights, when they commit a crime and break the law, they are voluntarily giving up their rights.

What rights, and for how long? There's a prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in the Bill of Rights for a reason; the punishment must fit the crime. In the case of sex crimes, the lifelong punishment that comes after all jail time has been served, fines paid, etc. is almost always excessive.

Re:please think of the children

[thomasw_lrd]

All of their rights. It may be cruel, but it's not unusual, (in the sense that all felons are subject to it) It may not even be cruel. Cruel and unusual is one of those open to intrepretation like freedom of religion, or the right to bear arms.
In my limited understanding (I've never bothered to look it up) all felons lose the right to own firearms, and to vote. I think these are sensible precautions, to protect society from lawlessness. I still propose that the rights are not taken from them, but that they are voluntarily giving them up by comitting a crime. It's a nuanced statement for sure, but again, it's correct to me in my limited understanding, I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this way, and I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks I'm wrong.

Thank God for the our First Amendment rights to have this discussion.

Re:please think of the children

[Bengie]

more children are killed by [illegal] firearms each year.

Please tell me how making more laws will stop illegal firearms.

Re:please think of the children

[ganjadude]

fire arms do not kill anyone actually. The person holding it does. Just to clear that up for you. thanks

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

More children are killed each year by swimming pools than firearms. Time to ban all swimming pools?
More children are killed each year by automobiles than firearms. Time to ban all automobiles?
More children are killed each day by abortions (average 300 per day in the USA) than by firearms in a year. Time to ban all abortions?

Re:please think of the children

[__aaltlg1547]

more children are killed by firearms each year than by the people listed in certain databases who have already fully paid their debt to society yet will continue to be persecuted by the public, by the media and by the government, forever.

... despite recidivism rates for sex offenders being lower than for other categories of crime and recidivism rates for child molesters being lower than for sex offenders in general. It does call into question the need for maintaining these registries.

Re:please think of the children

[arielCo]

consider their debt to society paid when they have served their sentence. In civilized societies

That's a concept that never made sense to me. How is sitting in jail "paying" or redressing the damage? Dissuasive punishment in some cases, preventive reeducation in some others, but sure nobody's getting compensated beyond some ill talionic reward.

Killing them is a sharper example of this futile sense of "justice", beside making that society less civilized.

Re:please think of the children

[GrumpySteen]

People who commit a crime think they'll get away with it. They aren't agreeing to get caught, much less give up their rights.

If you can't hold it and step behind some bushes to pee and get spotted by a ten year old kid, you can be convicted of indecent exposure in most states. That can get you placed on a sex offender list for life in many states (some, like Colorado, came to their senses and created a second crime for non-sexual exposure which is neither a sex crime nor a felony). Once you're on the sex offender list, your name, address and photo would be made available to anyone who cares to look for registered sex offenders in the area you live in. In some places, you'd no longer be able to live within 1000 feet of a school or day care center. You'd have to tell anyone you were trying to rent from that you were a convicted sex offender, too, so most places wouldn't take you as a tenant. It's also a felony, so you'd no longer be able to own a gun or vote. You'd be required to admit that you were convicted sex offender on job applications, which would severely limit your employment opportunities. The list of long-term affects on your life goes on and on, but basically you're screwed for life.

Cruel and unusual is a fitting description.

Do you really think that you would have been agreeing to all that when you decided to step behind a bush and take a leak? Of course not. You'd have thought you wouldn't be seen and it would be okay.

Re:please think of the children

[Luckyo]

When someone commits a crime, that means they break law(s) set by society. Civilized Western countries (in this case, as with most cases related to criminal law being even remotely reasonable, US is not on the list) tend to have a legal process which causes loss of ability to inflict any more crimes of this nature for a period during which they try to rehabilitate that citizen so he will not commit those crimes when his freedom to act is restored.

This should not cause loss of any rights not directly related to the said crime. They are still humans, and still citizens of the country with all the legal protection granted to all other citizens.

US has a strong history of frontier justice due to its very recent colonial past, which causes it to have a very skewed "punish for vengeance, not prevention and rehabilitation" culture largely absent in most of the world. Restriction of rights not related to crime is VENGEANCE, not REHABILITATION. In vast majority of the Western world, avenging crimes by society is viewed as uncivilized brutality. A great example of this is Norway and its handling of Breivik.

It's one of the major cultural clashes that US tends to have with other countries, and one of the main reasons why prison populations in US are completely different from those in rest of Western world.

Re:please think of the children

[Luckyo]

It's not just highly unusual, it's pretty much unique to US. There are some very poor former colonies with similar laws, but these tend to not have most of the rights for their citizens in the first place.

Re:please think of the children

[Barsteward]

"fire arms do not kill anyone actually. The person holding it does."

that is the most bollox of arguments because if the person held a banana instead of a gun, the banana wouldn;t have killed anyone

Re:please think of the children

[tranquilidad]

The unintended consequences of sex-offender registration and publication continue to ripple throughout society.

It's easy to think, I'm not a pedophile or rapist so I never have to worry about it. On the other hand, have you ever urinated in a public area such as a golf course.

It used to be a citation for urinating in public. Now it's indecent exposure and, upon conviction, requires registration as a sex offender which not only causes your name to be published but restricts where you can live. Some states (http://www.shazamlaw.com/Articles/Colorado-Bill-Aims-to-Stop-Sex-Offender-Registration-for-Public-Urination-Streaking.shtml) are working on changing their laws.

I play golf and I've had to warn fellow players to be quite careful that they not be seen while taking a break else risk becoming registered sex offenders.

Re:please think of the children

[drinkypoo]

We are not denying them their rights, when they commit a crime and break the law, they are voluntarily giving up their rights.

Congratulations, you walked into the minefield! Here's the thing. Our founding documents talk about inalienable human rights and you want to deprive people of those. You can't do that without dehumanizing them, because these rights are supposed to be inherent to humans. Incidentally, that's why foreigners have first amendment rights in the USA — our rights are human rights. And (at risk of flamebaiting) that's why the battle for gay rights is so critical — they're being relegated to subhuman status by being denied rights which the rest of us take for granted today.

So, either rights are human rights, which means that we all get them even if we commit a crime, or rights are just on paper, which is increasingly how people seem to want it to work in this country. If you're not guaranteed a right in the constitution, you're guaranteed to have an uphill battle if TPTB conflict with your desire to exercise it. The right to keep and bear arms is the right to reasonable self-defense against criminals and yes, even tyranny. Ask people whose people have been forcibly disarmed how they feel about gun control. They have the most valid opinion. They will tell you that it was not a good thing.

So it doesn't matter if we're talking about the right to free expression, or the right to meaningful self-defense, or the right to due process — if you're denying people these supposedly "human" rights, then you're potentially denying them to yourself on basically any basis. These rights are meant to be inalienable — I do not think you know what that word means.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

"When did all pedophiles become criminals? Most of them never commit any crimes."

Do you think before you talk? By definition, a pedophile is a criminal. He/She has either directly taken advantage of children, or supported the taking advantage of children, either by producing sexually explicit material of children or consuming it. And it doesn't have to be hardcore in the traditional sense, merely taking a picture of a naked child and then taking it home to wank is a crime. Stripping them down naked strictly for the purpose of seeing them naked is a crime. Looking at pictures of naked children because you enjoy it is a crime. If you need me to explain why simply looking at pictures is a crime, I can, but the short answer is, it creates a demand.

Re:please think of the children

[ganjadude]

Agreed, no one said one did. but if you dont think someone could kill you with a banana if they REALLY wanted to you need to think a little harder. point being, if someone wants to kill you, they are going to try to do so.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

All of their rights.

All, huh?

The right to a trial by jury, for example? The right to exercise freedom of speech? The right to petition the government, and to have access to the courts for civil grievances?

Maybe you ought to ask God for the sense to realize what you're advocating.

Re:please think of the children

[swillden]

In my limited understanding (I've never bothered to look it up) all felons lose the right to own firearms, and to vote.

But after a few years, felons can get their rights restored through a judicial process. Good luck ever getting your name off the sex offender registry.

Keep in mind also, that many of the registered sex offenders committed such heinous acts as having sex with their girlfriend when they were both under age, or taking a leak in what they thought was an empty field, with no one to see. It's also worth considering that many of those on the registries are actually innocent. The consequences of the major sex crimes are so terrifying that DAs find it very easy to plea bargain for a guilty plea to a misdemeanor. Given the choice between pleading to a misdemeanor you didn't commit, with a fine and community service, and going to trial for a felony that would put you in jail for the rest of your life, what would you -- as an innocent man who didn't commit any of the crimes -- choose to do? Of course, only later do you discover that your plea bargain has put you on the registry for life... and with all of the details of your supposed crime kindly omitted to protect your privacy.

This stuff really happens. A lot. The system is badly broken.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition a pedophile is:

A person who is sexually attracted to children.

You can be sexually attracted to children without looking at naked pictures of children or having sex with children. The definition for being a pedophile does not say anything other than being sexually attracted to children. It is quite possible to be a pedophile without having committed a crime.

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

More children are killed each year by swimming pools than firearms. Time to ban all swimming pools? More children are killed each year by automobiles than firearms. Time to ban all automobiles? More children are killed each day by abortions (average 300 per day in the USA) than by firearms in a year. Time to ban all abortions?

Children are still killed by guns, right? Who gives a damn about your statistics? Not me. If one innocent is killed that's one too many. Period. Make cars safer. Make pools safer. However it gets done, get it done. Hold the adult pool owners fully responsible for fencing in and locking up the access to their unattended pool, no excuses, or do not have a pool. If an unsecured gun is left lying around and in any way kills a kid, have punitive laws on the books already and lock up that gun owner for life. Because if they had taken their gun ownership responsibilities seriously, that gun would never had been accessible to harm that innocent kid.

This weekend in the U.S., 4 idiot gun nuts were shot accidentally at 3 seperate gun show events, non life threatening 'accidental' discharges. Assholes with guns. It would be funny if it wasn't so serious

Re:please think of the children

[NoOneInParticular]

Yeah sure. "Guns don't kill people, gun owners do". And that makes gun owners non-dangerous how exactly?

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps if they're necropaedopedophiles? (try and say that five times fast!)

Re:please think of the children

[nschubach]

Scarlet Letters, Red Crosses, Peeing On a Tree... humans are no different from dogs when it comes to trying to take ownership of things that are not theirs. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for doing it (power? control?) but it's all the same. If they can publicly 'shame' you to drum up fear, they think others will fall in line.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold the adult pool owners fully responsible for fencing in and locking up the access to their unattended pool, no excuses, or do not have a pool.

How about hold the gun owner responsible for locking access of their unattended firearm? Oh wait, that is already the case.

Lawful gun owner that has a permit are responsible already. Fuck off.

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

Hold the adult pool owners fully responsible for fencing in and locking up the access to their unattended pool, no excuses, or do not have a pool.

How about hold the gun owner responsible for locking access of their unattended firearm? Oh wait, that is already the case.

Lawful gun owner that has a permit are responsible already. Fuck off.

A permit is just not enough obviously. Make the laws stricter and penalties much much harsher for irresponsible gun owners. And if gun owners don't/can't/won't abide by the stricter gun control laws, then they MUST turn them in for smelting. We will have to go through several years of news stories about the latest asshole survivalist mental patient who holed up in his apartment and died in a shootout with SWAT teams. After a few years of full on violence by the assholes who should never have had access to guns to begin with, it will be a rare news story of a maniac with a gun killing innocent people/kids that we have to hear about. "F" me??! "F" you! Find yourself a different 'hobby' for yourself, fool. One that doesn't involve harming living things. I suggest you take up tennis. It's healthy for you, and the odds of harming/killing someone with an errant tennis 'shot' are nil!

Re:please think of the children

[__aaltlg1547]

Scarlet Letters, Red Crosses, Peeing On a Tree... humans are no different from dogs when it comes to trying to take ownership of things that are not theirs. I'm sure there's a psychological reason for doing it (power? control?) but it's all the same. If they can publicly 'shame' you to drum up fear, they think others will fall in line.

And it's true to some extent. I think people probably are deterred from committing sex crimes (sometimes) by the fear of such sanctioned social punishments.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that gets removed during an abortion is not yet a child.

Then why do we have laws that make it a crime for a pregnant woman who abuses drugs and chemically harms her unborn baby?

Then why do we have laws that if someone causes a car wreck and kills a pregnant woman, the person who causes the wreck is charged with TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Always more stricter? When doest it stop? When your fantasy of hiding all firearm is fulfilled of course. If you got a problem with mental health then discuss mental health issues.

And for the record I don't own nor ever used any firearms. I am just stick of that sterile debate that only serve as an excuse to avoid debating the real problems. Fuck off

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

So what you're saying is someone that has shot someone while robbing a bank should have the right to a firearm after they get out of prison? A mentally ill person should have the right to a firearm? A person that has raped a child should be allowed to chill on the jungle gym at the playground after he gets out of prison?

You wouldn't happen to fall into one of those categories, would you?

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

Always more stricter? When doest it stop? When your fantasy of hiding all firearm is fulfilled of course. If you got a problem with mental health then discuss mental health issues.

And for the record I don't own nor ever used any firearms. I am just stick of that sterile debate that only serve as an excuse to avoid debating the real problems. Fuck off

Enough with your "f yous", angry boy. You know when it "doest"stop-eths? When no one in this country has been killed by an angry person with a too easily accesible firearm. And it's going to take a longish time to implement the needed stricter firearm laws/penalties. 30 years or so ago drunk driving wasn't a crime, todays laws mean you risk losing everything if you're found to be driving while under the influence of substances (prescripton/illegal drugs and alcohol (also a 'drug'). And those laws are good ones that have prevented preventable deaths/injuries from happening. Now it's time for our society to take another "big adult step" in its evolution by creating the means needed to begin reducing such easy access to killing machines.

FYI, I am a former gun owner. My thinking about guns has evolved over the years. Time to realize that imurders by gun have gotten way out of hand, and it's a problem that needs to get fixed, asap! So some gun owners who (for whatever reason) are found to not deserve the 'priveledge' (it should not be a right, but a priveledge, imo) of owning a gun and aren't allowed to own a killing weapon anymore. I will applaud that as loudly as I applaud it every time a drunk/addict has their driving priviledges taken from them, and that's loud applause from me.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

So start proposing a repeal of the Second Amendment. Be honest.

Re:please think of the children

[drinkypoo]

You wouldn't happen to fall into one of those categories, would you?

I've seen a lot of this on Slashdot lately. So far it's mostly been from anonymous cowards like you without the courage of your convictions (I use this phrase a lot lately, I admit, but I like it a lot) so I'm not that worried about it — but I am a little worried to see it pass so easily. In any case, no, I have never been to prison or even jail for any offense, nor have I ever abused a firearm. I am not mentally ill nor am I any kind of sex offender.

To answer your actual question: If we can't trust people with a gun then we can't trust them in the general population.

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

So start proposing a repeal of the Second Amendment. Be honest.

The founding fathers never envisioned semi-automatic weapons. Musket rifles were inaccurate and single shot weapons that took an expert at least a full minute to reload. How about you come to realize that the 1700's are long over, and arguments that were valid at that time are not applicable to modern weaponry and modern society?

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

a pedophile is a criminal. He/She has either directly taken advantage of children, or supported the taking advantage of children, either by producing sexually explicit material of children or consuming it.

Or they read alt.sex.stories and never touch a single kid or picture of a kid, clothed or not.

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

Totally off topic now, but...

Are you suggesting that when you were a fetus that you were'nt a viable form of life? One that a good society would demand rights to it life, even though you were to immature still to be able to protect yourself? Just wonderin'...

Re:please think of the children

[budgenator]

This could be the first post from you that I completely agree with.

Re:please think of the children

[ChrisMaple]

People who commit crimes (I'm talking about obvious crimes, not tripping over stupidities in the criminal code) understand that they are risking being caught, and that the likely result of being caught is the loss of their freedom or worse. They act voluntarily, understanding the risk. To say "They aren't agreeing to get caught, much less give up their rights." is to say their stepping outside of reality in their mental processes is something we should give serious legal attention to. It's not.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Says the guy utilizing his first amendment rights to post free speech on the Internet, a device/network the likes of which could not possibly have been conceived of at the time the Constitution was drafted.

Re:please think of the children

[ChrisMaple]

A person has human rights because of his presumed properties as a human being, those properties being (among others) being an animal and having a rational faculty. Furthermore, rights are related in degree to the possession of human properties. The right to vote is not granted to those too young to use it rationally. The right to drive a car (yes it's a right, government claims to the contrary notwithstanding) is not granted to people incapable of driving safely (the ability to drive safely being a property of trained human adults.)

A person who (for instance) murders an innocent has lost some portion of his humanity, and when that loss has been proven the state is justified in applying the penalties that apply to the crime, that would violate his rights as a human being, because to the degree that his crime indicates he has not acted as a proper human, he loses the portion of his rights associated with those aspects of humanity he lacks.

To conclude: yes, there are inalienable human rights, and someone who loses his humanity loses his human rights.

Re:please think of the children

[ChrisMaple]

The founders wanted people to have firearms so that people could kill tyrants. Semi-automatic weapons fill that role admirably, and the reasoning is as good and as applicable today as is was then, and will remain so forever.

Re:please think of the children

[ChrisMaple]

Find yourself a different 'hobby' for yourself, fool. One that doesn't involve harming living things.

Gee, you've just told him he can't farm vegetables.

Re:please think of the children

[luminate]

It seems the founding fathers wanted to put private citizens on a relatively even playing field with the government -- understandable considering they had just fought long and hard to free themselves from tyranny. Isn't the risk government oppression still very much a relevant issue today?

I don't get the technology argument at all. Technology certainly has advanced, but if everyone is armed with the latest technology, there's no relative difference from everyone being armed with muskets. Besides, it's simply not true that the only weapons in the late 18th century were single shot. The Girandoni Air Rifle, actively used in the Austrian army for over a decade at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, had a 22 round magazine that could be emptied in about a minute. It even had usable accuracy (could place ten shots into a group the size of a quarter at 50 feet).

Re:please think of the children

[tompaulco]

So, since some people choose to disobey the law, what we should do is make more laws restricting what people who do obey the law can do? Hmm, sounds kind of dumb. How about instead of that, we just go after people who choose to disobey the law?

Re:please think of the children

[bennini]

well if you are going to get technical about it.... the bullet ripping through the victims flesh, bone and organs followed by the ensuing loss of blood kills them.
the idea that the assailant may simply try a different weapon if he doesn't have access to a gun doesn't really hold much water. a gun leaves a victim with essentially no possibility to resist death. if the attacker were using a hammer or knife or banana, the victim would have a much better chance of survival.
in short, yes, guns kill people. the fact that you fail to accept this does not mean it's not true.

Re:please think of the children

[foniksonik]

Except for those times when the person holding isn't in control. You know the five year old who thinks its like a toy and shoots his friend in the face or the drunk teens messing around in the back yard. You know those people - the "accidental" deaths. I'd say those deaths were caused by guns, not people.

Guns are lethal. Much like toxic chemicals, poisons, many drugs, biological substances like virii and bacteria cultures and all the other things out there that can kill others through basic negligence and irresponsibility. There is a whole list of stuff we don't let average people own - because they can't be responsible enough to own them. They don't have the environment, equipment or training to use them safely. Guns should be on that list too.

Would you want your neighbor to have Anthrax in a fridge in the garage? He has a piece of paper saying he's allowed to. He just wants it in case he needs to use it to protect his family against bio-oppression from the government. In the meanwhile he enjoys growing new strains and trying to create treatments for them, competitively of course (it's a sport really). The fridge is on a GFCI plug so it's safe and he's got a padlock on the door.

Yeah that sounds a little insane right? Well that's what private gun ownership sounds like to me. You want sport, rent one at a club or range. You want self protection, get a taser or a dog (plenty of non-lethal options). You feel like you need a gun to protect freedom, join the military (unless you're afraid you'll be brainwashed and used to oppress your own neighbors of course).

Private citizens with guns make the world more dangerous by adding more chances for accidents and mistakes to happen. Private citizens can't be responsible. They just don't have the time or resources to properly own and maintain guns. They have messy lives filled with emotion and as their livelihood does not depend on treating guns with the respect they deserve, things happen. Things happen and people die.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms because "a well-regulated militia is necessary". This has nothing to do with the National Guard. Well-regulated means well-trained: in order that there be a body of well-trained men available to form militias, people can have guns. The clear implication is that the guns that people can (should?) have are whatever is standard issue for an infantryman. In modern terms, a semi-automatic rifle will do just fine.

In Heller, the Supreme Court affirmed that the traditional and natural right to self-defense is encompassed by the second amendment. In other words, it's not just about militias, or hunting - you explicitly have the right to defend yourself with a gun.

There's no constitutional problem with reasonable regulation - banning full-auto, surface-to-air missiles and nukes isn't a problem, and there are certainly gun regulations that can be constitutional. But "reasonable regulation" can't eliminate weapons that it is reasonable to want for self-defense. So what's reasonable? It's not reasonable to expect one man to have to defend against an army, but home invasions commonly involve two or three criminals. So what is reasonable for a person to have to defend against three large, aggressive men? It might take multiple hits to stop an aggressor (cf. the recent case of a woman hitting a single assailant 5 times. He escaped and drove off in his car.), and the victim's aim is likely to be poor with a system full of adrenaline. It's far from clear to me that 10 rounds is adequate.

And then we come to the kicker. By construction, any weapon suitable for a (scared, panicking) person to defend him or herself against three assailants with is equally suitable for executing 10 or so innocents in cold blood. So if you allow people to own an adequate defensive weapon, then by construction they own equipment suitable for a mass killing.

[For what it's worth, my personal choice for a home defense weapon would be a carbine in .40 S&W or .45 ACP, with as big a magazine as I could manage. (Handguns aren't accurate enough. The extra lever arm of a long gun is a huge benefit, specially to the non-expert, and a short carbine is a reasonable compromise between lever arm and maneuverability indoors. The recoil on a pistol-caliber carbine is low enough that my wife will fire more than one shot. A shotgun wouldn't be a bad choice, but it's not my preference. I could make a reasonable case for an FN PS-90, if you let me have the 50-round magazine.)]

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

Nice reply there, I happen to agree with you, except for the high capacity magazines arguement, there's no need for 50plus mags unless you are in a war. You sound like a rational citizen, the gun arguement will go on forever, the genie's long out of that bottle. I have no problem with responsible gun owners. I've known hunters who are great people, and have gone along with them on deer and rabbit hunting excursions, although I've never needed to kill an animal for food (a McDonalds is always down the road).

And having a gun can mean the difference in an encounter with criminals. They can also be taken/wrested away from the (now) victim and used against them. That hunting family I knew, some months after a kick in attempted robbery (where the wife & mother of 3 sons was alone and kept a shotgun aimed at the perp until he left), one day a son calls the work office answering machine where we are eating lunch. His mom had heard someone upstairs and was shooting up there (it was her son), he's asking us to call her downstairs and convince her that it's just him upstairs. She was having some type of psychotic episode that was a direct result from her encounter several months earlier.

The real problem now is how do you determine who is a responsible owner? How can you confirm that they consistently secure their weapons properly? Do waiting and cooling off periods need to be lengthened? No easy answers. Now in the news is the 15 year old New Mexico kid who killed is family members, and they'll be another equally horrible gun violence story again in a few days from now, I'm sure. It's the ease of access that neds to be more locked down.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

If he's holed up in his appartment, just let him be, he's not interacting with anyone in there. Why is the swat attacking him in his home

Besides attacking someone in his home should never be a safe choice, safe choices tend to be abused.

So if swat has trouble raiding people with guns I say good, it will make them think twice about wether or not, a violent assault is the best solution. The more people with guns, the more that's true (and in the vast majority of swat-raids I've read about an armed raid was a needlessly and excesively violent choice of interaction)

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The concept in 2A was to ensure that there was at least a modicum of parity between the governed and the government. It's not about whether or not muskets are valid today. 2A was written as it was to remove the idea of any particular technology being specified. And, contrary to popular liberal notion... they did understand and anticipate that arms technology would advance beyond musketry.

The AR-15 is, in effect, the modern day musket. It provides a level or parity between the special militia and the common militia. It is widely owned by the populace that would be the common militia as intended by the Second Amendment.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and just to correct the errors... muskets during the revolution were almost exclusively not rifles. And an expert musketeer could load and fire on the order of three balls in a minute.

And this notion that somehow a modern society is somehow immune to being abused by its government is ludicrous. The complacency of it blinding. Self-protection against a tyrannical government is as valid today as it was during the revolution. More pertinent, many would say...

Re:please think of the children

[SternisheFan]

Oh, and just to correct the errors... muskets during the revolution were almost exclusively not rifles. And an expert musketeer could load and fire on the order of three balls in a minute.

And this notion that somehow a modern society is somehow immune to being abused by its government is ludicrous. The complacency of it blinding. Self-protection against a tyrannical government is as valid today as it was during the revolution. More pertinent, many would say...

Okay, still, if you had a musket pistol and didn't kill on your first shot I have a fighting chance then to get away or disarm you. When a person can enter a theater or classroom and wipe out most people in it, that is a major concern/problem that needs to get addressed/fixed. Mind you, I don't claim to have the easy solution to this dilemma.

Re:please think of the children

[CAIMLAS]

We attempt to keep child molesters away from children.

We prohibit firearm offenders from possessing firearms. (This is actually more strictly regulated and controlled than keeping molesters away from children.)

Did you have a point?

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The punishment that comes after jail time is not dealt out by judges, so the bill of rights does not apply. People are not required to be friends with sex offenders that "have done their time", for example.

Re:please think of the children

[ganjadude]

And I would say those deaths are a cause of neglect, I dont blame the tool for the fact that a parent does not know how to take care of their own children.

Re:please think of the children

[ganjadude]

Not even going to get into the fact that you have no faith in the individual but put all your trust into the government. The same government that spys on us and our online communications "for the good" the same government that sold guns to criminal cartels in mexico. but sure blame the avg american because some people cant be trusted.

Re:please think of the children

[45mm]

I'll just leave this here for you: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#accidents

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

People who commit a crime think they'll get away with it.

yay, another fucking idiot computer fixer who has no idea what they are talking about. yup, mental illness, including mania, depression, compulsive disorders, and other significantly more severe mental illnesses have no bearing on criminal proclivities. This is why there is no relationship between incarceration and mental illness. you make me fucking sick; its a sad thought that most people base their opinions/votes/dollars on such total, ignorant prejudiced lunacy.

Re:please think of the children

[shutdown -p now]

In my limited understanding (I've never bothered to look it up) all felons lose the right to own firearms, and to vote. I think these are sensible precautions

Losing the right to own firearms is a reasonable precaution, based purely on available statistics - vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people with past criminal convictions.

Losing the right to vote is not, however. It's not dangerous to the society, unless you somehow get into a situation where a significant proportion of your society are criminals (which indicates a problem with your laws). On the other hand, it enables abuse of the system, since it allows the state to disenfranchise people simply by enacting new laws, which require a simple majority in the parliament to pass. In other words, it means that, in a roundabout way 51% can deny the right to vote to the other 49% if they set their mind to it. And we've already seen that in effect with the War on Drugs - it's a stupid policy, and we're slowly seeing it overturned, but how much faster would it happen if hundreds of thousands of recreational users of soft drugs didn't end up with criminal records?

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you need the high-capacity magazine with the PS-90 is that the 5.7x28mm round doesn't have as much stopping power. To guarantee a stop, you need several hits per assailant. 10 in a magazine just doesn't cut it with that round, and 20 would be cutting it a little fine. The 50-round magazine is the standard one supplied with the weapon, but I'd be prepared to accept 30. The reason I'd consider it for a home defense role is that the light round is more easily stopped by the fabric of your house - so there's less risk of accidentally shooting your neighbor through the walls of his house.

Restrict me to 10 rounds in a magazine, and I can't choose that, so I'm probably back to .45 ACP +P in a carbine.
 

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

What on earth is a "musket pistol"? You seem to think that "pistol" is the opposite of "rifle", and you are wrong.
A "rifle" is a long gun with a rifled barrel (grooves cut in the barrel to make the bullet spin). The opposite of "rifle" is "smoothbore" - shotguns and muskets are smoothbore weapons.

Re:please think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

Untreated, the recidivism rate for sex offenders is about 95%. Most treatment programs are nothing more than filters that fiilter out the five percent that are not going to reoffend. The most common way of doing it is by making the treatment difficult enough that only those who are both naive enough to think that some state workers are going to help them, and really dont want to reoffend, will "graduate." I worked downstairs from a treatment center for sex offenders, and according to the rules i had to be available in case they were too short staffed, so I had a lot of the training, so the 95% number was not just invented.
it is true though that there are also people in the sex offender database who did nothing more than took a leak on a tree at a frat party, as the cops were pulling up to bust it.

subject

[Anonymous Coward]

how can one leak data which has been made available through a FOIA request?

Re:subject

[Iamthecheese]

If there should ever be a limit to FOIA this is it. The leaks tell every scum in New York where to steal a weapon.

But you bring up an excellent point.

Re:subject

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a slight difference between publicly available and trivially accessible.

Personally I worry a tiny bit that this will create more of a gray market in gun transactions among people who would've been willing to comply with regulation up to the point where their privacy was threatened.

Re:subject

[watice]

Wouldn't somebody who was worried about their privacy being threatened feel even more threatened by the threat of losing their freedom, and therefore their privacy? NY has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, especially in NYC.

Re:subject

[level_headed_midwest]

The other thing to consider is that the likely reason the newspaper published this list was to invite retaliation against the firearms owners. There also was no legitimate public interest in disclosing these names, such as there would have been if say, you published everybody who made a campaign contribution to $POLITICAL_FIGURE in excess of $AMOUNT. I suggest we publish the telephone numbers, home addresses, and a list of everybody in the households of the newspaper's editorial staff. It's only fair to know who is behind a media outlet and having disproportionate influence on the public, isn't it?

Re:subject

[poity]

When I think of FOIA, I think of individuals keeping tabs on government, not individuals keeping tabs on other individuals. Transparency on what the government does is very much different from transparency on what private citizens do.

Re:subject

[Anonymous Coward]

If there should ever be a limit to FOIA this is it. The leaks tell every scum in New York where to get shot.

FTFY

Re:subject

[Anonymous Coward]

No - limiting FOIA is not the way to go here. It's already hard to get data out of government, and any attempt to limit FOIA surgically to prevent this kind of thing would certainly be perverted into a much worse neutering of FOIA as it stands. If anything, FOIA needs to be opened up.

If, on the other hand, you feel that the government does not need to be compiling these kinds of lists on their citizens in the first place, then that is something that I would fully support.

Re:subject

[spire3661]

NO, the list should have never been compiled in the first place. Place the blame where it belongs, the government for insisting on it.. You are going to find fierce resistance to any weakening of FOIA.

Re:subject

[spire3661]

In the information age, there is no difference between publicly available and trivially accessible. THis is a reality we must accept going forward. There is a whole universe of issues we are going to have to deal with now that ALL data is trivially accessible. Stuffing the genie back into the bottle is not a viable choice.

Re:subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. No one should know anything about what a private citizen is doing unless they have a very good reason to need to know about it. On the other hand, *every* private citizen has a *damned* good reason to know what their government(s) are doing, so they should be able to know unless there's a very, *VERY* good reason why they shouldn't. Not just, 'this might be embarrassing to those in charge', but 'releasing this information might allow the human trafficking ring we're investigating to avoid capture'. Not 'its too hard to compile this information for public consumption', but 'releasing this information has the distinct and demonstrated possibility of actually causing harm to the citizens we serve'.

Re:subject

[Anonymous Coward]

Or which homes not to break into. I read many years ago, somewhere, that statistically most of the americans who were killed during a break-in was shot with their own weapon.

Or the reverse

[sarysa]

It easily be treated as a "don't mess with these folks" list, as well...

Re:Or the reverse

[aurispector]

Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?

What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?

"Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.

Re:Or the reverse

[sentientbeing]

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion.

Unfortunately, there are many people who disagree with you on this.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

As a member of the public, I am interested in if my neighbor had an abortion because I like to gossip. As a matter of fact, while in high school and college when it was found out that a woman/girl had an abortion there was much public interest.

The list doesn't say whether your neighbors are carrying loaded guns, it says that they are legally able to carry guns even though they may not even own guns anymore.

Re:Or the reverse

[JakeBurn]

And what would knowing do for you? Your neighbor, instead of hiding the fact that he has weapons like criminals do, follows the law and registers his legally obtained weapons. This information is already available to see. What people are mad about is when some asshat decides to conveniently collect all of this information so that only criminals have a use for it. Oh, criminals and idiots who think law-abiding citizens should be ostracized or treated differently because they are exercising their rights and acting in a responsible manner.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's none of your business, you paranoid asshole.

Re:Or the reverse

[oodaloop]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons. We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know. Besides, if he has a concealed carry permit, the whole point is that you don't know.

Re:Or the reverse

[arth1]

And what would knowing do for you?

It would tell me who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live, among other things.

I can vote with my feet and my ballots, and my votes go for pacifism.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about the real reverse. Show all names and address of houses without guns.

Re:Or the reverse

[schn]

if they carry guns for self defence, knowing they do shouldn't change anything because criminals always have guns anyway right!

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

if a woman is willing to take one life, she would be willing to take another.

Re:Or the reverse

[peragrin]

what happens when pacifism meets aggressive violent people?

Not everyone is reasonable. take a look at Saudi Arabia which beheaded a immigrant woman for doing a bad job.

Someone has to defend your right to be a pacifist.

Also christians have a long history of killing people who have had abortions.

Re:Or the reverse

[Bartles]

Unless of course it was a publicly subsidized abortion.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

and my votes go for pacifism.

There is so much fallacy in your post, I don't even know where to begin.

So I'll just say "good riddance" to ya. Wouldn't want you as my neighbor either.

Re:Or the reverse

[thomasw_lrd]

You can only have pacifism, because someone else has a gun. That gun is not necessarily the shotgun I use for squirrel hunting on Saturdays. It is the gun that the Marine carries every day in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Germany, or the Azores, or anywhere else our troops have gone, and died to. Peace is a great thing to wish for, but someone else has to be put in harm's way for you to acheive it. Had it not been for guns, the world would be a much different place right now. We would still be honoring Queen Elizabeth as our monarch. It's even possible that some of us would still be the property of the rich people.
You may not like guns, and that's fine. But don't forget all the good that people wielding guns have done in the world. And don't forget all the evil that men wielding guns have done in this world either.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Right back at ya! Knowing who has had an abortion would enable me to know who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live.

I can vote with my feet and with my wallet, and my votes go for life.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as her taking of life is limited to life that is less than a few months old and happens to be inside her uterus, then that's hardly relevant to the public, who are not at risk in any way. I understand you're trolling, but I'd still be amused if you could find a (significant) correlation between having abortion and ending postnatal life. Surprise me.

Re:Or the reverse

[niiler]

It seems this poor fellow was modded "troll" for expressing a legitimate opinion that is contrary to that of many of the gun proponents on this site. People are entitled to their opinions. If this guy was rude, it would be a different story.

Re:Or the reverse

[ganjadude]

Agreed, I live in the area, and i know the 2 homeowners who have been broken into since this has happened. Nothing but the gun safes were touched, coincidence? I think not

Re:Or the reverse

[ganjadude]

If you need the paper to tell on your neighbors, well I dont think you know how to be a neighbor. In what world does one NEED to know that his neighbor has a gun? And on the same note, if you really NEEDED to know this, why wouldnt you simply ask your neighbor??

Re:Or the reverse

[ganjadude]

simple, the same reason anti gun people want to know who not to trade with/ live near. Their ideals are different than mine so i dont want to be around it LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA

The truth is that we dont really care, IT is NOT our business. Just as who owns a gun and who doesnt should really not be anyone elses business either

Re:Or the reverse

[niiler]

And the people using said guns to defend our rights are in our military. In fact, in this age of our country, they have chosen to go into our military voluntarily so that our pacifist friends don't have to. This is a very important point in that it means that not every member of our society needs to take on the moral burden of killing others, even if it is for a justified purpose. If there isn't a moral burden, then why are many firing squads mostly issued blanks? The members of our military are in an honorable profession and are certainly needed with many of the nuts (Bin Laden) out there. But please don't denigrate people who chose not to bring violence into their lives. Jesus was, after all, a pacifist, and a great many of the gun users I know are also Christian.

Re:Or the reverse

[whoop]

Here's the story of one woman trying to get a 42nd trimester abortion. It's out there if you open your eyes.

Re:Or the reverse

[__aaltlg1547]

Either way, it's really not anyone's business. Should we also be putting people's personal information online for current driver's license holders?

What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex.

Or, if you want to up the "obnoxious" factor, what if they published the names and addresses of women who have had abortions?

"Outing" people is a really low political tactic and needs to be illegal.

Medical records are already protected by law. There is no public record kept and the private records are protected by law.

"Outing" people is free speech in action. Sometimes it's not pretty.

What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state? What if I out a business's record of consumer complaints? Is that an obnoxious action or a public service? What I I out a politician's campaign contributors along with a list of donations and dates and positions she took on legislation they lobbied for? What if I out a business owner who contributed money to an unpopular cause? Should that be banned too? Am I doing something wrong if I publish a list of who owns what property and how much tax they paid on it? It's all public, searchable information in my state. What did I do wrong?

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

"Jesus was, after all, a pacifist"...remind me how that worked out for him?

Re:Or the reverse

[__aaltlg1547]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons. We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know. Besides, if he has a concealed carry permit, the whole point is that you don't know.

Apparently not. They're from publicly available records. If it's in the public interest to keep those records private, they're going to have to change the law to make it so.

Re:Or the reverse

[__aaltlg1547]

Or how about the real reverse. Show all names and address of houses without guns.

There's no way to make such a list because not every gun is registered.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

Why the hell is it any of your business what your neighbor does at all as long as he's not hurting anyone? Let him carry all the guns he wants to, I say. Decide to murder someone? Let em rot in jail. Look at it this way - it's not that crack should be illegal, robbing folks should be. You wanna be a crackhead, that's fine. Want to be a crack head that robs people for crack money? Then off to jail with you. We need to stop blaming actions on inanimate objects and demand that people accept personal responsibility for their actions.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Also christians have a long history of killing people who have had abortions.

What? Where? I hadn't heard of this. Do you have documentation?

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Then ask him, you antisocial shit.

Re:Or the reverse

[oodaloop]

There's an awful lot of stuff available in publicly available records. They were meant for individuals to come in and request one record at a time, way back in the stone age before computers. Do you think that anything on public record should be published for the world to see? BTW, the reason the article was retracted was because under the new law in New York, it is illegal to publish information on gun owners. So no, not public anymore in that state anyway.

If it's in the public interest to keep those records private, they're going to have to change the law to make it so.

Good point.

Re:Or the reverse

[macs4all]

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Except, of course, that the mere fact that a person OWNS a gun (which is all the list shows), in no way states that they "carry loaded guns around".

It's people like you that are the real problem.

Oh, well. Who needs that pesky ol' Bill of Rights anyway, right?

Do us all a favor and read some history.

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

Take a look at Gandhi for other side of the coin. Violent people tend to focus on violent solutions. "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails".

Re:Or the reverse

[niiler]

OK.. I'll bite:

He was crucified on the cross. He died. He descended into hell. On the third day, he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of god.

So... if you believe that sort of thing, it worked out pretty well. :-)

Re:Or the reverse

[Barsteward]

"We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy,"

its about time the constitution was brought up to date and out of the cowboy era.

Re:Or the reverse

[Barsteward]

if he didn;t have guns in the first place, he wouldn;t have been broken into.

Re:Or the reverse

[Barsteward]

"I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex."

Just means the ex gets a gun as well and shoots first and asks questions later.

Re:Or the reverse

[oodaloop]

Maybe we should bring up to the cowboy era first, then worry about bringing it up to date.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because someone has secured the right to carry a gun, that doesn't mean they actually do so (it also doesn't mean they are opposed to regulation or that they support the NRA). I have the right to carry a gun, but I only do so when I go hiking in areas where there are bears. Making my information public can cause people to ascribe traits to me (that I go around carrying a gun) that are unfair at best. In addition, those assumptions could cost me a job (not legally, but we're emotional creatures and we always find reasonable justifications for our irrational behavior) or make me a target for crazy people.

Re:Or the reverse

[drinkypoo]

In fact, in this age of our country, they have chosen to go into our military voluntarily so that our pacifist friends don't have to.

Many chose to go into our military to get free college. Not only did many of them not actually get it (I know too many enlisted and former enlisted to be bullshitted on this account) or appropriate health care for injuries or disorders sustained or developed during their tour but their enlistment is what makes it possible for the USA to project power unilaterally around the globe — and look at what we use it for.

not every member of our society needs to take on the moral burden of killing others, even if it is for a justified purpose.

Killing someone is right near the bottom of my list, but permitting someone to harm me or my loved ones when I could do something about it is even lower. Of course, odds are good that even if you have a firearm you won't be able to actually protect someone with it, but I'd rather bear the moral burden of killing someone than bear the burden of simply permitting them to kill those I hold dear.

But please don't denigrate people who chose not to bring violence into their lives. Jesus was, after all, a pacifist, and a great many of the gun users I know are also Christian.

A lot of people say they're Christian, but still contribute to violence. And frankly, I'm pretty tired of people citing Christianity as evidence of anything. People have so many different relationships to it that it doesn't really mean anything. I mean, I love Jesus, but I don't consider myself to be a Christian in any way, shape, or form.

Re:Or the reverse

[wonkey_monkey]

It would tell me who not to trade with... among other things.

Can it take that you mean who not to buy from, rather than who not to sell to?

Re:Or the reverse

[xystren]

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Yet, another example of how information can be misused & misinterpreted - you have equated that a gun owner carries a loaded gun around just because they happen to be on that list; That statement may or many not be true. All that list shows, as some-point in time, a firearm was potentially known to be at that location - it doesn't mean that it is still there, it doesn't mean that your neighbor is packing every time you see them cutting their lawn, and it doesn't mean that you are going to get shot by your neighbor b/c they are on that list.

This is yet an example of how data can be misused and I will even go as far as saying abused. You have equated that this list means that your neighbor carries a load gun(s) around. Wouldn't it be far more reliable and valid to talk to your neighbor if they have a firearm or not? And quite honestly, what are you going to do if they do happen to own a firearm? Stop living your life b/c your neighbor is possibly packing heat when they are mowing the lawn? Why do you want to know, what are you going to do with that information, and how does that information make you any more or less safer?

Take a moment to consider the opposite - by you not being on that list, doesn't that potentially open yourself up as a target for a crime or robbery? Criminals are likely going to say, "Lets target the house with no guns" (or perhaps a lower chance of a gun being present).

Re:Or the reverse

[History's Coming To]

The majority of pro-gun arguments I've heard are based on the idea that the US government is going to turn all Nazi and try to repress the people in a way that only an armed uprising can prevent. Frankly, if anyone is being paranoid it's the people who believe the US government is fundamentally broken and buy a few guns instead of, you know, trying to fix it within the current legal and political frameworks. I think the paranoid side is fairly clear.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you post that opinion publicly, you are engaging in dialog, which means that other people are invited to share their opinions as well. The right to free speech is not the right for everyone else to shut up--it's about THIS. It's about dialog. Yes the minority opinion can be aggressively overwhelmed at times, because we don't all know how to converse tactfully, but I'd rather have this than everyone getting to say what they want and no discussion at all.

Conversational conflict allows strong ideas to survive.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct. I wouldn't want someone like you living next to me. Best if you choose not to move next door because you will see me in my back yard shooting guns and I wouldn't want little ol' you to have a heartattack when you see me with a big bad ol' gun.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Gandhi was appealing to England's self-image of being civilized, empathetic, and logical. When some is breaking into your house no such discourse will happen. If the burglar/robber forgets to hide his face and you can now identify him... Your pacifist days are up.

Re:Or the reverse

[macs4all]

And what would knowing do for you? Your neighbor, instead of hiding the fact that he has weapons like criminals do, follows the law and registers his legally obtained weapons. This information is already available to see. What people are mad about is when some asshat decides to conveniently collect all of this information so that only criminals have a use for it. Oh, criminals and idiots who think law-abiding citizens should be ostracized or treated differently because they are exercising their rights and acting in a responsible manner.

Exactly!

The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot converted into a crime" Miller v. U.S. 230 F.2d 486 (1956). But in New York, for example, they have done just that. If I were a gun owner in New York, I'd refuse to comply, based on the Supremacy of the 2nd Amendment. New York's law is clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.

BTW, Certain members of Slashdot that want to get rid of all guns not owned by the government would do well to read this page; but they won't...

Re:Or the reverse

[amiga3D]

I don't carry loaded guns around although I own a few but I do have a couple of neighbors that go virtually nowhere without a loaded pistol. They bother me not in the least. They are nice people who mind their own business as do I. I haven't noticed them trying to hide that they carry but I don't know if they'd want it publicized or not. I think maybe they wouldn't care one way or the other.

Re:Or the reverse

[amiga3D]

I like pacifists. Unfortunately most people who claim to be pacifists are really just back stabbers.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to think that when someone didn't register his firearm, he therefore doesn't have it.

Re:Or the reverse

[amiga3D]

Fondly reminds me of the old 70's era joke. "Kill a commie for christ."

Re:Or the reverse

[level_headed_midwest]

The point brought up is that simply publishing the address is the harmful act. People with restraining orders against somebody tend to NOT want that somebody to know where they live and take measures to try to keep that information low-profile, such as not having it listed in the phone book. Ditto with informants and police officers. This newspaper just went and published a large list of people without their consent/knowledge and likely "outed" some of these people.

The question that needs to be asked before widely publishing personally-identifiable information gets published through FOIA is "will releasing this information cause harm/retaliation to the person?" Many of those examples you cited would cause a decent amount of harm to the person identified in the "outing." Outing a list of people who made consumer complaints and individual campaign donors (not corporations) could very well lead to retaliation. Publishing tax records isn't necessarily the best idea either as knowing that somebody has a lot of valuable items which may not be immediately obvious (such as several expensive pieces of equipment or vehicles hidden in an unassuming shed) could very easily lead to theft if anybody and everybody can access all of the records. The record publishing was originally done when you had to physically go and have a clerk get you certain records. It was much more difficult to data mine records for nefarious purposes for this reason. The government doesn't publish all of the personnel information of its employees such as addresses, SSNs/tax ID numbers, etc. I think that names, addresses, and financial information of others should fall under that same protection.

Re:Or the reverse

[ganjadude]

you do understand that all the cops, women who are abused and get a gun for protection and other "professional" types are on this list too. What happens when the crips who live int he area decide that its time to start killing cops while they sleep, or the ex boyfriend now knows where to find the abused woman. or the rapist now knows where to find the woman he raped. It isnt only "gun nuts" on this list

Re:Or the reverse

[arth1]

Can it take that you mean who not to buy from, rather than who not to sell to?

No.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

As a member of the public, I am interested in if my neighbor had an abortion because I like to gossip. As a matter of fact, while in high school and college when it was found out that a woman/girl had an abortion there was much public interest.

Hell yeah! If a woman has had an abortion, she's probably good to go!

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to look up the word sophistry.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sigg3.net]

This is because your peace is imposing on that of other people.

  That civilization needs war is BS. The other ways are harder, but not impossible.

Re:Or the reverse

[mantissa128]

We would still be honoring Queen Elizabeth as our monarch

That's worked pretty well for us, so far.

Sincerely,
Canada

Re:Or the reverse

[poity]

Can't have Ghandi without Great Britain, sad to say. He most likely would have died young, and as a nobody, had he done the exact same thing while under the rule of another country.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sarius64]

Exactly how was Jesus a pacifist? Within the concept of triune, Jesus exacted plenty of violence.

Re:Or the reverse

[Jiro]

What categories of outing would you ban in your nanny state?

Any category of outing where the information is only available because of the nanny state in the first place.

There isn't a database of permit holders because some marketing person decided to figure out who they can best sell gun range memberships to. There's a database because the government--you know, the same nanny state you're talking about--forcibly collected the information in the first place under threat of jail. If the government collects the information against people's will, it's not "nanny state" to prevent them from doing even more harm by releasing it. Anyone who really objects to a nanny state wouldn't want the government collecting the information to begin with, and if they didn't collect the information, nobody would be able to out anyone using it.

Re:Or the reverse

[arth1]

You seem to think that when someone didn't register his firearm, he therefore doesn't have it.

That doesn't follow. As long as more than zero persons registered their firearm, it gives information you otherwise wouldn't have. It's not all or nothing - anything is better than nothing.

Re:Or the reverse

[JohnRoss1968]

What is or is not of public interest changes depending on who you ask.
America used to be a country where people minded their own damn business.
Now everyone has some bullshit excuse to get into your business.

(whine) I have a right to make you stop smoking it effect my air. (Unlike the big SUV you are driving)
(Whine) It affects my insurance rates. (That is a problem you need to take up with your insurance companies and if they don't listen talk to your lawmakers and pass laws making the insurance companies change how they do business)

Your rights stop at your nose. You do not have the right to know someone else' personal business.
This is the same bullshit excuse people use for anytime they want to stick their nose into someone else' business.
The excuse that if they have a gun you need to know in case the decide to shoot you is bullshit.
If you are that worried (paranoid) about it, buy a gun yourself or move away from a place you think may be unsafe.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sarius64]

Well, let's see. We have thousands of years of history to base those assumptions on, not the least of which happened on a global scale and is still within living memory. You have absolutely nothing backing your evidence save some pacifist dream that everyone else is paranoid. I think it is fairly clear which one of us would survive any disaster or unconstitutional implementation of government.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

And on the same note, if you really NEEDED to know this, why wouldnt you simply ask your neighbor??

Because, obviously, all gun owners are homicidal maniacs and asking your neighbor would naturally cause them to murder you. Duh, isn't that the way this always goes down?

Re:Or the reverse

[Eunuchswear]

There's an awful lot of stuff available in publicly available records. They were meant for individuals to come in and request one record at a time, way back in the stone age before computers.

Way back in the stone age your right to bear arms meant you could have a stone. Now you've got an AR15 and I've got a computer. Stop whining.

Re:Or the reverse

[oodaloop]

Now you've got an AR15 and I've got a computer. Stop whining.

Damn, I wish I had a computer too. That would make it easier to whine on slashdot.

Re:Or the reverse

[LynnwoodRooster]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Unfortunately, this list won't help you with those who carry or possess firearms illegally. Meaning they are already breaking the law and have a MUCH higher chance of committing other crimes.

Re:Or the reverse

[LynnwoodRooster]

And about those who possess firearms illegally? Like ANYONE in New York City who carries a pistol (NYC is basically a no-carry city)? How will you know who those people are, so you can not trade or vote for them?

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't tell if these posts are legitimate, or just throwing anti-gun-nuts' rhetoric back in their faces.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

As a member of the public, I am interested in if my neighbor had an abortion because I like to gossip.

Unfortunately you fail to understand the difference between what the public may find interesting, and what is in the public interest. They are not the same.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sarius64]

Maybe they don't care within their social group, or their privacy boundary. But I'm fairly sure that anyone that filed an insurance list of possessions would not appreciate that list being broadcast to another group that would generally use it as a vehicle of crime. There is no excuse for posting people's addresses in this manner.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

It's perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracise those who own firearms. And FOIA means the public has a right to know who they are.

Publicising the list simply makes it easier for the public to exercise their rights to ostracise.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sarius64]

Would you be freaked out if I listed the high-value contents of your home, your name, and your address on a map that criminals had ready access to use?

Re:Or the reverse

[dadelbunts]

I laughed so hard. Wanna trawl abortion and drug rehab clinics for some hot women?

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

> "Jesus was, after all, a pacifist"...remind me how that worked out for him?

He had a very bad weekend, but got to live in heaven for eternity afterwards.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Re:Or the reverse

[__aaltlg1547]

There's an awful lot of stuff available in publicly available records. They were meant for individuals to come in and request one record at a time, way back in the stone age before computers. Do you think that anything on public record should be published for the world to see?

Yes. The laws need to be changed to protect such records as should not be public.

BTW, the reason the article was retracted was because under the new law in New York, it is illegal to publish information on gun owners. So no, not public anymore in that state anyway.

As of January 16. It was legal to publish them at the time they were published.

Re:Or the reverse

[ShanghaiBill]

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Just because you want to know about it, doesn't mean you have a right to know about it.

Anger at this newspaper seems misdirected to me. The real problem isn't the publication of this list, but its existence in the first place. Why is the government keeping a list of gun owners? If it is okay to keep a list of people that exercise their 2nd amendment rights, would it be okay to also keep a list of "troublemakers" that exercise their 4th amendment rights by refusing to be searched without a court issued warrant?

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

So if your neighbour makes a large bomb, that's OK is it? As long as he doesn't explode it.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

Pacifism? Fine - next time you're accosted by a big bastard in a dark alley, tell him that you're a pacifist. Don't go down dark alleys? Well, the next time you meet a big bastard in your basement, tell him you're a pacifist.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/dr-william-petit-testifies-trial-familys-alleged-murderer/story?id=11633236

The philosophy of a pacifist sounds like this to me:
"I'm much to evolved to be out fighting, that's for morons. If some moron bothers me, I'll just call the police."
Do you see a flaw in this philosophy? It seems so obvious to me, that there are TWO major flaws. First, you assume that only morons brawl, so you're going to rely on moron B to defend you against Moron A. Second, you ASSume that you'll be able to communicate to Moron B that you need his assistance when Moron A attacks you. Second, again, you're ASSuming that Moron B can get to you in time to defend you, before Moron A has killed/raped/mutilate/relieved_you_of_your_possessions.

There's a Darwin award available for pacifists, every single day.

You will note that most victims of insane shooters are pacifists? Not all, but most.

Re:Or the reverse

[AmiMoJo]

What if one of those women holding a CHL did so owing to death threats from a jealous ex? They just put her life in danger.

Sounds like the fact that her ex can get a gun puts her in more danger.

Straw man, abortions don't have the potential to kill anyone else.

Re:Or the reverse

[mdielmann]

Keep in mind that peaceful resistance only works if those who have power still hold human life as valuable. Otherwise, they just order people in tanks to drive over protesters. Or continue killing people for getting raped.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

If you're going to tell the story, tell the WHOLE story. ... ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God, awaiting the day that God gives him the nod to come BACK to earth as the Avenger.

The Christ you speak of is not a pacifist, per se. He paid the price to win his Father's approval, and to satisfy the Law.

Believe the story or not, believe in God or not, that's your choice, but if you're going to tell the story, tell the entire story. This is the problem with so many "Christian" cults - they cut and paste parts of the story, to suit their own purposes.

If Christ really does descend from Heaven again, that fruitcake Muhammed is going to look like a candy ass child, in comparison with what the Christ does.

Re:Or the reverse

[mjwalshe]

no the public is "interested" but there is no "public interest" as defined in law.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sulphur]

Now you've got an AR15 and I've got a computer. Stop whining.

Damn, I wish I had a computer too. That would make it easier to whine on slashdot.

It is now safe to turn your computer on.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

A true pacifist has the capability for violence, but chooses to be nonviolent. You on the other hand appear to be a coward hiding behind the title so as not to appear impotent.

  "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Mahatma Gandhi

Re:Or the reverse

[Ol Olsoc]

Best if you choose not to move next door because you will see me in my back yard shooting guns and I wouldn't want little ol' you to have a heartattack when you see me with a big bad ol' gun.

Maybe this is a good place to post this. I own guns, enjoy and them, and have no intention of ever giving them up. But I've been having a problem with trying to have a rational discussion.

Where I get into trouble is when I try to discuss assault weapons.

Inevitably, the conversation disintegrates into me being some sort of tool of the new world order, and them yelling and even frothing at the mouth. Yesterday a (former) friend ended up yelling at the top of his lungs at me in a restaraunt. I am happy that he didn't have a firearm on him, because he went bonkers on me, and other customers were complaining.

My crime? I said that Semi-auto assault weapons are a pretty efficient way to kill people. That's it, because in response I got the whole litany of what have become talking points. I truly did not get another word in, except to say I wasn't going to discuss it any more.

Heck, there is a reason why people who choose to try to kill many people choose those particular weapons.

If this was an isolated incidence, that would be one thing, but it seems like some folks are coming unhinged. I've had multiple occasions, and with odd crimes, like not being a member of the NRA. To the point that if the subject of guns comes up, I usually suddenly have some place else to go, because There is no point in discussing anything with a person who is going all Alex Morgan on a room.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I "out" the fact that you are HIV positive? Surely that is good for society. Starting to understand now? And the HIV carriers are a far greater problem to society than gun owners.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

FOI pertains to the GOVERNMENT, not to private citizens. This is clearly a case of misuse of data.

Re:Or the reverse

[nschubach]

I don't understand what pacifism has to do with guns...

I don't own a gun to shoot people. I own a gun to shoot paper. Is shooting paper somehow not pacifist?

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

FOIA pertains to information controlled by the government. This is.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trying to clarify the posted comment and share that most attacks against women having abortions, in the United States, are actually at the clinics where the women are simply collateral damage? (the irony of which is staggering)

Was the wikipedia page on Anti-Abortion violence difficult to find?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Attempted_murder.2C_assault.2C_and_kidnapping

Do you believe that there are no consequences to living in a rural conservative town and being known to have non-diety-sanctioned-sex? If so, read the Scarlet Letter and work your way forward through history.

You are surrounded by decent people who have made choices you wouldn't have. The protection of the right to privacy is more than one of simple physical safety. It is a statement by the enlightened people in a culture that they understand the human condition, that dividing your society into "us" and "them" along any line of legal activity creates needless conflict and serves no useful purpose.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

Your nick name includes the word "history". If you believe that any government is incorruptible, then you know nothing of history.

This government, our United States government has at various times,
-endorsed slavery
-invaded foreign nations for profit
-used it's own citizens in involuntary and uninformed scientific research
-engaged in genocidal campaigns
-permitted the use of armed government employees by corporate interests to enforce unjust laws
-approved ever more invasive spying programs for use on it's own citizens
-engages in spying on British subjects, in accordance with an agreement that permits Britain to spy on US citizens

I insist that government, by it's very nature, is indeed a broken artifact.

You DO make one very good point. We SHOULD all engage in making the government better. However, many of the ills of this nation are NOT repairable "within the current legal and political frameworks". Washington is pretty much owned by corporate interests. That fact is made abundantly clear with each and every election, when the campaign donations are made public. John Q. Public makes so many donations, mostly in amounts under a thousand dollars, while corporations make ever more donations in amounts that are impossible for the average American citizen to match. Now - who has the ears of Washington? A dozen citizens, who cumulatively gave ten thousand dollars, or the corporation which gave ten thousand to each of the party's candidates nationwide?

If/when we rise up, and force corporate interests out of Washington, then fixing the problems with government will become a possibility. The use of the term "democracy", in reference to our current government is an insult to every person's intelligence.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sique]

I never understood the burglar example. If I was a burglar, I would at first check if no one is in the house before breaking in. And if I made a mistake, and someone is there, I would try to run as fast as possible. There is really no point in turning an heist into an armed robbery, and the risk of being found out is just to high. If just some glas shards are lying around and some money is missing, the investigations in the crime will be much less intensive as if there were serious injuries or even deaths involved. (Where I live, most burglaries happen during the day, when people are away at work, or during the weekends in the industrial zones, when no one is working there. Buying weapons in both cases is one of the most ineffective ways to fight burglaries -- you just spend money on stuff you will probably never use in a good cause.)

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

So if my neighbor wants to carry loaded guns around his house, situated inside an apartment complex, while he's drunk, he should be able to?

It's all legal, right?

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

Then OBVIOUSLY, the government shouldn't be in control of the information. This is one of many databases that simply never should have been compiled. It's none of the government's business who owns weapons, how many, or what kind, and it's none of your business either.

Re: Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mistaking PUBLIC interest for YOUR interest.

YOU have an interest in knowing if your Neighbour has a gun.

I do not care at all.

In just the same way, a group of people will care who has abortions and some will not.

It depends on the individual/group.

I'm sure there are LOTS of others that care to know who has guns as well, but it isn't the entire public, but again, I havnt done a survey of EVERY American to know this figure.

Just something I thought I'd throw out there.

Re:Or the reverse

[wonkey_monkey]

So if you ran a store selling, say, fruit, you'd like the right to discriminate against gun owners and refuse to sell them apples because they might be carrying a gun in your store, or because you disagree with their (inferred) ideology?

Re:Or the reverse

[cdrguru]

Of course, odds are good that even if you have a firearm you won't be able to actually protect someone with it.

If you have a gun, and it is loaded and ready to use when someone assults you, your family or your home the difference between having the gun taken away from you or it being used to defend you, your family and your home is training. Owning a gun without any sort of training is like owing a cyclotron - ok so you have one, now what do you do with it? Keeping it in a box on a high shelf and not knowing what to do with it is useless.

So owning a gun isn't all that important. Having sufficient training to pick up a gun, properly target an adversary and if necessary fire with effective results is important. I would offer that people that cannot successfully complete a training course with some kind of live-fire simulation should not be given permits for handguns.

Otherwise we are simply increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used in an otherwise improper manner.

Re: Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Canadian, ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!!?!?

Have you seen who's been in office?!??

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

Thanks for your opinion. It's one that would be expected for an anarchist gun-nut.

Re:Or the reverse

[amiga3D]

I wonder how they'd feel if someone posted a list of abortion doctors and their addresses. I bet that would stir the pot.

Re:Or the reverse

[atriusofbricia]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

Why? Are you that fearful?

Re:Or the reverse

[timholman]

There is no public interest knowing if a woman has had an abortion. If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

How about a public interest in knowing if your neighbor has a DUI conviction?

After all, you are statistically more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than be murdered by someone using a gun. And you are far, far more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by someone who owns a legally registered firearm.

So following your "I want to know if my neighbor is a danger to me" logic, then we obviously need interactive online maps with the names and addresses of everyone who has been convicted of drunk driving. Also keep in mind that these are convicted criminals we're talking about, as opposed to a registered gun owner who has complied with the law.

You see where this kind of thinking leads?

Re:Or the reverse

[ScottCooperDotNet]

You mean the current political framework that gives us two options, both of which are shockingly similar?

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Medical records are already protected by law. There is no public record kept and the private records are protected by law.

Such records should be publicly available for care provided via any taxpayer supported medical care (Medicare, Medicaid, Emergency Room treatment reimbursed by a government). This is just as contracts the government enters into to buy buses or repair national monuments are public record.

It is in the public interest to have such records public in order to control expenditures and expose fraud. If these records were made public, tens of thousands of people would dig through them and find fraud and unnecessary expenditures. They would also be invaluable in shaping public policy and enabling voters to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

For example, perhaps those convicted of meth use (that list available from other public records) have substantially higher incidents of government reimbursed health care for liver failure. This information would be invaluable to voters considering drug policy and public health care issues.

Fraud could be detected by crowd sourcing the task. People who know individuals in their town might well be able to identify fraud patterns that elude government investigators in Washington who have no knowledge of who the deadbeats and liars in the town are so can't detect that they all go to one doctor who bills Medicaid for conditions that these people seem unlikely to have.

Such information would likely also be useful (even though incomplete as it only covers publicly provided health care) to medical researchers who could use statistical analysis in fruitful ways thereby improving health care for all (obviously helping to "promote the general Welfare").

The US Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, a right to medical care, or a right to government provided medical care so there's no Constitutional problem with my proposal. On the other hand, requiring citizens to get a "permit" to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights enumerated in the Second Amendment and to expose this publicly is treading on the Constitution (and not just on its penumbras) just as the government requiring a permit to post on /. and publishing a list of the real names and addresses of each poster would tread on the right to exercise free speech that is enshrined in the First Amendment.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

Anarchist gun nut? I don't get it. Oh - you're just name calling, because you don't have an argument of any type to offer. I get it now. Cool, I guess, 'cause it means I win.

Let's analyze that name though. Anarchist? Hardly. I'm more of an authoritarian, than I am an anarchist. I'm more of a socialist than an anarchist too, as far as that goes. I LIKE the idea of government. I like the idea of government controlling nutcases, criminals, illegal aliens, and more. What I DO NOT LIKE, is the government infringing on the lives of law abiding citizens.

Gun nut? Maybe we need to define "gun nut". To me, a gun is a tool. Like any other tool, it has limited uses. You don't use a hammer to clean windows, you don't use a gun to clean windows, you don't use a screwdriver to clean windows - all of these tools would cause more destruction than a window cleaner can tolerate. I'm not a gun nut, or a hammer nut, or a screwdriver nut. I use each tool for it's intended purpose.

I guess I could return the favor, and call you an anti-gun-nut. I'll refrain though, and just point out that you are naive and uninformed.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracise those who own firearms. And FOIA means the public has a right to know who they are.

Publicising the list simply makes it easier for the public to exercise their rights to ostracise.

Actually, you DO NOT have the right to ostracise some, especially when they are exercising one of there constitutionally protected rights.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

Yes. That is exactly what I am saying.

Re:Or the reverse

[Entropius]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I'm really not all that interested unless he is likely to shoot someone (not in self-defense etc.) with them.

I lived in Arizona for years, where gun laws are very liberal. Then I moved to Washington DC, and then we got an ALERT! email from campus: "There's a man with a GUN four blocks from campus!" My first thought was ... okay, has he shot someone? Robbed someone? Why should I care?

Re:Or the reverse

[ewanm89]

Just cause they have a permit does not mean they generally carry it around, literally all it means is that they have a permit.

Re:Or the reverse

[cloudmaster]

You got a tank-style water heater in your basement? How often do you check the safety valve to make sure it's not going to explode? How often does the government come in and mandate that you do so?

Oh, I see, that's different because people don't get all hysterical over hot water heater explosions. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2008/08/14/20080814kpnx-waterheater.html Never forget Thunderbird Road! Ban water heaters! Publish a list of everyone who doesn't have a modern energy-efficient tankless water heater!

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

Thanks for clarifying your strange viewpoint. I estimate that more than 99.9% don't agree with you that your naighbours should be allowed to make large bombs and not tell anyone about it.

And it's a democracy.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

No injuries were reported, and the house's sole occupant was unharmed.

You probably want to find a better example or a better analogy.

Re:Or the reverse

[Entropius]

I'm a pacifist too, but I have no beef with private ownership of firearms. Do you believe in arming the police? Is that anti-pacifistic? It seems like police carrying guns to protect society from violent people is no different than society itself carrying guns to protect themselves from aggression.

Pacifism doesn't mean not being armed; it means not being aggressive.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

Yes, he should be able to. Of course, he should also be charged with murder instead of unintentional manslaughter if there's any type of incident. You should be punished for what happens, not what might happen. Prohibiting acts and behaviors never works.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

what happens when pacifism meets aggressive violent people?

We're not talking about the broader scale of one nation attacking another nation here. We're talking about neighborhoods. At the neighborhood level, safe communities very rarely meet aggressive, violent people. Therefore, people living in safe communities rarely feel the need to own firearms for personal protection.

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives. It is an indicator of insufficient police protection, gang activity, drug activity, or other serious problems. It is not the only indicator (bars on windows are another good one), but it is a good indicator.

But even if that correlation did not exist, a high number of gun owners would still be a red flag. There's a reason we create police forces and military forces. They represent an elite group of people with the proper training and psychological stability to use firearms for the public good. They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly.

By contrast, out of those registered gun owners, assuming they represent a random sampling of the population, 26.2% will "suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year." (Source: NIH) Most of them lack any formal training. And their weapons are probably stored in their bedside tables, fully loaded, just waiting to be stolen and used by someone who didn't pass a background check.

So yeah, there's a very real public interest to having that information. That said, I don't agree with the GP that it should be used when deciding who to buy from or other such nonsense. The individual data points are uninteresting (except when you meet someone, conclude that he or she is nuts, and then find out that he or she owns a firearm). It is mostly in aggregate that the information is relevant.

Re:Or the reverse

[jebblue]

>> As long as her taking of life is limited to life that is less than a few months old Let's stop there, just study that.

Re:Or the reverse

[Fjandr]

Gandhi isn't a good example. He was opposed to the Arms Act which disarmed native Indians, and understood that violence in defense was perfectly acceptable if the alternative was abject cowardice (as opposed to reasoned pacifism, which is anything but).

Re:Or the reverse

[Fjandr]

Most people who are extremely anti-gun are likely to say exactly that.

However, I'm all for stores being able to do so though (and I'm pro-gun). Doing so is actually to their disadvantage for many reasons, all of which I support such people engaging in.

Re:Or the reverse

[Fjandr]

Information required to administer public functions does not automatically become public information. Otherwise the personal information of those in Witness Protection would be freely obtainable.

The only reason this is public information is because the law hasn't kept up with technology. Records transparency is to make sure government is operating correctly, not to harass those who are complying with the law. This is no different than collecting and disseminating the personal information of doctors who work at womens' clinics.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

This is one thing I really cannot stand for people to say. We are not a democracy. Democracies are horrible things that allow the trampling of minorities. We should never just got with what the vast majority of people think simply because that is the majority for a couple of reasons. First off, this is the path that leads to tyranny. It is easy to see how a majority could impose their beliefs on the rest of the population: for example look at how much control the Christian fundamentalists have over America due to the majority of Christians. The other problem with democracy is that quite a large number of people are, quite simply put, stupid, evil, and easily manipulated. Are these the people you want deciding what is best for everyone? I don't.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sperbels]

It would tell me who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live, among other things.

If you don't want to live around anyone who has a gun in the house then I think you'll probably have move to another country. Because this country is saturated. Even in the most liberal towns you're going to have trouble.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

One from the 80's I saw was "Nuke a Godless Communist gay baby seal for Christ!"

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

Pretty much this. Most people watch far too many hollywood movies. Burglar's goal is stealing your stuff with as little risk as possible.

That means that #1 rule of any decent burglar is to enter when there's no one at home. That's why they employ countless techniques, such as calling, ringing the bell and so on before trying to enter.

Real methods of fighting burglars usually involve either convincing them you're home when you're not, or getting security setup that makes them think they have a high chance of getting detected during the crime.

Re:Or the reverse

[TapeCutter]

A dog is way more effective than a gun for keeping the home secure.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

assuming they represent a random sampling of the population

A thoroughly unjustified assumption, don't you think? I mean, at a bare minimum these are people who have spotless or nearly-spotless criminal records and no mental health hospitalizations. (That's putting aside the fact that a "diagnosable mental disorder" is a catchall term that applies to insomnia or single episodes of depression just as much as florid paranoid schizophrenia.)

Re: Or the reverse

[Xeranar]

Why? Seriously, this is one of those statements that is not self-explanatory. Do you want to know so you can ask them about the weapon and how to obtain one?Perhaps you want to live in fear of your neighbor from then on? I really don't get it. Why does knowing reward your existence? Conflating ownership with accidential death is silly. Your neighbor is statistically more likely to hit you with their car than shoot you with your gun.

Human self-preservation can produce some really idiotic ideas. This whole fight is really the difference between growing up around them or not.

Re:Or the reverse

[arth1]

Most people who are extremely anti-gun are likely to say exactly that.

I'm not anti-gun. Guns are great for hunting, sporting, and protecting from invasions (which was why we have the amendment to carry guns - to form militias to ward off invaders, because the military was supposed to be extremely limited.)

What I'm against is guns designed for close range murder being in the hands of people who are so far distanced from reality that they believe their laws were handed down by an invisible man in the sky who loves them, and think that wresting on TV is real.
Some of them are cops.

Re:Or the reverse

[TapeCutter]

Ghandi did not win because the British empire were soft.

Re:Or the reverse

[Jesus_666]

Had it not been for guns, the world would be a much different place right now. We would still be honoring Queen Elizabeth as our monarch.

If you're referring to the United States I think that without guns the settlers wouldn't even have taken over the continent like they did. When you're down to bow and arrow then native tribes become more formidable enemies, whether you use biological warfare or not.

Re:Or the reverse

[__aaltlg1547]

That's already protected information.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

"When you're looking at a nail, you might start to wish you had a hammer instead of a flower."

Re:Or the reverse

[__aaltlg1547]

It is in the public interest to have such records public in order to control expenditures and expose fraud. If these records were made public, tens of thousands of people would dig through them and find fraud and unnecessary expenditures. They would also be invaluable in shaping public policy and enabling voters to make informed decisions at the ballot box.

For example, perhaps those convicted of meth use (that list available from other public records) have substantially higher incidents of government reimbursed health care for liver failure. This information would be invaluable to voters considering drug policy and public health care issues.

Fraud could be detected by crowd sourcing the task. People who know individuals in their town might well be able to identify fraud patterns that elude government investigators in Washington who have no knowledge of who the deadbeats and liars in the town are so can't detect that they all go to one doctor who bills Medicaid for conditions that these people seem unlikely to have.

Such information would likely also be useful (even though incomplete as it only covers publicly provided health care) to medical researchers who could use statistical analysis in fruitful ways thereby improving health care for all (obviously helping to "promote the general Welfare").

The US Constitution doesn't guarantee a right to privacy, a right to medical care, or a right to government provided medical care so there's no Constitutional problem with my proposal. On the other hand, requiring citizens to get a "permit" to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights enumerated in the Second Amendment and to expose this publicly is treading on the Constitution (and not just on its penumbras) just as the government requiring a permit to post on /. and publishing a list of the real names and addresses of each poster would tread on the right to exercise free speech that is enshrined in the First Amendment.

The public health benefits could all be gathered without including names or personally identifiable informaition. And the Constitution does guarantee a right to privacy. It's right here: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated"

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

I agree. Sort of, I guess. It's definitely important to know how to use it. It's even more important to know when not to use it. I have the benefit of having had a healthy respect for them taught to me when I was still a child, and over 20 years handling them safely. Honestly, any training course you throw at me would pretty much be a joke, because it's nature to me by now. But that same course, to somebody without any experience, is going to be insufficient at best. What I consider to be common sense is, to a lot of people, completely alien. And before you can handle a gun safely, it needs to be common sense. Just like handling a car safely. For a truly viable "training course," you're talking years' worth of instruction for some people, months, weeks, days or hours for others, depending on both how well they learn and how seriously they take the responsibility.

I'm reminded of a recent story about a father who "accidentally" shot his 7 or 9 year old son outside a gun shop. He may have passed some training course or whatever the hell he did. But when it was all said and done, he pointed a loaded firearm at a child and pulled the trigger. And that's not an accident. That's negligence. And it keeps happening. Most car accidents involve negligence on the part of at least one party, and how many of those are there every day? Be it guns or cars, people fail to realize the gravity of the situation when they're in control of machines capable of causing death and mayhem. And that's not going to be fixed with a quick course, or often times, even with an extended course. My "training course" for firearms lasted 12 years and started when I was 6. A lot of the lessons I learned, especially the situational awareness involved in safe firearm handling, translated well to driving, and has kept my ass out of a few accidents.

Simply put, be it with guns or cars, a lot of people just don't give them the necessary respect until it's too late. I don't know if it's an "it could never happen to me" attitude, whether they're just so focused on the shiny new iShit that they can't be bothered to consider the seriousness of being in control of such things, or if they're just generally stupid. But I'd expect a firearms training course to be more or less as effective as driver's ed.

Re:Or the reverse

[Aikiplayer]

I think the burglar posts are focusing on the rational, logical burglars. There are other types out there. The reality is that even if they're caught, they'll be back on the street committing burglaries pretty quickly. Property crimes don't seem to get the attention they deserve, bails are low, continuing to offend (even while being prosecuted for current crimes) seems to be the norm. The downside for these crimes seems to be pretty minimal - is even more minimal if you actually show up for court dates and to serve your time.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

Don't call the cops on people squatting on your property either.

There is no shortage of people in America who do not value human life.

Re:Or the reverse

[spire3661]

Constitutional Democratic REPUBLIC.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

Semi-auto handguns are also an efficient way to kill people. Virginia Tech ring a bell? No rifles, higher body count than Sandy Hook, and that was perpetrated against adults. The way I see it, there are two possible reasons for wanting to ban the rifles.

1. Banning them for the sake of "doing something."
2. Banning them with the intention of coming back for more later.

Neither one of those strikes me as a particularly good reason, though given the rhetoric from the anti-gun side, I'm inclined to think it's a combination of the two.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

We're slowly turning into one. The Constitution is routinely violated, and violations upheld, not through the Amendment process that's supposed to be required, but by a majority vote. Everyone's complicit in it when it's for a cause they support, and then they act flabbergasted when a different group does the same thing for a cause they don't support.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

How do we fix it?

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

And when you look again, you notice that it was a person after all?

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

But these still want to avoid getting caught. You seem to assume that burglars have motives other then profit. That's hollywood material that has about as much roots in reality as John Rambo is a realistic depiction of a soldier.

Re:Or the reverse

[TapeCutter]

You uttered something the "other side" says, there is no thought, it's purely an emotional response. That behavior seems seems to be encouraged in US culture to the point where congress is more or less dysfunctional and nobody belives a word unless it comes from "their side". Please note I'm saying this behavior seems ingrained in US politics in the same way it's ingrained in English football. I'm not saying it's an exclusively American trait, I had the same emotional response from my own (non-american) parents when I said "...yes, but CO2 is warming the Earth", the barrage of bullshit talking points was that intense it really did "shock" me to the point I suddenly had somewhere else to go. Thing is I've known them for 53yrs, neither of them are dumb or ignorant, dad's a retired chief engineer and still has all his marbles at 80, he's currently teaching himself Python.

In my case there's a happy ending, after dad calmed down he quietly checked some of his assumption, now he sends me "skeptic" articles on AGW asking for my opinion. We are all guilty of this kind of behavior to some degree, being aware of that fact helps moderate it but does not impart full immunity even to a wise old man.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

You and I alone? We can't. The public at large has to start calling violations of the Constitution what they are, no matter how small, even if it's for a popular cause that they support, and demanding that it be fixed. But people in general are fine with it as long as it's a cause they support. SCOTUS justices frequently rule the way they want things to go, and then use contorted logic to justify it as Constitutional. Or just decide it doesn't apply. DUI checkpoints are one great example. SCOTUS ruled that despite them violating the Fourth Amendment, the small inconvenience to drivers was outweighed by a "substantial government interest" in reducing drunk driving. And nobody likes drunk driving, so it's "legal" despite being unconstitutional. And this is just one example of many. The public at large is okay with the Constitution being ignored so long as it suits them. And as long as a little temporary security is held to be more important than liberty, liberty being fairly dangerous, it's going to continue. Personally, I do not see this trend reversing.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually based on personal experience over the pat 18 months. They still do prefer not to be caught, but it's no big deal if they do. Spend the next 12 or so months continuing to commit the same crimes almost every day, get caught occasionally, blow off court dates, literally choose not to go to jail when scheduled, eventually it all catches up to you, spend a few months (at most) in jail, then start all over.

And they don't make too much effort at not getting caught (forging checks and making them out to yourself, leaving pawn recipts with your name at the scene (while knowingly being on video)).

I was shocked to learn how the system works for these types of crimes.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

I guess that works if you want to pretend nails don't exist.

Re:Or the reverse

[logjon]

How would you even know if nothing bad came of it?

Re:Or the reverse

[Dare nMc]

This is a list of CC gun owners, so this list address none of your concerns. This says the person went through training, showed no instability during, and have no serious convictions on their record. Also a much higher percent of these people are going to be police and ex military, not the type to live in a high crime area. Also your concern about mental health is unfounded, those cause 20 deaths a year, of the thousands of fire arms deaths per year,Hnot worth a moments thought to your families security. Personally I was thinking, stats being equal on crimes... I would choose the armed neighborhood because it would be a indicator of self control present, it isn't a hostile neighborhood lacking the ability. It is a neighborhood that has been exhibiting self restraint, without oversight.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

I mean, at a bare minimum these are people who have spotless or nearly-spotless criminal records and no mental health hospitalizations.

Nearly spotless? Hardly. As long as you aren't actively being investigated for a crime, you can usually have any number of misdemeanors (except for domestic violence misdemeanors and, in some states, stalking or recent DUI convictions). You just can't have any felony convictions. I find it particularly fascinating that except in states with habitual misdemeanor assault laws, someone with a felony conviction for securities fraud can't own a gun, but someone with multiple assault convictions (without a weapon) can.

And the laws that limit gun ownership for the mentally ill often cover only inpatient treatment. But because of legal backlash against compulsory commitment that began way back in the 1970s, most people with mental illness these days are not given inpatient treatment. Gun ownership by people in court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment may or may not be prohibited, depending on the state. In states where it is not prohibited, the federal prohibition against gun ownership by "mental defectives" has effectively been castrated for at least a couple of decades.

In other words, the distinction that you think exists is mostly an illusion.

Re:Or the reverse

[CptNerd]

If people didn't have money or things, they wouldn't be robbed.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

I never understood the burglar example. If I was a burglar, I would at first check if no one is in the house before breaking in. And if I made a mistake, and someone is there, I would try to run as fast as possible.

Funny you should say this, after firearms were effectively banned in Australia, home invasions wher the criminals specifically waited until the homeowners were home increased signifigantly. It seems that if you know that the victims are unarmed it is more effective to hold them hostage and get them to unlock their safes and turn over their valuables. By waiting until they are home you ensure that they won't return and catch you in the act or as you are leaving and by tying them up you guarantee that you have enough time to run away clean. Face masks can protect your identity, and even if you are caught a threat that their gang buddies will kill you if you identify them is much more credible if they are already tied up in their own home even if your gang buddies are nothing more than figments of your imagination.

Home invasions are almost nonexistent in the US due to gun ownership, they do happen but more often than not the perpetrators get shot or run into a home owner with a gun. The main exception is areas with strict gun control laws.
The risk reward ratio is much more skewed to stealth burgulary and even that is risky.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

gun owner's should be as listable as home and car owners.

Re:Or the reverse

[inode_buddha]

It *is* illegal now. The NYS Legislature just outlawed it last week IRC.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

A list of known killers versus a list of responsible owners of an object.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

The protection of the right to privacy is more than one of simple physical safety. It is a statement by the enlightened people in a culture that they understand the human condition, that dividing your society into "us" and "them" along any line of legal activity creates needless conflict and serves no useful purpose.

so, after a felon has served their time, it should be struck from public record post haste and have all rights fully instated? because that's what i believe.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

The example of Christ is a good one, If you read the Bible you find that although Christ was non violent The apostles were armed at all times. When Christ told them to dress as beggars and rely on the charity of others, he specifically instructed them to leave their swords behind, and when the roman soldiers came to arrest Christ they immedieately started to slice and dice the soldiers until Christ told them to stand down and healed the soldiers so that they could arrest him. Given that the apostles were simple fishermen before they followed Christ it stands to reason that Christ himself was the one who required them to be armed and taught them how to use their weapons with enough skill to manhandle professional soldiers while drunk who had come with full knowledge of what they thought they were facing .
The message of Christ in relation to pacifism is that it is more impressive to profess and practice pacificsm if first you have the capacity to defend yourself. A wimp gets no respect, but a strong man who chooses to lay down the sword will be respected.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

he wasn't even saying that.

Re:Or the reverse

[Culture20]

And outside the concept of the Trinity, Jesus overturned tables, whipped moneychangers, and ordered his followers to sell their cloaks and buy swords.

Re:Or the reverse

[macs4all]

BTW, Certain members of Slashdot that want to get rid of all guns not owned by the government would do well to read this page; but they won't...

I clicked on it, and I got bored. The argument that guns should be a right because some long dead man in a different era, said so. A long dead man with far less knowledge of the world than I have. It doesn't work for me.

Then move. You are exactly the problem.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to share your opinion, at least be in formed. This is a list of CC gun owners Negative, this is not a database of concealed carry holders. This is a list of handguns owners, who legally have to register their handgun(s) in NY.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

the same can be said of slave owners, drug addicts, etc. so let's stop drawing lines for anything.

Re:Or the reverse

[ungodlychicken]

My purchases and/or belongings are none of your business and you have no right to know anything about them. You do, however, have the right to remain silent, and/or shut the fuck up.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

You're right that an area with lots of concealed-carry permits is probably an area where mostly retired LEOs live, which is probably low crime. However, nothing in the summary or the linked articles leads me to believe that the list is limited to concealed-carry permits. In New York state, AFAIK, all handgun possession requires a permit, even if it never leaves the premises. Therefore, one would expect most of the permits on that list to not be concealed carry.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Low UUID, probably a good reasoner with lots of experience... Likely done your time in the valley and been promoted to management by now, should have good skills in sourcing data, stats...introspection

But...I call BS on tons of this.

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives. It is an indicator of insufficient police protection, gang activity, drug activity, or other serious problems. It is not the only indicator (bars on windows are another good one), but it is a good indicator.

High gun ownership is a great sign -- it means neighbors are invested in the safety of the community. Or it might mean that you live in west virginia/kentucky and every single household goes buck hunting.

Oh, right -- we're supposed to put ourself in your world and assume we're living in NYC or SF. Please, keep generalizing your ultra-urbanized experiences onto the rest of the country and legislate by force.

Gun ownership is not a proxy for gang activity. Gang weapons aren't registered. They're stolen or moved and cleaned.

Bars on the windows do serve as a good indicator -- but that's a more likely indicator of proximate activity in my experience. That is to say, bars don't mean that neighborhood is bad -- it means the one 15 minutes away is bad.

But what really...irked me with your post was your 26% mental illness figure. I mean, you're right. Do you think those 26% who are mentally ill shouldn't own guns?

Do you think that every single year 1 in 4 police officers, soldiers, military police have their service weapons removed from them? That they are forced to sit down with a psychotherapist? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.

Depression, instability, angry outbursts are not reasons to take a firearm from people (or any other civil liberty). I even object to stripping a firearm from anyone that has had a restraining order filed -- although I do think they should have to demonstrate a valid cause for one at that point (given legal interdiction has occurred by definition).

Yes, I store my pistol beneath the bed. Loaded. Cocked. WIth two extra mags by it.

It should be safe for 75 years in that manner. If someone steals it, they're going to steal it whether it's loaded or unloaded, empty or not.

They're going to look at the barrel, see ".45 automatic" and go buy a box at walmart.

When a gun is stolen it doesn't matter if it's loaded or not.

It matters if a kid finds it. And if a kid breaks into my house, finds my gun -- I really don't care if they shoot themself. Period. Their own fault -- they shouldn't have been breaking into places to start with. If they shoot another kid with it -- their own fault, they stole it.

If someone breaks into my house, leaves the door open, and a kid wanders in and plays with a gun -- still not my fucking fault. Yes, I could have prevented it, but nobody's going to send me to jail if someone breaks in and runs somebody over with my car after finding the keys. Tough shit. Just because you're a hopolophobe doesn't mean you get to remove them from the world.

*Training* to store a weapon properly is totally irrelevant. My home isn't an armory. You look at your environment, you assess the risks. If you have children, or children visit -- you mitigate them. If you live with a criminal...mitigate it.

. They represent an elite group of people with the proper training and psychological stability to use firearms for the public good

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Really. What the fuck? Who are you to actually believe that shit? What is wrong with you?

You aren't talking about navy seals and specops or devgru. You aren't talking about MOSSAD. You're talking about the police and US army...

Police forces have successfully won lawsuits to exclude people with too high an IQ

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

That's already protected information.

BWAAA HAAA HAA

After Obama's undermining of private health care is complete and we're all wards of a health care system run by the same twits who buy $900 hammers and bring you the TSA, you really believe that "protected information" like that won't be abused?

Yeah, sure.

If you really fell (NB I didn't use the word "think" - that seems beyond you) "protected information" wouldn't be abused by our oh-so-competent-and-oh-never-corrupt government, I really do want to know what color the sky is on your planet. Cuz it sure as shit ain't blue.

Re:Or the reverse

[harlequinn]

An expectation of privacy does not equate to a nanny state.

Where I live you can FOI to your hearts content but you'll get all information that could infringe upon the privacy of a citizen redacted to protect the citizens reasonable expectation of privacy.

If the information is currently freely available where you live then you're not doing anything technically wrong - but a lot of us believe you are doing something morally wrong and that your local laws need changing to protect a citizens privacy.

Re:Or the reverse

[dwpro]

The irony of this being posted AC...

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

What part of that makes you think that these "stupid" burglars don't actively avoid getting caught? How many of these cases you're talking about where they actively hitting a place with owner inside?

Sure, they can be less then intelligent. Especially about things other then break and entry, search for valuables and exit.

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

Whoosh.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. You know one of the principle motivators driving the Declaration of Independence was the growing momentum towards abolishing slavery throughout the British Empire? In 1772, slavery had been more or less formally abolished in Britain - which caused a great deal of disquiet among the colonies, not least America. The abolition throughout the rest of the Empire came in 1833.

In other words, if not for the revolution, slaves in America would have been freed 30 years (and 750,000 casualties) earlier.

Re:Or the reverse

[0111 1110]

They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly.

I can't tell if you are serious or not. No one could be that naive. Their 'friend from foe' detector is simply that anyone without a badge is an enemy. And as far as 'psychological problems' most of the them are sociopaths: the worst kind of person to be walking around with a firearm. The kind of person who can kill innocent people and just walk away without feeling even a hint of remorse. You could put their firearms in better hands by simply closing your eyes and pointing randomly.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

"If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives..."

        All it proves is you're paranoid. For all you know they could all be gun collectors.

"There's a reason we create police forces and military forces. They represent an elite group of people with the proper training and psychological stability to use firearms for the public good."

        Having been in the military you couldn't be farther from the truth. We have a police force to keep us from killing each other(actually just clean up the mess afterwards) and a military to fight our battles for us(whether we want them or not).

"They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly."

            Not when I was in and most didn't care which side anyone was on as long as they had booze and/or girls with them. As for storing weapons properly, maybe on base?, but not at home. But they do have a healthy respect for the weapons after watching disfiguring accidents from misfires, malfunctions, design flaws, etc. Of course there's the murders and suicides too.

"By contrast, out of those registered gun owners, assuming they represent a random sampling of the population, 26.2% will "suffer from a diagnosable mental disorder in any given year." (Source: NIH [nih.gov]) Most of them lack any formal training. And their weapons are probably stored in their bedside tables, fully loaded, just waiting to be stolen and used by someone who didn't pass a background check."

      I haven't seen rational anything in decades. And the percentage doesn't mean anything unless there are specifics and how does it match the general population. The rest is just your paranoia again. And weapons should be stored in bedside tables, fully loaded, ready to be used. You know the reason they have it in the first place.

"So yeah, there's a very real public interest to having that information. "

        There may be but it doesn't justify violating the natural rights the constitution guarantees the government is supposed to leave alone. Your paranoia doesn't justify anything except on your own mind.

"except when you meet someone, conclude that he or she is nuts, and then find out that he or she owns a firearm"

        Are you a psychologist now? Grow a thicker skin you damn baby. Until something happens laws haven't been broken and if you do harass them to justify your ghosts, you deserve to get shot.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

"We may not (yet) have constitutional rights to privacy, but your wanting to know doesn't mean you have to know."

        By the second, fourth, and fifth amendment we do as they supersede all other laws but the government doesn't care and neither do the courts or this would have been settled long ago.

Re:Or the reverse

[ChrisMaple]

That information is "protected" is not sufficient to prevent it from being published. Just ask Bladley Manning or the Rosenbergs or those who leaked the "Pentagon Papers". The only way to prevent a government from exposing data is to prevent the government from having that data.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's *also* true in the *vast* majority of gun ownership, open carry, and even *concealed* carry instances that no injuries were reported (because they didn't occur), and that the person carrying the gun was unharmed.

If that makes an exploding water heater 'safe', then guns are safe as well.

Re:Or the reverse

[ChrisMaple]

There are many people who would gladly kill someone who performs an abortion (if they could get away with it), and they'd probably be happy to kill the woman, too. I know someone who spent jail time due to activities against an abortion clinic, and (in my opinion) he wasn't too far from more violent activity. Publishing a list of women who have had abortions risks their property, their jobs, and their lives.

Re: Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Not even that. He's mistaking *being interested* (aka: being curious about) with *having an interest* (having a meaningful reason to know or be involved with).

I'm curious about a great many things, such as bank security. That certainly doesn't mean I have a meaningful reason to know the combination to any bank vault.

On the other hand, if I were legally tasked with putting money into and taking money out of a bank's vault, I *would* have a meaningful reason to know about the bank's security practices.

That's the difference between *being interested* and *having an interest*.

Re:Or the reverse

[ChrisMaple]

Gun ownership in urban areas is very different from gun ownership in rural areas. Crime rates in cities are 74% higher than in the countryside, and gun ownership (especially legal gun ownership) is higher away from population centers.

Re:Or the reverse

[ChrisMaple]

Ghandi won because the British were civilized, and Ghandi exploited the British through their civility.

Re:Or the reverse

[hot soldering iron]

I'm afraid I don't share your viewpoint. I know from experience that most criminals are not going to give you any notice that they have a weapon, until it's too late for you to do anything about it. " They represent an elite group of people with the proper training and psychological stability to use firearms for the public good. They are actively monitored for psychological problems, they are trained to distinguish friend from foe, and they are trained to store their service weapons properly." Where the hell did you get that? SOME police fall into that classification, BUT they are a very small minority. The majority of this country is composed of small towns, with small budgets, and small minded people. Quite often that get whatever they can find: Jocks that were bullies in school and aren't smart enough to do anything else, prior military, or ex-military (there is a difference), guys that normally would be part of the problem instead of the solution. I've seen several corrupt police forces. One thought they should hunt down my uncle and help him have an "accident", but being prior military, and having a gun, he's lived into his 80's.

This is a chaotic country, with a culture of chaos. If you don't like the idea of weapons being in the hands of the populace, stay out. It's part of the trade-off for having certain guaranteed rights. Paradise doesn't exist except in a childs' book of fairy tales.

Take a quick look at the Wikipedia pages for gun ownership per capita by country, and list of countries by intentional homicide rate. If your correlation was accurate, that gun ownership equals crime, the US should have the highest crime rate to go with the highest gun ownership. It doesn't. It's running around 4.8 % with the majority of Africa, South America, Asia, and South-East Asia being quite a bit more dangerous. Considering the list a little closer, except for China and Japan, gun ownership rates tend to correlate to SAFER countries. On the face of it, your theory fails.

Yes, I know. "Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers." So research for yourself, and decide for yourself. Not for me.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

Or it might mean that you live in west virginia/kentucky and every single household goes buck hunting.

I'm from Tennessee. Lots of folks had firearms, and that didn't bother me because it was the norm for that region of the country. However, if I saw a small pocket in the SF Bay Area where everybody owned a gun, I'd be more than a little concerned, precisely because it is not normal for that area of the country.

Bear in mind, though, that this entire discussion thread is talking about New York state, where guns are relatively rare.

Gang weapons aren't registered. They're stolen or moved and cleaned.

I never said that they were.

Bars on the windows do serve as a good indicator -- but that's a more likely indicator of proximate activity in my experience. That is to say, bars don't mean that neighborhood is bad -- it means the one 15 minutes away is bad.

And in exactly the same way, an unusually high number of handgun permits in a particular area suggests that there's a good chance that either the neighborhood or a nearby neighborhood is bad. You don't buy a handgun for protection unless you feel like you need additional protection. Which is what I said.

But what really...irked me with your post was your 26% mental illness figure. I mean, you're right. Do you think those 26% who are mentally ill shouldn't own guns?

I doubt the percentage that shouldn't is anywhere near 26%, but given the number of total nutjobs committing mass murder lately, it's safe to say that the number isn't zero, either. Whereas with a police force, that number should be zero, and if it isn't, then you have serious problems.

You aren't talking about navy seals and specops or devgru. You aren't talking about MOSSAD. You're talking about the police and US army...

Okay, maybe "elite" was too strong a word. The point is that they're trained, and by virtue of the fact that they haven't been suspended or fired, they are probably at least marginally stable and don't use their firearm without cause, despite having it with them at all times. As opposed to someone with a non-concealed-carry permit, who might be tempted to shoot that jerk in front of him in the checkout line with 13 items in the 12-items-or-less line, but isn't armed. :-) (Yes, I'm deliberately using an absurd scenario for humor. Now imagine a real one, like a bar fight or whatever.)

Hell, the police have a higher rate of homicide (and massively higher rates of domestic violence) than registered private gun owners.

You're right that domestic violence rates are higher in police families. They're also higher in other high-stress jobs. That's not an indication that police officers are less stable. It's an indication that their job can be psychologically brutal. And while that's a very real problem that needs to be solved, it in no way relates to the subject at hand.

Also, comparing homicide rates is a useless comparison. All fatal shootings by police officers while on the job are considered homicides (usually justifiable). Therefore, unless you have stats on unjustifiable homicides (which I have been unable to find anywhere), the numbers for police officers should be much higher than for registered gun owners. The alternative is downright scary.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

So, using your logic, we should also ban this 26.2% from driving vehicles (vehicles are more actively used than firearms for most people). That means over a quarter of our current congress and senate suffers at one time or another from a mental illness (doesn't seem to far fetched).

Lets not even go into the amount of military and police that need to be treated for PTSD after being in a life altering situation (training doesn't stop that). Take a look a the individual involved in the Ft. Hood shooting. He was one of the people to diagnose these disorders.

I've spoken with some individuals who were anti-gun and I have concluded as well that they are nuts and wouldn't want them to have a firearm. For every generalization or fact somebody throws out there, there is at least one to counter that. We should be focusing on getting out of the fiscal hole we are in and not pandering to the emotions of the week, then you would realize why our congress and leadership has the lowest approval rating of all time.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

If your correlation was accurate, that gun ownership equals crime, the US should have the highest crime rate to go with the highest gun ownership.

You're twisting what I said. I was talking about statistics at the neighborhood level—that is, relative to other neighborhoods in the area.

You can't always extend observations at the micro level to the macro level, particularly when there's a significant cultural divide. I would expect a lot more weapons in Bucksnort, TN than in Los Angeles. That doesn't mean there's more crime in Bucksnort than in Los Angeles. But I would expect more people to own guns in a high crime LA-area neighborhood than in, say, Beverly Hills.

To be fair, the observation only holds even at the micro level in areas where gun ownership isn't the norm, because there's not usually a good way to discern a gun purchased for protection from a gun purchased for other purposes. That caveat doesn't really apply in New York state, though.

Re:Or the reverse

[Scarletdown]

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives. It is an indicator of insufficient police protection, gang activity, drug activity, or other serious problems. It is not the only indicator (bars on windows are another good one), but it is a good indicator.

But even if that correlation did not exist, a high number of gun owners would still be a red flag.

Then in that case, you will probably want to avoid most any town in Eastern Oregon and Eastern Washington, due to the high rate of gun ownership (fortunately, very little violence).

Oh yeah, and on that thought, note to self, on upcoming Spring trip to Eastern Oregon, I must not forget to bring a cooler... Little sister offered to load me up on a bunch of deer and elk steaks from their great recent hunting season... Drooooolllll...

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

A gun nut that doesn't believe in democracy. How very stereotypical.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

No, guns are the problem. You move.

Re:Or the reverse

[silentbozo]

"There's a reason we create police forces and military forces. They represent an elite group of people with the proper training and psychological stability to use firearms for the public good."

And who trains these people?

Someone who is a good shot (as opposed to someone who carries a sidearm simply because it is a condition of their job) must train and practice on a regular basis. Exceptional shooters can be drawn from all walks of life, but like athletes, the younger you start, the sharper your skills can be.

I don't see military or police budgets being used to train the next generation of shooters in this art. I do see private organizations dedicated to fostering competition and martial skill providing the coaching, training, and support of youth sport shooting. Do not forget that the USA fields competitors and teams for firearms competitions in the Olympics. Where do you think the raw talent comes from?

Civilian shooters provide an important pool of talent, not only in times of emergency, but as a community dedicated to maintaining and advancing the shooting arts.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

An ad hominem attack that did not even attempt to refute a single point. How very typical.

You have no response then, I am to assume?

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

There should be maps of convicted felons, those getting government funds (food stamps, housing support), and mentally ill or those being treated for mental illness. Those people are statistically far more dangerous than proper people with jobs (and a good life to lose if they get caught doing something wrong).

I have never had problems with a gun owner, however, all the other types I listed in one way or another caused grief. I simply prefer to avoid them. There should be a list available so I can do that, and to leave them to live in harmony too.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely.

Re:Or the reverse

[mjwx]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

And I want a pony. The issue is if you have the right to know. He has the constitutional right to those weapons.

So what well regulated militia is he a member of?

Got to love the gun nuts who scream about "constitutional rights" but forget the second amendment talks about a well regulated militia. I'm sure if Jefferson, Washington and the rest saw the way it was being used now they would have written off the second amendment as a terrible idea.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex.

Because he knows her address because its on the list. If the guy is making death threats, then he probably has a gun too.

I really fail to see how this got past you. Maybe you should think things through before you start shitting out your mouth or keyboard.

Re:Or the reverse

[mjwx]

Agreed, I live in the area, and i know the 2 homeowners who have been broken into since this has happened. Nothing but the gun safes were touched, coincidence? I think not

Amazing, This is quite brazen.

I live in a place where guns aren't common and firearm safes have to be up to code and bolted to foundations... Our thieves are complete cowards without quick access to guns.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Stopped reading at "safe communities."
Sir, no such thing exists.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most of them lack any formal training. And their weapons are probably stored in their bedside tables, fully loaded, just waiting to be stolen and used by someone who didn't pass a background check."

Funny, but unfounded...
Formal Training: Every gun owner I know, myself included, shoot regularly and practice at the same ranges as police, frequently along side them. Military and SWAT receive formal training, but police just practice at ranges with the rest of us. You don't need formal training to use a handgun, you need practice to be good, lots and lots of practice. Safety is a big part of that practice. This is not an abrams tank or a surface to air missile launcher, I don't need "formal training" to know how to load, unload, and safely use the thing. The thing you fail to realize is gun owners are not a bunch of hicks shooting rifles in the backyard. We're a group of generally responsible people with a hobby that requires us to practice and train just as much as police officers.

Storage:
This is probably the more bizarre of the two comments. Who the hell keeps a loaded gun by their bedside? I think if you really went out and talked to real gun owners you'd find that safety is paramount. This means locks & safes. Guns are expensive, it would be cheaper for someone to steal my computer than my handgun, not to mention it's freakin dangerous. Just like anything else I own that's expensive or dangerous certain care and precautions are taken. The guns are locked individually, they are inside a safe, the safe is bolted to the foundation of the house, the ammo is separate, also locked.

What we really need to do is focus more time and energy on the things that really might make a difference in crime; poverty, education and mental health... instead we keep wasting our time on the tools people use to commit crime. People have been killing people since the dawn of time and with the help of people like you that will continue long after guns are out dated and replaced with other killing devices. Wake up and fight for some real social change that can make a true impact on the world.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

All across the board or not at all. Either out everyone online for their race, color, creed, marital status, sexual orientation, political beliefs, personal possessions, guns, jewelry, collectibles, medical records, etc... or not at all.

Honestly, I do not think there should be any online public records, period.

Re:Or the reverse

[Kernel Kurtz]

I LIKE the idea of government. I like the idea of government controlling nutcases, criminals, illegal aliens, and more. What I DO NOT LIKE, is the government infringing on the lives of law abiding citizens.

Government decides who are law abiding citizens and who are criminals.

Often arbitrarily and capriciously.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

So, using your logic, we should also ban this 26.2% from driving vehicles (vehicles are more actively used than firearms for most people).

The argument that cars are even remotely as dangerous as handguns is just plain absurd. There's a good reason that vehicles are not a very popular choice for homicide (ignoring accidents): by being in the vehicle, you are at as much of a disadvantage as almost anyone you're trying to kill.

For people on foot, you have an advantage in speed, but they have a tremendous advantage in maneuverability. You'd have to get really lucky to take out more than a couple of pedestrians with a vehicle before people figured out what was going on and got away from you.

For other drivers, you probably won't be able to kill very many before that whole third law of motion thing catches up with you and you end up dead yourself. Again, you might get really, really lucky, but... it just doesn't work in practice.

Lets not even go into the amount of military and police that need to be treated for PTSD after being in a life altering situation (training doesn't stop that).

For military, that's a reasonable concern. For police, much less so. Statistically speaking, most police officers retire having never fired a weapon except at a practice range, and if NYC is an indicator, more than half of the discharges that do occur are likely to have been either accidental or shooting an animal.

I mean, I'm not saying that post-traumatic stress isn't a problem for police—I'm sure it is—but it isn't nearly as common as you seem to think.

We should be focusing on getting out of the fiscal hole we are in and not pandering to the emotions of the week, then you would realize why our congress and leadership has the lowest approval rating of all time.

Are we really not capable of talking about more than one issue at a time? Besides, who says I'm anti-gun? You're making a big (and wrong) assumption there. I'm not. For the most part, I think our gun laws are reasonable as they are. That said, I do support:

• Fixing some of the regulatory loopholes that allow people who have actually been deemed potentially dangerous by the courts to legally purchase firearms in some states.
• Requiring background checks for all sales (not just sales by dealers). It isn't exactly a high bar in this era of smartphones.
• Bans on high-capacity magazines. Frequently, the only difference between a few deaths and mass murder is how many people the assailant was able to kill or disable before stopping to reload.

Those three relatively small changes all provide a clear public benefit, while having little to no impact on legitimate gun owners.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

That is perfectly true. And, that is why everyone should own a weapon, unless they have been disqualified due to mental defect, or due to antisocial behaviour such as murder, rape, robbery, etc.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Ceaser Beccria.

Re:Or the reverse

[tompaulco]

We should go ahead and publish maps of people who exercise their right to free speech too, and maps of people who insist on their right to due process, and those who insist on their right to not be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.

Re:Or the reverse

[fazey]

unless your dog simply brings the intruder to the point on the counter where you leave the treats.

Re:Or the reverse

[fazey]

Incorrect. Court orders come directly from the judge. This is the only way you can just get a new SSN, so im going to take a leap and assume it has something to do with that you are now a new legal entity. Plus hes a judge, he can do whatever the f' he wants.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Anarchist gun nut? I don't get it. Oh - you're just name calling, because you don't have an argument of any type to offer. I get it now. Cool, I guess, 'cause it means I win.

Let's analyze that name though. Anarchist? Hardly. I'm more of an authoritarian, than I am an anarchist. I'm more of a socialist than an anarchist too, as far as that goes. I LIKE the idea of government. I like the idea of government controlling nutcases, criminals, illegal aliens, and more. What I DO NOT LIKE, is the government infringing on the lives of law abiding citizens.

Gun nut? Maybe we need to define "gun nut". To me, a gun is a tool. Like any other tool, it has limited uses. You don't use a hammer to clean windows, you don't use a gun to clean windows, you don't use a screwdriver to clean windows - all of these tools would cause more destruction than a window cleaner can tolerate. I'm not a gun nut, or a hammer nut, or a screwdriver nut. I use each tool for it's intended purpose.

I guess I could return the favor, and call you an anti-gun-nut. I'll refrain though, and just point out that you are naive and uninformed.

you sir are one hot man...

who speaks the truth!

Re:Or the reverse

[macs4all]

No, guns are the problem. You move.

Really?

Then why haven't they been such a "crisis-level" "problem" for the past 250 years?

Seriously: do you REALLY believe that "the government" will ALWAYS have YOUR best interests in mind? Because if your answer to that is "No", then you have just identified the REAL reason that the 2nd Amendment exists. And if your answer is "Yes", then you need to bone up on some history.

Re:Or the reverse

[Lord Kano]

Ghandi won because the British were civilized, and Ghandi exploited the British through their civility.

I would argue that the British wanted to be civilized.

Gandhi forced them to prove it.

LK

Re:Or the reverse

[Lord Kano]

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives. It is an indicator of insufficient police protection, gang activity, drug activity, or other serious problems. It is not the only indicator (bars on windows are another good one), but it is a good indicator.

Are you from New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles or Europe?

There are a lot of gun owners in very safe neighborhoods in suburban areas with hunting traditions.

LK

Re:Or the reverse

[modecx]

Yeah, I'll let you tell that to my neighbor's daughter, who had her face mauled and permanently disfigured by the very dog the family got to protect their home. The same dog had a habit of catching squirrels and cats before it turned on the kid, and to say you'd be upset at the aftermath...well, it would be an understatement, to say the least. It also lunged at neighborhood kids, attacked neighbors, postmen, other dogs and god knows who, or what, else prior to this. But daddy was attached to it.

Remember that movie All Dogs Go to Heaven? I'm pleased to know this one returned to the place it came from. And people have the audacity to say guns kill?! Show me an autonomous gun with a brain, emotions, a hair trigger and some method of aiming itself, then and only then, they'll have a considerable opinion on the subject. Any tool has its advantages and disadvantages.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, firearm permit holders commit crime at a much lower rate than the population at large, including the police:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2011.pdf

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they don't. That's a myth I'm afraid,

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it could be a story in a book written by clerks transcribing oral history from tribes of people who lived in a desert 2000 years ago.

You sound like a nut.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, I see, so if there's a law that make something legal, that shouldn't be legal its OK in your book? Just want to be clear before we call you an unethical statist. Because that's what you would be.

It's a bad law. It's obviously a bad law. If someone's abusing that law, they are a bad person.

Being ethical is not doing something that you are allowed to do, when you know it's wrong. They full well knew this was a douche bag move, and they did it anyway. It's no ones business, and there's no excuse for it. Stop trying to find one, there isn't. It's just mean spirited jackassery.

Re:Or the reverse

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

There's a reason we create police forces and military forces. They represent an elite group of people with the proper training and psychological stability to use firearms for the public good.

HAHA.

They are actively monitored for psychological problems.

HAHA. (BTW in the p[ast some military forces were know for taking "the dregs of society" and transforming them into fairly stable people.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

You probably wouldn't be able to function. Abortions are very very common.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

In the same vein, why don't we just publish all the names and addresses of those who drive drunk.

Or those who deal in illegal drugs?

After all THOSE people actually broke the law.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally? Perhaps nothing. However, you just made big targets on people and you could be held accountable in a civil trial.
If I posted a big sign in my yard that said "Hey, my neighbor just bought 20,000 in jewelry" and his home was broken into soon after, how do *you* think the civil trial against me will go?

Probably not very well.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

What is wrong with owning both? The dog alerts you and perhaps *may* scare off intruders.

I've seen clips posted on you tube where all the dogs did was run around home intruders wanting to be loved on. Luckily the owners had cameras that they monitored remotely.

Re:Or the reverse

[TapeCutter]

First point - I agree, irresponsible dog owners are a danger to the public. Second point - Anecdotes are meaningless, dogs kill ~3k people a year worldwide, your child is more likely to be killed/mauled by a swarm of honey bees than the family dog.

Re:Or the reverse

[redmid17]

Now it means you a) don't know what a right is and b) don't really know what you're talking about. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on slashdot: "And their weapons are probably stored in their bedside tables, fully loaded, just waiting to be stolen and used by someone who didn't pass a background check."

Re:Or the reverse

[Apothem]

There's a big difference between outing records of consumer complaints or public donation information and posting private information relating to a large group of people. There is no gain to be had aside from fear and a lot of problems for a lot of people. It's not like when you 'Out' these businesses etc you're posting personal addresses of the people who complained along with the personal information of everyone who works there either.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? The discussion is about whether or not knowing who had an abortion is relevant to the public interest. Your (dis-)approval of abortion is irrelevant: it doesn't affect you, nor any other member of the public. Well, that's not entirely true: the public may observe a slight decrease in the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Re:Or the reverse

[oodaloop]

At the time, a militia was an improvised collection of citizens, drawn together in small towns to defend themselves from the British. The purpose of the 2nd amendment, if you haven't read any of the works of Jefferson and the other founding fathers outside the Constitution, was to allow ordinary citizens the means to defend themselves from an oppressive government. If some "militia" had weapons, but not ordinary citizens, we'd be no better off. Note that the 2nd amendment says nothing about having to be a member of a militia in order to have weapons. It says (paraphrasing, obvs), that in order to have a well regulated militia, ordinary citizens must be able to have weapons, so when we need to form a militia to overthrow an oppressive govt we they already have their own familiar guns. I don't expect you to agree with that sentiment, but you can at least try to understand why the Constitution is written the way it is and appreciate the forces of history behind it.

Re:Or the reverse

[Malc]

Had it not been for guns, the world would be a much different place right now. We would still be honoring Queen Elizabeth as our monarch

Mahatma Gandhi did quite well without guns.

Re:Or the reverse

[Q-Hack!]

A dog is way more effective than a gun for keeping the home secure.

A dog will almost always be deterred with a piece of steak. Better yet, a tazer. Having dogs is good as part of your crime deterrent package, but should not be solely relied upon.

Re:Or the reverse

[History's Coming To]

I'd totally agree, that's your first problem. All you need to do, as a nation, is elect enough independents to swing votes either way (eg 49% Dem, 49% Rep, 2% Ind) and then there's enough leverage to begin forcing some change through. The first law I would suggest is that the armed forces are sworn to protect the people first, the government second, then you've got the ultimate right to bear arms and a well regulated militia.

Re:Or the reverse

[Q-Hack!]

Ah, yes... the nuclear red haring...

Kind of stupid to use a nuke for self defense.

Re:Or the reverse

[aurispector]

Wouldn't it be better if you had access to his mental health records? After all, he could kill you just as dead with a knife, club or even his fists. FBI stats show each of these are weapons used in a significant number of murders each year.

Another factor that is far more important is socioeconomic status. Filter out the urban poor and the number of murders drops to very low levels.

The kicker is that people who hold CHLs have a lower crime rate that police officers. You are in more danger if your neighbor is a cop than if they have a CHL.

The gun debate needs to rely more on facts and less on emotion.

Re:Or the reverse

[CAIMLAS]

How is it anyone else's business what I keep in my bedroom closet any more than it is anyone else's business

There is more fervor over online published data on sex offenders in society than you people are expressing for legally registered gun owners (in the most restrictive state in the country) having the same done to them. That's kinda, I dunno, low.

Re:Or the reverse

[wildstoo]

Right back at ya! Knowing who has had an abortion would enable me to know who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live.

I can vote with my feet and with my wallet, and my votes go against women.

FTFY.

Re:Or the reverse

[CAIMLAS]

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives.

It will be quite a surprise to you, then, when you come across the statistics stating that neighborhoods with the highest per capita firearm ownership are also the safest (outside of gated and/or guarded communities).

I had to laugh at the chutzpah of an acquaintance who said, "I would be terrified if I ever found out one of my neighbors had a gun". Sweetheart, you live in an affluent (upper middle class) white neighborhood in one of the more conservative parts of Florida - you can bet damn well most of your neighbors not only possess firearms, but have at least one on them at all times. (She comes from Columbia and works in media, so her association of firearms with thugs in the streets or rednecks with confederate flags in the backs of their trucks can be, if not forgiven, understood. For many, such things are nothing if not an emotional decision.)

Re:Or the reverse

[mdarksbane]

But even if that correlation did not exist, a high number of gun owners would still be a red flag.

For your own safety, then, you had better never leave the coasts. I'd be hard pressed to find a house in my neighborhood that *didn't* have a gun. You do realize that nearly half of households in the US admit to owning one?

Re:Or the reverse

[CAIMLAS]

More harm has done to man with the silvered tongue or the flip of a quill than the firearm can ever do in and of itself. Keep that in mind.

Re:Or the reverse

[CAIMLAS]

Hah, joke's on you. We're pretty much a democracy at this point; the Republic is dead.

(Explain the middle class, or lack thereof, if you disagree.)

Re:Or the reverse

[CAIMLAS]

This isn't "outing" people. This is publishing a list with a political agenda with the intention of causing severe - physical - repercussions for the people on the list.

Let's just make a list of all the Jews in Germany, why don't we? Don't mind for a second that some of them are bakers or butchers, maybe some policemen even. Jews are money people, though, and money people are evil...

How about if I go down to the South, 1860s style, and make a list of people who helped the slaves flee to the North publicly available? No harm done, right?

IE it's a volatile political issue in which death is truly on the line.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Shavano wrote, "I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex."

Evidently, you have never had a jealous/stalking ex-spouse/significant other and do not realize the rules of logical thinking/acting do not always apply. Had you paid attention to the news, you would realize this. People who become obsessed are not logical or reasonable as a general rule.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easily treated as harassment, and possibly threatening.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

And what would knowing do for you?

It would tell me who not to trade with, who not to vote for, and where not to live, among other things.

I can vote with my feet and my ballots, and my votes go for pacifism.

Any law which requires someone to do something, as opposed to being purely voluntary, is exactly the opposite of pacifism. Asking someone else, the government in this case, to do your dirty work for you is not pacifism, it's cowardice.

Re:Or the reverse

[luis_a_espinal]

Pacifism doesn't mean not being armed; it means not being aggressive.

Thank you.

Re:Or the reverse

[freezin fat guy]

Yes, but the important thing to the type of people who make these lists is that someone with a gun was victimized.

The fact that the weapons went from being owned by law-adiding citizens to being owned by violent criminals who are orders of magnitude more likely to kill someone, is completely irrelevant to them. The people who make these lists are more than happy to be accomplices to the robberies and murders their actions have facilitated. That just raises up anger against normal gun owners all the more, which again justifies making responsible people targets of crime.

Look, I think the NRA badly oversteps it mandate by fighting absolutely any form of regulation, when it should go back to concentrating on responsible gun ownership, but crime and violence are not so simple to stamp out.

The fact is that compliant gun owners are a much more conveniant target than criminals. If you can't solve the issue you can at least take your pound of flesh.

Re:Or the reverse

[ai4px]

THe problem is not *that* the newspaper published the data, it was public record after all. The problem is that the information existed *as* public record. That's the RCFA. The law that makes these records public information is flawed. I live in South Carolina and remember around 2002 time frame, our State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) was asking for money for a warehouse to store papers on a budget. When asked what they were storing there, they said "gun purchase applications". The problem with this is that in SC, those records are only to be kept for a year and then destroyed. SLED had been keeping them since the inception of the law and had run out of space. AFAIK, they did not get the money for their storage warehouse.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the FBI statistics on such crimes 38% assaults and 60% rapes are the result of home invasions. Perhaps 1:5 homes are broken into, and you can modify this number to suit the numbers of homes and people in a given area.. like urban vs. rural. Are they violent break ins? Was the Chester home invasion case violent? YOU BET!

Re:Or the reverse

[VAXcat]

You should treat everyone with the respect and consideration that you would accord to an armed person.

Re:Or the reverse

[blitziod]

It's not a straw man. Nobody on this site is stupid enough to believe that those names where published for any reason having to do with safety. It was a veiled attempt to shame gun owners in a liberal leaning community where they are a minority. Try publishing that list in houston texas and see what reaction you get. " the guy next door only owns 3 guns , fucking pussy". And also you could be publishing the names of women who have abortions to warn prospective fathers.

Re:Or the reverse

[drinkypoo]

Having sufficient training to pick up a gun, properly target an adversary and if necessary fire with effective results is important.

On that, we can agree. If you have no marksmanship then you're as likely to harm a bystander as your target. Well, probably still less likely anywhere but in public, but you get the idea anyway.

I would offer that people that cannot successfully complete a training course with some kind of live-fire simulation should not be given permits for handguns.

Unfortunately, even in California a concealed carry permit requires only a basic static test, can you put some rounds on the target at a pretty close distance. I would be OK with people getting a permit to own a handgun having to do the same, and for carry to require a run through a more meaningful course, so long as none of the relevant information appears in a publicly accessible database. We have already seen that this information can and will be used to target gun owners just as it could be used to target any group singled out in such a manner.

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

These statistics are either cooked, completely ignore the elephant in the room while focusing on the fly on the wall or just plain pulled out of your ass. It's a widely known fact that somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rapes happen inside family and friends circles. This is when going by modern Western model of rape, which counts raping family member and such as rape, and is fairly common regardless of culture. For example, Brazil has recently amended its rape law to include these, and has observed the same issue: somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rape is inside family and friends circles.

Unless of course, you cook the book to count every time someone who is family of someone else comes for a visit that ends in rape "home invasion" (which would indeed be "cooking the statistics" as it has nothing to do with burglary) or you just plain ignore pretty much all rape and focus on some small count of rapes (i.e. ignore over 80-95% of all rapes). Which puts us to the point of what exactly is your intention with this strawman argument?

Re:Or the reverse

[operagost]

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives.

Really? It's not possible that you have a large number of recreational shooters or hunters? One thing it very likely means is that there is a large percentage of law-abiding people, by definition-- since illegally purchased guns are hidden.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Police represent an elite force???

People will spew anything to try and make a point, apparently.

Re:Or the reverse

[operagost]

The bible doesn't say to kill people who get abortions, so that fallacy doesn't apply here. I think it's reasonable to denote "Christians" as those who base their beliefs on the Bible; otherwise, anyone could be one.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they should have considered properly training their dog. Guess what, if your dog is randomly attacking people, you're doing it wrong, and shouldn't be surprised when one day you are on the biting end of those teeth.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

What is there to say to someone who doesn't believe in democracy? Well, rather a lot, but that's not the topic here. Meanwhile I have 10s of other gun nut comments to respond to.

Re:Or the reverse

[operagost]

The 20th century British Empire was quite a different thing from the 18th century British Empire.

Re:Or the reverse

[operagost]

I take it YOUR votes go against human life.

Two can play that game.

Re:Or the reverse

[infinitelink]

Not good reasoning.

How often is it that unmerited shootings (I'm excluding shootings that take place against aggressors) occur "in the neighborhood" inter-neighbor as opposed to a public space or within one's own home? Do you actually come into contact with all those people in suburbia where most people and their families just let alone all else around them? And how much further could your stretched logic be taken to ban almost anything else? I think when people ask and answer these questions, your "reasoning" proves specious. Regards, JBB

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

Does the government keep a register of those things? If no, then it's not a FOIA request.

Re:Or the reverse

[modecx]

I acknowledge that, it's just an illustration of the dangers and risks people take for granted, and also the futility of humans applying animism to inanimate objects, whilst ignoring risk from real life animate actors.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

Once again you are unable to put forth any type of logical response to my argument, and once again must resort to name-calling. If one person is able to make a logical argument, and the other is only able to say "nah-uh" and attempt to toss a perceived derogatory remark at their opponent, you have to start wondering who the "nut" is. You have shown no counter-points to my arguments against democracy. Furthermore, you fail to even acknowledge that you are incorrect in your assumption that America is not a democracy, and indeed a republic.

I'm starting to think you don't quite understand how things like debate and logic work and fit into discussing different philosophical beliefs. You would make a great pundit.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

The bible doesn't say to kill people who get abortions, so that fallacy doesn't apply here. I think it's reasonable to denote "Christians" as those who base their beliefs on the Bible; otherwise, anyone could be one.

That's not at all reasonable. Most Christians don't believe in the literal truth of the bible. Most Christians are Catholic, and they are not literal truthers. Literal truth is amongst some of the protestant religions, notably those who call themselves Born Again.

Christians are those that believe in Jesus Christ as the son of God. That's it. They can believe in all sorts of other things, and commit all kinds of crimes, and still be Christian. If you say they're not Christians just because you disagree with some aspect of them, that is most certainly the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

His neighbor only has a constitutional right to weapons while he is a member of his state's national guard. ("well regulated militia") This notion that the second amendment gives anyone else the right to bear arms is the product of activist judges who ignore the plain language and the founder's intent. Since the Roberts court wasn't afraid to overturn 100 years of precedent for Citizens United, I'm sure they'll get right on to fixing the mistake that put 300 million guns into our society.

Re:Or the reverse

[infinitelink]

Actually the laws dictate that the records not be divulged en masse; they're meant for law enforcement, and they're probably restricted this way because the permitting and licensing schemes already don't pass Constitutional muster: keeping how much can be divulged to a minimum is one way to give pretext that they should be acceptable.

The [Constitutional] lawyers I know are sad they don't live in New York (and now this state) because the lawsuit not only on behalf of the people whose information was divulged to the public by this paper would be great, but that against the State (note that when the government is merely incompetent in pursuing a function, it has immunity; when it violates its statutes or steps outside the bounds of the Constitution, it waives/loses it) for violating the laws and procedures regarding FOIA requests and how information pertaining to gun registration should be handled or not handled has them salivating.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

Then why haven't they been such a "crisis-level" "problem" for the past 250 years?

You think the "wild west" wasn't a crisis level problem? You think the gangs of Chicago weren't a crisis level problem?

Seriously: do you REALLY believe that "the government" will ALWAYS have YOUR best interests in mind? Because if your answer to that is "No", then you have just identified the REAL reason that the 2nd Amendment exists.

Nonsense. That's the reason for the ballot box, not the gun.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

I never understood the burglar example. If I was a burglar, I would at first check if no one is in the house before breaking in.

That depends on where you are. In UK. 50% of all burglaries happen while the owner is at home. In US, 14%. I can only think of one thing that is responsible for that difference.

The interesting thing about guns is that they don't have to be used (or even displayed) to have an effect.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

These statistics are either cooked, completely ignore the elephant in the room while focusing on the fly on the wall or just plain pulled out of your ass. It's a widely known fact that somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rapes happen inside family and friends circles.

That's one side of the coin (and it's also true for murders). The other side is that most murders and rapes happen to be done by people with past criminal records for lesser crimes (IIRC, the average count of prior criminal convictions for a murderer in US is 4). Both sides are true.

In other words, past criminals are the ones that commit most crimes, and when they do it, they tend to do it to people they know (friends / family).

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

You're correct, but it should be noted that the reason why firearms (and specifically handguns) are so efficient self-defense tools is because they don't require grueling training exercises to learn to use them right. Learning to be an Olympic shooter is one thing, but it's not necessary for self-defense (and, in fact, can be harmful, since it's speed that matters there, not pinpoint accuracy). And learning to draw and shoot and hit a man-sized target in the chest consistently at 10 yards is something that any random person from the street can do in only a few training sessions.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

How is it anyone else's business what I keep in my bedroom closet any more than it is anyone else's business

It depends entirely what it is. For example if it's a nuclear bomb, that's everyone's business.

There is more fervor over online published data on sex offenders in society than you people are expressing for legally registered gun owners (in the most restrictive state in the country) having the same done to them. That's kinda, I dunno, low.

You people say it's a crime deterrent. Therefore people knowing you have a gun is a good thing. You're less likely to get burgled. And the country is less likely to have someone shot.

Re:Or the reverse

[dcw3]

This is because your peace is imposing on that of other people.

  That civilization needs war is BS. The other ways are harder, but not impossible.

Only in your Utopia. In the real world, they are impossible.

Re:Or the reverse

[dcw3]

I agree with your points. However, if the point about publishing information is correct, I'm sure that will fail in court when it comes to going against freedom of the press. Maybe a private citizen couldn't do it, but the press won't be contained by that kind of law.

Re:Or the reverse

[dcw3]

42nd trimester?!? Wow, she must have been HUGE!

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

lol, poor gun owners. no problem if their firearms are properly secured in a real gun safe and not the tin can they probably call a gun safe.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

one thing i cannot stand is pedantic dickheads with a simplistic 9th grade education that is wrong. all the same things that can happen in a democratic republic or representative democracy, or monarchy, so stfu you whiny idiot.

Re:Or the reverse

[xhawkx]

Well communicated, I guess all of us "gun nuts" will always be in the back ground, making sure that the anti-gun folks live and walk safely among us and only until "IT" happens to them ,will they really understand how the world works. If only criminals would obey the law...

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

So you're saying that I can keep my gun, so long as I remain an atheist?

Re:Or the reverse

[wallsg]

Take a look at Gandhi for other side of the coin. Violent people tend to focus on violent solutions. "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails".

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest."

-- Mahatma Gandhi

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

According to the standing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment (after Heller and McDonald), it is an individual right, and it is incorporated via the 14th (and so applies to the states), but it is not unlimited, just like freedom of speech is not (see also: libel, slander, incitement). So states can institute "reasonable" regulations and restrictions on gun ownership and carry. What constitutes "reasonable" is basically subject to judicial interpretation at that point - in Heller, SCOTUS made it clear that a blanket ban on possession is unconstitutional, and so are measures that render the guns inoperable while possessed (e.g. the requirement to have trigger lock on them at all times). However, they did not review restrictions beyond that.

In particular, it remains to be seen whether "may issue" for concealed carry is constitutional or not - based on the arguments in Heller and McDonald they'd likely rule that it's not, but you won't know until someone will challenge their state on these grounds. Also, it's not at all certain that AWB-style laws would be found unconstitutional.

So, realistically, refusing to comply on the grounds of the 2nd would likely just land you in prison for several years. If you want to be Rosa Parks of the gun rights movement, then go ahead, but understand what you're signing up for.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

It's perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracise those who own firearms.

It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize homosexuals.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Muslims.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize African Americans.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Mac users.

... is it, really?

Yes, it's legal. No, it's not reasonable. In fact, if you do any of the above, you're an asshole and a jerk. And you're one when you "ostracize" people who own firearms, too.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sigg3.net]

Just because something is counterfactual does not mean they are not possible.
I mean, I'm answering your reply not an hour after you published it across a global network of electricity. Open your eyes to possibilities, and what simply is becomes the platform of their realization. And the "real world" you mention did at some time not have an internet, electricity, aso.. Things that seemed utopian at the time.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

So if your neighbour makes a large bomb, that's OK is it? As long as he doesn't explode it.

If it is legal, then sure. In most locations it isn't legal, and at that point, yeah, you have a right to know that your neighbor is a criminal.

Gun owners aren't criminals, though. It is perfectly legal to own a gun in the USA, and in particular, where the list of owners was published.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

Or how about this. Let's have the carry license information public and available upon request to anyone, but upon one condition: legal unconditional (beyond licensing) open carry. You want to know about all those evil people who're carrying guns? Then don't have a fit when you see all those guns on the streets, carried openly.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

I'm an European, I don't get this gun thing. But I'd be really freaked out if I knew a neighbor had a drawer full of knives, none of them designed for the kitchen.

You don't ever go camping? Or you do it with a kitchen knife? That sounds like it would be very inconvenient...

Re:Or the reverse

[frederickroyceperez]

There was the incident where Onan's birth control was found to be fatal .

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

And what do you resort to when the ballot box is no longer an option?

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

If it is legal [for your neighbour to make large bombs in his house], then sure.

And there is the madness of the gun-lobby. No, it's not OK, it's too dangerous. And it still wouldn't be OK if the law allowed it.

Gun owners aren't criminals, though.

Well not yet. Slave owners were also not criminal at one time.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize homosexuals.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Muslims.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize African Americans.

No it's not.

It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Mac users.

Yes it is. And I say that as a Mac user.

In fact, if you do any of the above, you're an asshole and a jerk. And you're one when you "ostracize" people who own firearms, too.

Not at all. It's perfectly OK to make your opinion of people's behaviour known, and not to associate with people who's behaviour you disapprove of.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

First, let me say that I think you should be able to have your guns. That said...

It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize homosexuals.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Muslims.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize African Americans.
It is perfectly legal and reasonable to ostracize Mac users. ... is it, really?

It is, really.

Even people like these guys have the right to free speech.

And people ostracize and discriminate against Muslims or blacks or Mac users (or in general Apple users - are you new to slashdot?) all the time. Usually not to the point of being illegal... usually (if nobody ever breaks anti-discrimination laws, you wouldn't need them)

People can ostracize for less: do you drink? Do you smoke? How rich are you? What's your favorite band? Your favorite sports team? Sony, MS, or Nintendo? vi or emacs? Are you a vegetarian? Are you a feminist? Are you ugly? What's your political affiliation?

Yes, it's legal. No, it's not reasonable. In fact, if you do any of the above, you're an asshole and a jerk. And you're one when you "ostracize" people who own firearms, too.

What is so unreasonable to be an asshole and a jerk? People have likes and dislikes, and they may express their dislikes in tangible ways.

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

In all the honesty, this is true for a lot of modern "hystia" crime. Problem is the way people react to sensationalist news and media wanting to make money in the world where media competes with other media for views and sensationalist headlines simply outsell realistic ones.

As a result we have hysterical treatment of things like child molesting (well in excess of 95% of all child molestation, rape and similar crime happens inside the family), rape (80-95% inside family depending on definition of rape).

Another interesting thing is criminality in general. More often then not, crime rates are quoted as average per population. However when you look at median distribution, you'll note that average working class citizen across most Western countries (though perhaps not US) actually has about the same chance of being a victim of violent crime. Except for certain extremely poor/recidivist circles, which are tiny in relation to general public in size, but commit a large portion of all crimes.

Rape crime is a really good example of this. Media likes to portray rape as "something that every woman should be afraid of". I.e. "bush rapists", someone who jumps out of the bush, drags you into it and rapes you. This has almost nothing in common with reality - while such rapes indeed happen, likelihood of this happening to a woman is incredibly small. However you can cook the numbers to look actually scary when you take people who live in certain social strata where rape is almost a daily occurrence (women who are in abusive families, the criminal gangs, prostitutes) then average their numbers over entire population, it suddenly starts to look like entire population is under serious rape threat.

At the same time, the amount of "bush rape" has been all but collapsing even in US. That, in spite of our cultural advancement that keeps increasing more and more types of sexual behaviour associated with word rape (consider case Assange in Sweden, what he did isn't even a crime in US or GB).

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

Misspelled "hysteria" there on the first line. Long workday and it shows...

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

Are you seriously equating gun ownership and slavery?

Re:Or the reverse

[Luckyo]

One last point: it is a common argument that US focus on "punishment" over "rehabilitation" in justice system is one of the main causes of its high criminality among population. As noted above, a small circle of people is responsible for a lot of crime. As a result, preventing recidivism through rehabilitation is naturally far more efficient deterrent to future crime then trying to catch first timers or increasing scope of punishment but focusing on punishing part and not bothering to rehabilitate.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

No. Just pointing out that:

1) The list of things that are legal now isn't the same as the list of things that are OK.

2) Laws change.

3) People who believe in the most unreasonable things that may be legal at the time, sometimes with the benefit of hindsight can be seen by all to be very wrong.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

In all honesty, it's true for a lot of modern hysteria in general. It's not just crimes - on a similar note, you see people afraid of flying, because plane crashes are widely publicized, and very few actually go and look up stats on the number of accident fatalities by means of transport. Then there's the whole terrorism scare etc.

It's really sad to see how easy it is to whip a mob into a frenzy over something with mass media, even when every individual member of it is a reasonable person. And when said media only cares about viewer count, well... more frenzy means more eyeballs.

Re:Or the reverse

[shutdown -p now]

The correct and proper way to go about these things in a democratic society is to change laws first. In the USA, in case that you want to ban all guns outright (which seems to be the case, judging by the tone of your posts), this means amending the 2nd. If you can pull that off, fine - if the majority decides that I cannot own guns, then I will surrender mine. I may disagree, but the law is the law, so long as it's enacted by appropriate means and reflects the will of the people.

I just don't want to see this discussion brought out onto shady extra-legal ground. By all means, let's have an open discussion on the issues in the press etc. But compiling and publishing lists? There's only one step from there to vigilantism, and it's a pretty short one.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign

Thanks for sharing that gun control propaganda.

Unfortunately, the gun control fanatics have generated a blizzard of lies, misinformation, deception, and other forms of propaganda over the past few decades. It's remarkable how many people believe the nonsense they generate, especially given that the history of gun ownership in the United States, particularly in Colonial America, is well documented, and anyone who bothers to do a little research of impartial sources will quickly discover that most of what the fanatics say IS NONSENSE. Social scientists such as John Lott have demonstrated this: see some of his papers and books for the details.

It's not clear to me why anyone who can't be bothered to do this research is posting on Slashdot. This is pretty easy and basic research, nothing near as hard as what most of us do for a living. Separating facts from propaganda is a basic skill for anyone with a scientific worldview, which should include everyone legitimately here.

Gun ownership, along with the appropriate training, should be viewed as a sign of responsible citizenship, and an indication that a neighborhood is a good place to live.

Re:Or the reverse

[dcw3]

Advances in technology do not equate to advances in human nature. It is human nature to have disagreements, fights, wars, etc. When you figure out a way to eliminate poverty, greed, aggression, and a few other issues, then you can come back and tell us that it's not impossible. Yes, you didn't say that it's possible in our lifetime. I would have given you a pass if it was even conceivable in a few generations, but you've stretched beyond the bounds of current reality, or even what's on any kind of futuristic drawing boards. So, again, for all practical purposes, it's still impossible. You can't call BS on something that you can't currently change.

Re:Or the reverse

[wildstoo]

Despite what you may think, I'm fairly sure that women are human life.

I'm not sure you can play the game at all.

Re:Or the reverse

[dgatwood]

Now it means you a) don't know what a right is...

At its core? A right is a promise that you will be allowed to do something up to the point at which it infringes or threatens to infringe unacceptably upon the rights of others. A right can be taken away. Perhaps you thought gun ownership was an unalienable right?

This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on slashdot: "And their weapons are probably stored in their bedside tables, fully loaded, just waiting to be stolen and used by someone who didn't pass a background check."

Just pointing out reality. A sizable percentage of the illegally held firearms in the U.S. were stolen from a legal owner at some point in the past. In 2010, there were only 326 justifiable homicides in the entire U.S., whereas an average of 232,400 firearms are stolen from private households ever year. So your firearm is more than 700 times more likely to be stolen than used to kill someone who is threatening your family.

But, you might ask, what if the homeowner merely hurts the intruder? Well, even if every single non-self-inflicted firearm injury in the U.S. involved defending against an attacker, your firearm would still be 4–8 times as likely to get stolen than to be used to injure or kill someone who is threatening your family.

Ah, but what if the homeowner merely scares the person with a firearm? The gun is still probably more likely to get stolen than used defensively, according to most studies.

Re:Or the reverse

[ikeman32]

If you are posting AC, Press Alt-F4 and it moderates your score to +5.

LOL now if anyone believes that they need their geek card pulled.

Re:Or the reverse

[ikeman32]

"I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex." Just means the ex gets a gun as well and shoots first and asks questions later.

As a former member of the US Armed Forces, (with an honorable discharge) I was always taught that even the most seemingly innocuous information can prove to be valuable to someone and potentially be harmful. The more pieces of the puzzle you have the more of the picture you can see.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

Someone has to defend your right to be a pacifist.

That someone would be their lawyer, not a random self appointed vigilante.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

Pretty much this. Most people watch far too many hollywood movies.

Hollywood sucks for risk assessment. Less than 1000 people in the USA are killed during robberies each year, and thats all robberies not just home invasions. If you buy a gun to protect your family just remember: on average wives/girlfriends are more likely to be killed by their spouse/boyfriend than a robber.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

I would offer that people that cannot successfully complete a training course with some kind of live-fire simulation should not be given permits for handguns.

Otherwise we are simply increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used in an otherwise improper manner.

The people who can successfully complete a training course and buy guns are still increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used improperly. Training courses don't test for poor anger management, suicidal or abusive tendencies, or people who consider their glove compartment to be secure storage. Training courses also don't necessarily test all of the people in the home who will have access to the gun.

Having sufficient training to pick up a gun, properly target an adversary and if necessary fire with effective results is important.

I'd say having sufficient training to recognize all of the problems I mentioned, both in yourself and other people in your home, and then using that training to decide whether or not to have a gun in the house is more important when it comes to actual risk reduction.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

I don't see any reason for the information to be available outside of a formal police investigation. But that information should include the serial numbers of the guns, and be readily available to police throughout the country. Your gun should be your responsibility until you sell it legally or report it stolen.

Re:Or the reverse

[Fjandr]

I'm going to take a leap and hope this is an incorrectly-placed reply. Otherwise, I'm completely lost as to its bearing on my comment.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

Having sufficient training to pick up a gun, properly target an adversary and if necessary fire with effective results is important. I would offer that people that cannot successfully complete a training course with some kind of live-fire simulation should not be given permits for handguns.

Otherwise we are simply increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used in an otherwise improper manner.

You would still be increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used in an otherwise improper manner. If you really wanted to decrease risks to your household the training would focus on recognizing (in your self and everyone else in the house): anger management issues, substance abuse issues, abusive tendencies, suicidal tendencies, and perhaps lackadaisical tendencies like considering the glove compartment of a car to be a secure storage place for a gun.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

I think the burglar posts are focusing on the rational, logical burglars. There are other types out there.

There's also you, and your spouse/partner. Getting killed by a robber is a lot less common than getting killed by someone else who lives in the house. So you should probably have a gun to protect yourself.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. I don't know what is wrong with the US right now. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. I certainly hear of more incidents of people being shot by accident with a gun they or their family own, than people being killed by home invasion.

Re:Or the reverse

[tompaulco]

Does the government keep a register of those things? If no, then it's not a FOIA request.
Of course not. It's in the constitution and is a protected right and therefore the government doesn't keep a register of them. We should be very concerned if they did. Just like we should be very concerned that they keep a record of gun owners. After all, if they did that, it would be all the easier to take away those rights, just like they are trying to do with guns.

Re:Or the reverse

[BasilBrush]

Then it's not a FOIA request.

The guns request is.

Whether you like it or not.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sigg3.net]

The changing is in the present, yes, but the consequence is always after the change. So I call BS on your BS:D

But on a more serious note. I just read that 30-50% of the world's eatables are thrown away. Just sorting out the distribution of wealth is a huge task, but one that seems pretty obvious. In order to do that (and NOT start wars) is to slowly reduce the extent of private ownership. (Not take away or reduce private ownership, just reduce how much one person can actually own.)

In Callenbach's Ecotopia, for instance, he solved this by allowing ownership of a home (as apart from "house", "houses") and owning the place where you work. This way you could have multi-million dollar business, but the dollars would belong to those working there. Apparently, there are some businesses doing this in the USA now after the credit crunch, with great success! People work harder when they actually reap the profits.
Callenbach's philosophy of direct relations have much going for it.

Now, these obvious though fundamental changes would certainly drum up a war from those having way too much and wanting more. And I admit there probably would be a war. But they are few and we are many (and the poor even more). So is a revolution necessary? Not necessary, but extremely likely.

Improbable is not impossible. It just means it will require hard work and more work to get there. After all, this is why Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, which is used by many as an excuse to not get off their arse.

Re:Or the reverse

[dcw3]

You're either delusional, a troll, or didn't read what I wrote. That said, I won't be responding further to your idiocy.

Re:Or the reverse

[redmid17]

No, gun ownership is not an inalienable right. Per DC v Heller it is eminently restricted, as current laws indicate. What you endorse is wholeheartedly against current legal precedent. And you're full of shit: 497,646 incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm. http://www.http//slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3394401&cid=42645225#ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354 You do not know what you're talking about when it comes to guns. That much is painfully obvious.

Re:Or the reverse

[redmid17]

There are 8 million CCWs in the States per last ATF estimate. Most of those are *not* former LEOs.

Re:Or the reverse

[drinkypoo]

The people who can successfully complete a training course and buy guns are still increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used improperly

Economic imbalance and a system designed to widen the gap rather than close it are increasing the number of thieves waiting to steal guns.

Training courses don't test for poor anger management, suicidal or abusive tendencies, or people who consider their glove compartment to be secure storage.

Society encourages poor anger management by glorifying violence of all kinds, and encourages people to store firearms in their glove compartment with a school system which actively suppresses critical thinking skills.

I'd say having sufficient training to recognize all of the problems I mentioned, both in yourself and other people in your home, and then using that training to decide whether or not to have a gun in the house is more important when it comes to actual risk reduction.

I'd say that firearm ownership is intended to add a risk component to creating too dumb and reactionary a populace.

Re:Or the reverse

[Sigg3.net]

The argument is mostly semantic. You said advances in tech are not identical to advances in (human) nature. Agreed. Then you said it is in human nature to have disagreements. I'd say both agreement and disagreement are plentiful in all human groups, yes.

Then you wrote that "When you figure out a way to eliminate [very important problems], then you can come back and tell us that it's not impossible."
This is akin to saying that 'for x to be possible' is _identical to_ 'a way to realize x'. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as I can tell, then, by your rationale nothing is possible until it is present (or the weaker: available within a few generations). This is not what possibility means, and I think you realized that when you made the ad hoc attribution. A possibility rests on its conditions. The possibility for flight is gravity, aerodynamics, velocity (...) and of course the aircraft itself. However the aircraft itself is what makes flight a reality, not a possibility.

My point is simply, all the factors making peace possible is present. If peace is something we can navigate towards, then we'll tackle the very important problems underway. If, like you, we focus on the obstacles, we will probable run around in different directions.

To say that human nature is contrary to peace is wrong. Human nature is exactly what enables us to create peace just as it enables us to create war. However, if you go outside and have a look at the world, most of the world is already peaceful. People defaults to peace. Thus, wars are to people what parasites are to carriers.

Re: poverty, greed, aggression
If you look at it this way it is quite apparent that poverty is the lack of, greed is the excess of and aggression is the response to. The first and the second go hand in hand; if x is allowed to be greedy then y will have less (very simplistic but in a game of limited resources with two players). Any limitation of greed should then positively affect a decrease in poverty. This is a possibility in legislation.

Aggression is harder because it lacks a context in your post. However, if we take something like revenge, the solution to "blood revenge" in historical Iceland was to lift the right to exact punishment from the individual and put it on the state. However, we don't have the same thing going for nations (in any effective scale), so the USA exacted revenge on Iraq. (We can admit it was to create an oil partner, and probably be more correct. But it was _acting on_ and seeking legitimacy in the pretext of revenge.) This is a possibility in state police and global policing (a world community of equal states, e.g. NOT the current UN).

Much wrong is made possible by the consolidation of powers in very few hands (kings, presidents, prime ministers and any other "representative"). Callenbach's proposed solution was to nullify representation. You cannot represent anything other than yourself. This type of flat, minimal democracy is a possibility. Perhaps not desirable but still an interesting solution to a recurring problem.

Re:Or the reverse

[pepty]

The people who can successfully complete a training course and buy guns are still increasing the number of guns waiting to be stolen or used improperly

Economic imbalance and a system designed to widen the gap rather than close it are increasing the number of thieves waiting to steal guns.

Yet violent crime rates have been decreasing for the past 20 years.

I'd say that firearm ownership is intended to add a risk component to creating too dumb and reactionary a populace.

I'm not sure I see it that way. There's a profit incentive for the gun trade, and political incentives for Republicans "It's our gun tribe vs the anti-gun tribe" and "It's a scary world, I'm protecting the gun that protects you", but I don't see any advantage from the actual risk itself. Cui bono from suicide, accidents, or killing your spouse?

Re:Or the reverse

[Stuarticus]

So you'd vote for arms control to stop people getting shot?

Re:Or the reverse

[Stuarticus]

You seem to imply that the job of the police is to brawl on peoples behalf.

Re:Or the reverse

[Stuarticus]

Glad to see you're a Charlie Brooker fan.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/17/newtown-shooting-helpless-charlie-brooker?mobile-redirect=false

Re:Or the reverse

[drinkypoo]

Yet violent crime rates have been decreasing for the past 20 years.

As gun ownership has been increasing. This doesn't prove anything either way, but it certainly doesn't prove what you want it to prove. Note that though gun ownership is up and the population is up that violence is down. Guess guns aren't the problem, huh?

'd say that firearm ownership is intended to add a risk component to creating too dumb and reactionary a populace.

I'm not sure I see it that way. There's a profit incentive for the gun trade, and political incentives for Republicans "It's our gun tribe vs the anti-gun tribe" and "It's a scary world, I'm protecting the gun that protects you", but I don't see any advantage from the actual risk itself.

That's because you don't understand (or perhaps believe) that the second amendment is a hedge against tyranny, foreign and domestic, simply because you wouldn't give your life to defend your way of life, and thus don't believe anyone else would. But the world is bigger than you. Thank goodness.

Re:Or the reverse

[Stuarticus]

Prohibiting acts and behaviors never works.

Yes, who needs a legal system, it's a crazy idea, it'll never work!

Re:Or the reverse

[Stuarticus]

He's not the one that feels like he needs a gun in this day and age.

Re:Or the reverse

[Runaway1956]

Pretty much so. Let's remember, cops and soldiers and sailors are paid roughly equally. And they are treated roughly equally as well. When you NEED a cop, a soldier, or a sailor, they are freaking HEROS!! The day after you don't need one of them, they are pushed aside, and told to wait for their betters.

Rudyard Kipling had much to say on the subject, if you care to read him.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't see how her ex knowing she has a gun puts her life in danger. If anything, it would probably act as deterrent to the jealous ex."

The point to having a CONCEALED weapon is the element of surprise. If the ex doesn't know she has a gun, he might approach her and try to use physical force or a knife to attack her. If he now knows that she is carrying a gun, he will be more likely to get a gun and shoot her without confrontation first. In other words, he will revert to simple assassination instead of harassment.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

By "people", you mean "a--holes".

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Except now her ex knows where she lives.

Re:Or the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, if a woman received her abortion via taxpayer dollars, then there is a public interest. However, HIPPA laws may be in conflict with that public interest since medically induced, not naturally occurring abortions (aka miscarriages) are categorized as medical procedures. However, if violating the privacy of private gun owners is in the public interest from the standpoint of public safety, then how can you reconcile that public safety, which is an extension of public health, also not in violation of HIPPA laws for disclosure. Especially, if executive orders that Obama put into play require a doctor to ask a patient, in certain circumstances, if they own a gun. That would be protected under HIPPA and privileged information between a doctor and a patient, which has the same protection as lawyer/client privilege.

Do you see now the mental jiu-jitsu required that the left inspires to make gun ownership as nefarious as possible.

Re:Or the reverse

[bennini]

Your "solution" does nothing to prevent another newtown. A passive approach where you punish someone after breaking the law only makes sense for non violent crimes. Violence, and most especially gun violence, needs to be preempted and prevented.

There are two ways of doing this.
1. Identify people who are violent or potentially violent
2. Reduce the chances that a violent person will successfully kill others if he/she fails to be identified by 1.

Obviously 1 is much harder than 2. Getting rid of guns is the easiest solution to 2.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

Not only is it impossible to prevent a Newtown-like event, that is not my goal. The goal is not to be able to stop random acts of violence(which are on the decline, actually) but to stop the spread of the tyrant state. Do you think the TSA makes you safe? Another sideshow, just like gun control, meant as another means of controlling the people. It's time to ask yourself what is more important to you, a free and open society, or the illusion of society.

And both your "ways" are quite illogical anyway. Number one is entirely subjective until someone has acted. Maybe playing violent video games and movies makes one potentially violent; shall we ban those and imprison individuals who have been exposed to them? As for number two...that's just inane. You think people aren't able to murder successfully without advanced weaponry? Humans have been exceptionally talented at killing each others for many, many years before the invention of the firearm. As I said before, violent crime is on the decline - there are numbers that back this up.

Re:Or the reverse

[bennini]

I agree that the TSA is worthless. And it was created by a Republican who supposedly believed in smaller government.
But owning more guns isn't going to make the TSA going away.

It sounds like you want to justify guns for fear of our government turning into North Korea.
Sorry, but I think voting is a better deterrent for that than guns.
Most other civilized countries in the world do not allow regular people to own guns and they are not turning into totalitarian regimes. It would never happen in America. If you think it can, you've watched too many movies. And even if it did, then pistols and rifles in the hands of a bunch of untrained gun fanatics aren't going to prevent it. Our freedom is not sustained by guns, it is sustained by other values.

Video games and movies don't make people violent. Getting bullied at school, broken families, poverty, lack of family values, and mental disorders cause people to be violent.

Your theory that people will kill even if they don't have "advanced weaponry" is pretty ridiculous.
If you have an AR15 , and I have a knife, which of us has a higher chance of taking out 20 people in a movie theatre?

Honestly, who cares if there are other ways to kill people. Sure I can drive over a person crossing the street. I can put poison in their food. I can strangle them from behind. The objective is to reduce deaths caused by bullets ripping through a person's flesh and bones. If you reduce the number of deaths by one by banning guns, then you have improved society.

Re:Or the reverse

[Worthless_Comments]

Where to start...

Not sure where the Republican remark came from? I'm guessing it's because you think I must be, which I assure you I am not. I detest both parties.


You claim that not allowing regular people to own guns does not lead to totalitarian regimes, which I believe is just wrong. It is commonly the first step of tyrants is to disarm the people. Not to 'Godwin' the discussion, but look at Nazi Germany. For that matter, look at modern day England and to what degree of a nanny state they have become. If you think that is a good direction for America to head in, then we just have fundamental differences in opinion about what American liberty is supposed to be about. I don't know what to say about thinking nothing can ever happen in America, since that is exactly what everyone thinks, "it can never happen to me." As far as untrained fanatics going against the government, maybe you should look at, well, nearly any major conflict in the last 50-60 years. Ask a Vietnam vet what rural villagers with small arms can do. I can point to numerous examples of underarmed groups overcoming superior military might, and if you read a little history you can find them yourself.

And I agree ficitonal media does not cause violence. But a lot of people do. That's the problem, who gets to decide what indicates the potentially violent individuals you mentioned in your first post? Just because you think it doesn't means nothing, chances are you won't get to make those decisions. You see, I'm not in favor of banning your guns or your video games. I like all of the Constitution.

No, reducing the amount of deaths by 1 is not sufficient to limit liberty, nor is the prevention of 100 deaths sufficient. That's like saying it's okay to torture a terrorist if the information he gives you could save lives. Compromising our ideals is not worth it. There is no price too high for freedom to the man determined not to be a slave. So perhaps, as a nation, it's time to ask ourselves: is freedom no longer worth the cost? If that's the case, I wish we could at least be open about it.

Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool, now I know which homes to break into.

Re:Shopping List

[Goaway]

And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime. I guess there are many things I still don't understand about guns.

Re:Shopping List

[Fnord666]

And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime. I guess there are many things I still don't understand about guns.

There are arguments for both directions in this. Some people will argue that because guns are a high value commodity on the black market, they are a lucrative target for theft. Others will argue that there is an increased risk of getting injured or killed in an attempt to rob these homes.

Re:Shopping List

[Rockoon]

..and others would argue that homes not on the list just because that much safer to rob from

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretend I'm a gun owner and only own 1 gun. Assuming I had the legal permits, I could carry it with me but you know that I go to church. In some states it is illegal to carry a gun to church, so as a person that legally owns a gun and took the time to legally get all the permits etc. I leave my gun at home. You being my lawbreaking neighbor break into my house while I am at church and take my gun. Sure, I locked it into a safe, but you knew that I would be gone for several hours and had time to break into the safe.

Or now that I have my name in the paper, someone that lives far from me knows my name and address. It's not hard to do a facebook/google/whatever search and find out where I work, my habits, hobbies, etc. so that they can pick and choose a time when I will be unlikely to be home.

Or consider this scenario. I shoot targets on weekends and the idea of killing a person is appalling to me. You come to my house while I am home and you threaten me and I give you my gun without a shot fired. Many people use guns for defense, many don't and couldn't/wouldn't use a gun to defend themselves because they know that they are not able to kill someone else.

Re:Shopping List

[BlueStrat]

Some people will argue that because guns are a high value commodity on the black market, they are a lucrative target for theft.

Isn't it curious that many, if not most, of those same people argue that prohibition simply fuels a black market, like the "War On (some) Drugs" and alcohol prohibition?

If guns were less-tightly regulated, taxed, licensed, registered, etc, criminals wouldn't find law-abiding gun-owner's homes and their guns such an attractive target, due to the lack of high payoff along with the risk of being shot.

Not saying that convicted violent felons or those legally judged to be incapable of responsible gun ownership (it shouldn't be because you were given Prozac for 6 months, 15 years ago, after your wife and kids died in a fire) should be able to own guns.

Why is it any different today than it was 30 or 40 years ago? I remember that US citizens weren't such pansies back then. Guns weren't something that terrified so many people. Bad things, shootings, happened occasionally then as well. But, people didn't get so frothing-at-the-mouth about the guns. They got upset at the person/people who committed the act, and at law enforcement and government, if they screwed up.

I can guarantee you one thing. More people in this world are killed by governments than by regular civilians shooting each other.

Government is one thing. It is raw force . That's it. That's all it is. You can draft all the pretty laws, acts, constitutions, charters, whatever you'd like. None of that, in the end, can stop raw force. Only a threat of force from the citizens themselves, if it goes too far and becomes too tyrannical/authoritarian, can keep it in check.

You want to find out what a boot stamping on a human face, forever, feels like? Remove the only check to raw force. "Checks and balances" isn't only about the three branches of the US government. There's a fourth check, an armed citizenry. Remove that check as a significant deterrent, and balance is gone. When balance is gone, so is individual liberty and freedom.

Strat

Re:Shopping List

[Barsteward]

I put you on the list of not responsible enough to have a gun. I bet Rambo is your favorite film

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

Bad news. If government wanted to crush an armed rebellion, it would succeed. Guns allowed by US laws are generally on the level of Libyan rebels.

Take a look at success rate of Libyan rebels vs their government until West came in with superior heavy weaponry and special forces teams to direct their fire. They were literally being slaughtered like animals with heavy weaponry when they tried to do something other then running away. It was a blood bath, and one that those guys with their small firearms quickly learned to adapt due to Darwinian selection.

If you want to win wars against governments, you need heavy weaponry, organised military and preferably outside support. Else, you're just an idiot who thinks his firearm will help him against tanks, artillery and bombers.

Re:Shopping List

[heypete]

And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime. I guess there are many things I still don't understand about guns.

Many people do. However, most people work during the day and are otherwise away from their homes.

It's quite possible that criminals may attempt to break into someone's house and steal their guns while the homeowner is away.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

How about you post online exactly where you live, what kind of home security system you have or do not have and what things of value you have in your home.

If you have a home security system you certainly shouldn't feel worried about all this information being readily available to any and all criminals who can work a web browser and click on a map.

Yes, people post signs of ADT in their front yard. People also post signs saying "I don't dial 911" with a picture of a revolver on it. However, do you want all this in a clickable online map?

Re:Shopping List

[Goaway]

Ah yes, I see: If we just let criminals buy any gun they need legally, we wouldn't have a problem with robberies. This makes perfect sense, because guns are exactly like drugs: They are completely harmless to anybody but their user!

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

How many tanks would it take to occupy america? Thanks for playing. "Idiot"

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

That is what real gun safes are for

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

Tanks and bombers in the middle of LA or NYC? Are you insane? It would be nothing like Libya. POTUS doesn't have the luxury of killing thousands of people who are not part of a rebellion to get a handful of guys with semi-automatic rifles. If anything he'd be doing everything he can do avoid the US military proper showing its face anywhere. The type of rebellion that would force the use of the military will have won before the military even arrives on scene. The economy would collapse over the fear of the rebellion spreading and the party with a man in the White House at the time would be dead in the water.

Re:Shopping List

[ColdWetDog]

Those funny looking Taliban guys would like to disagree. You need 1) boots on the ground 2) better intelligence 3) the ability to blend in and 4) some sort of weapon - be it a gun, an IED, a Molotov Cocktail or whathaveyou. But first and foremost, you need a cause. And personal freedom is a pretty good 'cause'. The fact that many Americans view their government as something other than a benign being serves as the ground swell for a very strong cause. Guns are historically part of that and are ingrained in the culture. Take away the guns and a big whole is created in the 'personal freedom' mythos.

That, in part, is what the Government (big "G", but not for "Goodness") is trying to do with gun ownership. Sheep are much easier to deal with than coyotes.

Re:Shopping List

[AmiMoJo]

Most people buy them to feel powerful and manly.

Re:Shopping List

[BasilBrush]

Those funny looking Taliban guys would like to disagree.

There's an enormous difference between resistance against a culturally different invading force, and an uprising against the homeland government.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

The frothing at the mouth is really just a media perception being driven by the people trying to get the laws enacted and the opposite perception being driven by those continuing to defend the Second Amendment. In the middle you have a bit more of reality such as the supreme court pretty much upholding the Second Amendment

Re:Shopping List

[BlueStrat]

There's an enormous difference between resistance against a culturally different invading force, and an uprising against the homeland government.

Why, you're absolutely correct! There is an enormous difference.

Just not in the way nor the direction you're thinking of.

US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.

Make no mistake. A full-out US uprising/rebellion/revolution would be a long and very, very bloody affair. Think WW2 Stalingrad, Kharkov, etc. Any military attempting to suppress a widespread rebellion in the US that has the approval of a significant portion of the population would make Afghanistan or Vietnam look like a walk in the park. It would be a war of attrition, and the numbers are on the citizens' side. Ever see a swarm of army ants overwhelm a much larger, and more-powerful-by-far victim?

Pravda(!) has already warned Americans against allowing their 2-A rights to be weakened.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

Heck, in the event of a rebellion, US citizens would likely receive arms/supplies/support from other nations. There are many nations who are not exactly happy with our current corrupt government, either, and would welcome a return to a US under the control of it's citizens, rather than the completely dishonest, untrustworthy, treasonous, tyrannical criminals we have had in control over the last number of decades.

Strat

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

I'm talking about resisting YOUR government, not foreign invader that is actively invading you. There is a reason why civil wars (what I was talking about) and invasions (what you're talking about) have completely different strategies, tactics and methods of fighting.

Before you try to move on with you logic, you should know I'm from Finland. We have a higher rate of guns per people in the country then you. But these guns are for army reserves, buried in caches across the country, because we actually have a realistic scenario of invasion by another large government supported by fairly recent history.

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

Parent was specifically talking about civil uprising fighting the government as an argument in support of citizen weapon ownership. That means full on civil war. That means that nation will be split into factions, one of which will be supported by government, and parent assumes he'll end up in one of the factions opposing the government.

That may or may not mean fighting in those cities, depending on what faction these cities happen to side with. Libyan example comes to mind again, as it Tripoli and other major cities were peaceful as they were completely under control by one faction and mostly suffered occasional terrorist attack early in the war, while eastern cities mainly controlled by rebels were being shelled by heavy artillery routinely (and would have collapsed to government forces without NATO intervention).

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

Not entirely sure if you understand what you're talking about. Parent is talking about resisting their own government. That means CIVIL war. Not invasion.

Think Libya. Not Afghanistan.

Re:Shopping List

[demonlapin]

I shoot targets on weekends and the idea of killing a person is appalling to me.

Then you should look into renting a storage unit at the range - centralized security and no risk of having it in your house.

Re:Shopping List

[spire3661]

The military would think long and hard before firing on US citizens on US soil. You might get a few skirmishes, but no mechanized battles. I have known alot of people in the military and none of them would have the will to kill US citizens wholesale, ever. Every US soldier's first duty is to the Constitution, not the Commander-in-Chief.

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

In a case of civil war, military would likely be split among the fighting faction lines, as typically happens. Some commanders and their bases would go one way, some go the other and so on.

Again, Libyan conflict shows a very good example of modern civil war.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 70 to 80 million gun owners in the US with around 300 million weapons. The entire US military has less than 3 million people in it. Furthermore the gun owners are the parents, siblings, spouses and children of the people in the military. Gun owners are the people who manufacture and supply the bombs, tanks, etc. that the military would use to suppress any insurection. Given that the military swears its oath to the constitution first and not just the government it is unlikely that any military oppression would succeed against the US population.
Eliminate those weapons however and the military is not needed to oppress the american people, a small gestapo force would be sufficent along with fear and intimidation.

Whether you think the american people could sucessfully rebel is immaterial, so long as we have the right to keep and bear arms the cost of trying to use brute force to oppress us is too high and carries too much risk. This is what preserves our freedoms unless we choose to trade them away for the illusion of temporary security.

Re:Shopping List

[ungodlychicken]

I am a veteran. There wasn't a damn thing anyone could have said or done to me to get me to fire on or direct my subordinates or others to fire on innocent (US) civilians. If it came to an armed rebellion, many servicemembers would be part of it. I directed aircraft onto targets. I think that would be pretty effective against tanks.

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

I think you need to study up a bit on how civil wars in general are fought. You appear to be genuinely uninformed on the issue.

To be clear: rising of part of the nation against government through force of arms is known as "civil war".

You seem to assume a monolithic invasion force, such as Afghanistan. That is why I instead presented you with Libya, which is indeed a full on civil war and a great example on what happens in modern civil wars. It's an even better example in relation to US because of how Libya operated (approximately 150 different tribes united under the same flag, much like current US states), as well as situation with weapons in control of the nation and small army.

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

I do wonder how long that idealism of your will last. Until they kill a few thousand of other americans they view as enemies? Until someone you know dies? Someone in your family?

You should really look up to what happens to people like you in civil wars. It's will be quite an eye opener to see just how little it takes for people to go from "they are my people, I would never raise my hand against them" to "kill those bloody murderers and mutilate their corpses" in civil wars.

Re:Shopping List

[BasilBrush]

US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.

Keep on drinking the survivalist Koolaid.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

"Guns allowed by US laws"

      That's the key statement. All guns are allowed by US law. Most guns are just not allowed by the US government. The 2nd amendment which supersedes all other gun law says it all. But no court will ever admit that the 2nd amendment was written to give the public direct power to stand against the government that court works for. So the courts corner case it to death refusing to acknowledge more than minor details in cases to their interest and ignoring all else thereby marginalizing the constitution(the parts they don't like) to extinction.

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

Let us imagine this mystical world where even artillery is allowed to be owned. Let us even imagine the world where this nuclear, biological and chemical ammunition for this would be legal, as you claim. Let us imagine that this will not result in massive scale destruction when someone owning this stuff decides to go out in blaze of glory.

Now ask yourself, how many of these heavy weapons would you need to defeat an army. Army that has tanks that are designed to survive being fairly close to epicenter of tactical nuclear weapon detonation, with full ABC protection kit and appropriate command structure guiding it. Attack helicopters and fixed wing planes designed to find and kill your heavy weapons.

Do you really think, even in your most drugged out moments, that there would be enough people who could afford, care for and maintain such weapons to make a difference in a major civil war against government? As in to have these functional, working and be ready to function on short notice?

At this point, I find myself questioning you ever having to handle any kind of a heavy weapon. I've had to train with artillery and mortar guys, and the amount of caring after the guns needed to keep them in serviceable condition was incredibly high. And these are considered low maintenance among heavy weapons.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

Not entirely sure if you understand what you're talking about. Parent is talking about resisting their own government. That means CIVIL war. Not invasion.

Think Libya. Not Afghanistan.

Maybe you're not an American, and so don't understand the vast size of the US. Libya is about the size of Alaska. Even the combined armed forces of the US, China, and Russia would not be sufficient to occupy and control the entire US. They'd also have a monstrous logistics problem, as there would be no more supplies coming from domestic sources for the US armed forces. No more fuel, weapons, tanks, trucks, planes, helicopters, ammo, food, electricity, or replacements for soldiers killed.

There are also vastly more US citizens per soldier than in Libya as well, even if you only count the armed citizens. Think "Homefront". Many in the US military will refuse to fire on citizens, even turning their guns on their commanders and arresting them for issuing such orders. US soldiers aren't robots.

Re:Shopping List

[BlueStrat]

I put you on the list of not responsible enough to have a gun. I bet Rambo is your favorite film

You should sit down and talk with these guys.

From Pravda:
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

From a Tienanmen Square activist:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miEmIfhfxuc

And the "Rambo" crack just shows how weak your arguments are, and how closed-minded you are on the topic. If that's all you have, please stop wasting everyone's time with your inane and asinine ad hominems.

The 2-A isn't about hunting, sports, or even protection from common criminals. It's for protection against government tyranny. The other stuff is just a bonus.

Without the 2-A, Americans would be left to face down government tanks like in the famous video from Tienanmen Square of the lone man facing down a tank. Which, btw, didn't work out too well for the unarmed Chinese protesters, including that brave soul in the video facing down the tank.

Strat

Re:Shopping List

[BlueStrat]

US citizens already have every single domestic military and NG base & armory surrounded, we have already thoroughly-infiltrated the military as we ARE the military, and all volunteers, so a significant percentage would refuse to follow orders to fire on their own people defending their Constitutional rights.

Keep on drinking the survivalist Koolaid.

That's the spirit, Citizen!

Just keep repeating to yourself; "Ignorance is Strength!"..."Freedom is Slavery!". Disagreement with the Party is badthink!

Big Brother loves you! He couldn't exist without those like you! You've earned the privilege of a clean boot for your face! Rejoice!

Strat

Re:Shopping List

[Luckyo]

CIVIL wars. Not foreign invasions.

Google the difference if you don't understand it otherwise and stop talking about "armed forces of other countries". It paints a very bad picture of your intelligence when talking about a civil war.

And for all that is holy, please don't talk about video games as good examples. Thanks.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

It's there so that you have ability to take down a tyrannical government and you are absolutely correct, as a government becomes more and more tyrannical it becomes more and more militaristic, building up its military to ensure that it can crash any rebellion.

No, comrade roman. That's capitalism at work.

Capitalism responds to threats by competition

Tyrannies do not compete if it can avoid it. Tyrannies become more tyrannical by having a SMALLER military, but having a larger base of subservient drones - drones who Love Big Brother so much that they wouldn't rebel (and thus no need for a large military)

Religions - some of the largest tyrannies in history - do not become large by aiming its weapons at its own followers or killing heathens. Religion grows by conversion.

Americans are well armed compared to most other countries and so the USA government spends inordinate amounts of money on weapons. It's not just for the outside threats, it's for the politicians to feel they can stop an armed uprising inside the country.

Again, that's because the US is not a tyranny, but capitalist. Capitalism responds to threats by engaging in competition - in an attempt to "beat" the opposition.

Tyrannical governments do not compete if it can be avoided. Tyrannies are actually very bad at competing - this is why the USSR (and all other socialist governments to date) failed - the capitalist USA engaged it in competition, and out competed them. Stalin already purged millions of people - why would the USSR need so many guns? It's only because the US and other free capitalist nations were picking fights with it.

Spare me your tales of how poor people were. That only reinforces my point: do you think the USSR government needed guns to keep a the poor (and hungry) in line?

If socialist tyrannical countries were left alone - like China was for the last 30 years - they can actually be very productive, so much that confused libertarians call China a capitalist country now (the joke will be on them when the CCP changes their minds on how to govern)

And that is precisely why there can be no limit on what type of weapons the civilians must be able to purchase if they can afford it.

Well that's the thing isn't it? They CAN'T afford it. The American people and nation are living on debt and printed money. All that gun ownership is subsidized.

This all happened because of capitalism and individual freedom. Individuals are free to get into debt to buy guns. Government being capitalist responds in the capitalist way: compete, and increase its own military. This in turn means more spending, more printed money.

If the government was more tyrannical, they would have converted all the gun owners to the government's cause, and the gun owners would be saying the 2nd Amendment is to PROTECT the government (that they just LOVE with all their might), not fight it.

Re:Shopping List

[BasilBrush]

You do realise Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction. So was Red Dawn. And Logan's Run. And Water World.

Re:Shopping List

[shutdown -p now]

And here I thought people bought guns to protect themselves against crime.

They do, but only when they're where the owner can actually use them.

Presence of guns (or even a higher chance of them being present) in a home significantly reduces the number of burglaries that are carried out while the residence is occupied - i.e. the kind where they kick your door in and tell you to shut up and help them while they collect valuables from your house. For example, in Canada, a burglary of an occupied residence is four times more likely. In US, the burglars take significantly more precautions to ensure that the owner is not at home.

On the other hand, if they can ascertain that there is no-one near the gun, then it turns from a formidable self-defense tool to a compact and expensive gadget - precisely the kind of thing that burglars want to target. A good AR, for example, can cost as much as a flat panel TV, while weighing ~3 kg. Handguns are even better at price to weight ratio - Glock 17 weighs 600 g, and is typically priced around $500.

Re:Shopping List

[BlueStrat]

You do realise Nineteen Eighty-Four was fiction.

Erm...have you looked around lately? 0.o

Apparently not, or you wouldn't post such ignorance. "1984" was a warning. One you seem to want to ignore. Hoping for a privileged Party assignment after the takeover, are we? Bad news: the useful idiots are always among the first to be purged.

Strat

Re:Shopping List

[BasilBrush]

Erm...have you looked around lately?

Yeah, Nineteen Eighty-Four is still fiction. You reveal your paranoia.

"1984" was a warning. One you seem to want to ignore.

To be a warning it would have to have been written by a time traveller. It was actually written by a novelist, from his imagination. Just like "Planet of the Apes" was.

You're gullible if you confuse fiction with reality.

Re:Shopping List

[BlueStrat]

To be a warning it would have to have been written by a time traveller. It was actually written by a novelist, from his imagination. Just like "Planet of the Apes" was.

You're gullible if you confuse fiction with reality.

Seriously?

Books written about things like going to the moon and orbital satellites before the '60s were fiction as well.

Mein Kampf was fiction too, before before the Kristallnacht in 1938..

Hello? McFly?

Strat

Re:Shopping List

[BasilBrush]

Books written about things like going to the moon and orbital satellites before the '60s were fiction as well.

As was Lord of the Rings.

Fiction is imagination and fantasy. Even when it's plausible it does nothing more than reflect the imagination of the author. To raise certain chosen fictions to the model of prophesy makes no more sense than astrology, reading tea-leaves, or believing Nostrodamus, or end of the world in 2012.

It's very common to think that Nineteen Eighty-Four is a prophesy that is likely to come true. Believing in astrology is also very common. They are both the actions of gullible minds.

Mein Kampf was fiction too

No, Mein Kampf was never fiction. It was exposition of an actual political ideology, using the vehicle of auto-biography.

Hello? McFly?

Indeed, believing in Back to the Future as prediction is no more ridiculous than believing in Nineteen Eighty-four.

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, why are you disagreeing with him? If he's correct, then his belief that a significant percentage of soldiers would go against government won't happen! The military and citizenship would love and praise Big Brother instead of daring to rise up against Him!

Re:Shopping List

[Anonymous Coward]

CIVIL wars. Not foreign invasions.

Yes, and?

He clearly stated as much, as he named the US military, not some foreign power.

Maybe you need to re-read his post, as you're arguing something not being put forth by the post you are replying to. In other words, you're creating and knocking down a strawman.

As far as comparisons to Libya, they fall down because armed US citizens vastly outnumber the US military by far, far more than Libyan citizens outnumbered the Libyan military, and the same for any of the other countries in the area, like Syria. In the US, it's somewhere around 80-100 million armed citizens vs total armed forces (active plus reserve) of slightly less than 3 million, most of which are logistics and support, not combat troops.

Facts are important things.

leaked huh ?

[geekymachoman]

Why wasn't it "leaked" .. well.. before all this pressure to ban guns ?
It's "published", not leaked. Intentionally. Probably to apply pressure on gun owners or to get them into trouble of having a gun, somehow.

What's next ? We gonna ban hammers as well ? I read there are many people killing other people with a hammer. Maybe we can ban sugar.. Hell, more people died from sugar then from guns (not counting the military or criminals that will still have guns regardless of you ban them or not).

People, shit happens, it's unavoidable. The world is full of good people and equally full of bad ones/psychotic-violent ones. Whatever you ban won't change that and mentioned ones are still gonna do their own thing.

In 20 years time you will need permission to go out of the house if the public allows these bans on everything to be carried out.

Re:leaked huh ?

[ElmoGonzo]

Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail. Check out the Twitter feed for @GunDeaths to see just how many people are killed by firearms every day. And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers. There is a small remainder of homicides committed with legally owned guns and accidents, but many legal products are far more dangerous. Furthermore, there is no justification for creating intrusive government regulation that prevents me from committing suicide with a gun.

Re:leaked huh ?

[the eric conspiracy]

> many legal products are far more dangerous

Citation needed.

Re:leaked huh ?

[echucker]

Can start with alcohol, if you like....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States#Statistics

Re:leaked huh ?

[betterunixthanunix]

Publish a map of handgun owners promotes criminal use of guns, by telling thieves where they should go to get handguns to sell on the black market. Criminals want handguns -- not rifles, not shotguns, handguns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[the eric conspiracy]

About twice as many people die from gunshots each year than from alcohol related auto accidents.

Citation still needed.

Re:leaked huh ?

[ganjadude]

tobacco car accidents take your pick

Re:leaked huh ?

[GrumpySteen]

Automobiles. Auto accidents kill more people than guns, though that may change around 2015 if trends continue the way they have been.

Personally, I think stupidity probably kills far more than anything else, but we don't have statistics for that.

Re:leaked huh ?

[1u3hr]

Publish a map of handgun owners promotes criminal use of guns, by telling thieves where they should go to get handguns to sell on the black market. Criminals want handguns -- not rifles, not shotguns, handguns.

The list of gun owners WAS online for weeks before it was pulled. Was there a wave of break-ins to steal guns? We know it didn't happen so that argument is proven to be the bullshit it always was. As if any burglar without a gun is deliberately going to try to steal one from a house, not knowing anything about what kind of gun it is, where in the house it is concealed -- or locked up as the owner is supposed to do. Much simpler and safer to just steal a laptop, phone, car, jewellery, credit cards; fence them and buy a gun of your choice instead.

Re:leaked huh ?

[ProfBooty]

medical errors kill somewhere between 150k-200k people a year depending on which source you cite. google it

Re:leaked huh ?

[drinkypoo]

Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail.

The problem is, there are so many hammers out there in the hands of the untrained public that there are dozens of bruised fingernails happening every day. And anyone can just walk into someone's home and steal an unsecured hammer and use it to commit a crime like murder or breaking and entering. Clearly what we need is some kind of registration database, and an evaluation program to make sure only qualified hammer-swingers are swinging hammers. And while we're on the subject, clearly nobody needs a ten pound sledgehammer three feet long. I mean, just look at it, you can tell it's dangerous. Nobody who doesn't have a degree in hammerology really needs to operate anything bigger than a five pound drilling sledge with a hammer not to exceed fourteen inches.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

> many legal products are far more dangerous

Citation needed.

Really?!? What about cars, buses, planes, motorcycles, household cleaning chemicals, shall I continue?

If you really think banning dangerous things is the answer, why don't you (and others who think this way) start with the big ones. Perhaps ban automobiles?

Re:leaked huh ?

[ak3ldama]

According to any of the logic that I have inferred: you should not have the right to commit suicide with a gun. Since the left espouses how more gun control would somehow help to lower the numbers of suicide attempts with guns - and thus suicide attempts that succeed. As if this is indeed governmental policy we should be pursuing. I do not understand anything anymore...

Re:leaked huh ?

[__aaltlg1547]

Why wasn't it "leaked" .. well.. before all this pressure to ban guns ? It's "published", not leaked. Intentionally. Probably to apply pressure on gun owners or to get them into trouble of having a gun, somehow.

What's next ? We gonna ban hammers as well ? I read there are many people killing other people with a hammer. Maybe we can ban sugar.. Hell, more people died from sugar then from guns (not counting the military or criminals that will still have guns regardless of you ban them or not).

People, shit happens, it's unavoidable. The world is full of good people and equally full of bad ones/psychotic-violent ones. Whatever you ban won't change that and mentioned ones are still gonna do their own thing.

In 20 years time you will need permission to go out of the house if the public allows these bans on everything to be carried out.

Just like you do in countries where gun ownership is practically banned? Last I heard, people in England, Canada and Australia have almost the same freedoms as people in the USA, except with respect to guns. Germans have a lot of restrictions on guns and also on hate speech, the latter for particular historical reasons that have more to do with gas chambers than guns. Other than that, they can do about what Americans can do.

Re:leaked huh ?

[ak3ldama]

Here is a citation for you: the recent CDC report that the media has been trying to sweep under the rug. It states that binge drinking and overdrinking, among just women and girls, contributes to the deaths of 23,000 in a year. But you know, guns are super evil. Or howabout this from the CDC site: There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States. You citation needed types piss me off. Stop being so fucking lazy.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

>and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns
True, but if you need to go through shady underground network to get a weapon, most of the people committing gun related crime would probably do otherwise, either because they don't know such network, or they need to go talk to some real hardened criminal.
Whereas right now you can go to any gun convention and get something or ransack practically "any" home and get a weapon for your next step, or ask another person you know to get a weapon for you and 'lost' it or some other scenario.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Take away their gun, and they will kill another way. Take that, then another route will pop up.. repeat the process until we all are wearing paper bunny suits and eating tofu with our hands in mittens.

Whey not deal with the actual problem, and not attack the tool ?

Re:leaked huh ?

[LiENUS]

There were quite a few incidences of break ins where when caught the offender admitted to using the list to do their shopping and some more breakins where the place was trashed and nothing disappeared but the gun safe. Further we have had quite a few reports of corrections officers being threatened by inmates who used the map to find out where the officers live.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really, it's that cut and dry?

Of the gun deaths in the USA, 2/3 are suicide, and a bit less than 1/3 are with illegal guns?

Do you have some sort of reference for that?

Because for a long time I've heard that a gun in the home is a greater risk than a benefit, through such things as accident, bursts of anger, and, yes, suicide.

Assuming your numbers come from somewhere a bit more solid than your hat...

How do you count the guns that were purchased legally, were stolen, and were then used for murder and/or other crime? Because - follow me here, I'm not trying any sophistry - that gun would not have been used for a crime had it not been purchased legally. Note that I am not saying the criminal _could_ not have found another gun elsewhere, but in that situation, a gun purchased legally ended up being used illegally.

So, how do you count those guns?

How about guns that are purchased in a jurisdiction with lax gun laws, and driven in a car to a jurisdiction with strict gun laws, then sold to criminals. Those guns were purchased legally, but were later resold illegally. Again - follow me here, I'm not trying to trick you - if national gun laws had prevented the original sale, then that gun would not have been used for crime. So, how do you factor situations where differences in gun laws within the USA are exploited? And again, this is not a hypothetical; this sort of thing happens often, I gather, and the fact of the matter is that gun laws passed by city or state jurisdictions are not comparable to nor should be used in any stats with national gun laws, for the simple reason that cities and states don't have border guards or import controls; in other words, city and state gun laws are largely incapable of being effective, unlike national laws.

And as for suicides, I have heard many times - I could dig up a paper if you would like - that opportunity is a big factor in whether or not someone goes through with it. That is, if there is an easy way to commit suicide, then the set of people who are thinking about it are more likely to go through with it. This is why you see suicide fences on bridges. To say it another way, if someone who is suicidal is denied one easy way of killing himself (gun or bridge), he won't necessarily just go to the next method (some other more painful or uncertain method, or long travel to some other place with a good high bridge). Instead, he _won't do it_, because it's too hard. Surely, all else being equal, you must think it is a good thing to reduce the suicide rate?

The most basic point here and one which otherwise would be put in the 'duh' category is:

Having more guns means more people will die from guns. The details of the breakdown are not that important; if the total supply of guns goes up, then it is easier for a criminal to get one, one way or another.

In Canada we have strict gun laws, but there are still a few private owners of handguns. For some reason these people feel the need to 'target practice' with their pistols, so the law says then can have guns, but must lock them up etc., and can only use them in their club.

Lo and behold, one of the largest sources of guns used in crime is _guns stolen from legal gun owners_. In other words, if these gun club people had forgone their desire to shoot targets, fewer guns would have ended up being used in crime. So, even with a strict set of controls, legal gun ownership increases the risk to the public.

I have to say, arguing this with Americans is a bit like arguing the benefits of the metric system. You claim that the imperial system is OK, it works for you, and point of all sorts of problems that would come with switching to metric. Meanwhile, all I can think is - every other civilized western country uses metric already! It's not theoretical, it's been done, and it works! Gah!

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or it did happen.
Gun safe attacked

So I'm not sure why you are making shit up. I guess the standard on /. is to make your template against people you don't like, ignore facts, and post made up crap and reap in the points like the whore that you are. There are still a few people who like to look at FACTS still.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail. Check out the Twitter feed for @GunDeaths to see just how many people are killed by firearms every day. And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

The point is, its not the guns fault it shot someone just like it wouldnt be the hammers fault if it killed someone.

A gun and a hammer are inanimate objects that cant kill on their own.

Besides, look at switzerland. In switzerland every single person there is required to own a gun and given one by the government. But guess what? They have the lowest gun related crimes, gun related deaths and violent crimes IN THE WORLD. So yeah, its obvious that guns are not the source of the problem or cause deaths all on their own.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anubis IV]

Well, there were roughly 30x more accidental deaths in the U.S. caused by the legal use of prescription drugs in 2011 than there were accidental gun deaths. In fact, the legal use of prescription drugs causes about as many accidental deaths each year as the total number of gun-related deaths each year, regardless of cause (i.e. gun suicides + gun homicides + accidental with gun + undetermined with gun = roughly the same amount as just the accidental deaths for prescription drugs).

Which isn't to say that we should ban prescription drugs. Merely that your "citation needed" is rather silly, since there are loads of things more dangerous than guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, alcohol leads to many deaths.

But you have to factor in the number of babies made by drunk people fucking. And, the general quality-of-life improvement by the people who are able to drink without being drunks. In adjusted quality of life years, alcohol has a lot in its favour.

That's the problem with handguns, they're designed to kill humans. Whereas all the other things gun afficionados point out as counterarguments - alcohol, cars, hammers, rock and roll - all of those things exist for a good useful purpose - getting joyfully buzzed, getting from point A to point B, nailing in nails, and rocking out. They come with a danger, true, but they're only there in the first place because they're useful for something other than killing: eg they're not just good at the danger bit.

Booze doesn't lead to death every time it's used, most of the time it leads to partying down and nailing otherwise fugly chicks.
Cars don't _just_ drive into other people and crash, sometimes (most of the time) they get from point A to point B safely.
Hammers don't always get used like McCarney sang about; most of the time (99.999 percent would be my guess), they get used to nail things in.
And rock and roll can lead to high risk behavior, but it does far more good than harm.

Guns on the other hand are only useful for killing people. Sure, there are different reasons to kill people - murder, self defense, accidentally, killing yourself, or even Standing Up Against A Tyrannical Government Like A Modern Ben-Hur!!! But, they're made to kill and nothing more.

So, maybe now you understand the difference?

Re:leaked huh ?

[krisbrowne42]

And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers. There is a small remainder of homicides committed with legally owned guns and accidents, but many legal products are far more dangerous. Furthermore, there is no justification for creating intrusive government regulation that prevents me from committing suicide with a gun.

Actually...

In the US, we have no real numbers on gun control and suicide rates, homicide rates, or pretty much anything else because the gun lobby has worked to destroy any public funding for such research, and to end careers of anyone who tries to independently study them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/us/26guns.html?pagewanted=all

In Australia, they had real, significant reductions in suicides when they implemented their gun controls. Also, they had previously had a number of mass shootings, and have had 0 since.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html

"The Australian Institute of Criminology found that gun-related murders and suicides fell sharply after 1996. The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent. In the 18 years before the 1996 reforms, Australia suffered 13 gun massacres — each with more than four victims — causing a total of 102 deaths. There has not been a single massacre in that category since 1996."

AU suicide stats: http://www.mindframe-media.info/for-media/reporting-suicide/facts-and-stats

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail."

Ah, so you are suggesting we should ban all dangerous weapons that result in more than a bruised fingernail. Well, hammers are used to kill people but only a few hundred a year so not important, right?

However, cars, automobiles, kill tens of thousands of people a year so we should definitely ban them!

Then there is alcohol, that kills tens of thousands, maybe a few hundred thousand people a year. Definitely, lets ban alcohol.

But the biggest killer is hunger. The staticstics show that 15,000,000 people die a year die of starvation so let's ban that for sure!

Lots of things in between. If we ban everything then you might be happy in your little padded cell.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're not going to count all the times a gun is pulled out diffuses the situation without a shot being fired? How about the threat of a gun preventing a situation from even occurring?

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

According to any of the logic that I have inferred: you should not have the right to commit suicide with a gun.

Of course you don't "have the right to commit suicide with a gun". Unlike some other countries, suicide is not illegal in the US. But just because something is not illegal doesn't mean you have a right to it.

Having sex with a supermodel isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean you have the right to it.

If you have a gun and ammo, and want to commit suicide, then fine, go ahead, there's nothing stopping you. But no one, including the government, is obliged to make sure you have access to a gun, in order that you can take that course of action. It's not a right.

Furthermore, there's no reason why a government shouldn't take action to reduce suicide deaths. Just as they take action to reduce smoking deaths. It's a public health matter.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held weapons is an argument for stricter gun control.

After all, plenty of gun owners make no secret of the fact - bumper stickers and signs on gates for example.

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

You're cherry-picking data, inferring causation from temporal correlation, and making leaps of logic.

In reality, there is no clear evidence that gun control has any positive (or negative) effect:

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

Furthermore, none of those studies take into account the tradeoffs. If you impose enough controls, you can indeed lower the crime rate; the GDR had a very low crime rate, but it wasn't a free society (I actually had relatives there). I do not want to trade liberties for safety.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

If you're in favour of hammer control, then clearly you are in favour of gun control too.

Re:leaked huh ?

[__aaltlg1547]

Yes. About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers.

In almost every case, the gun was not illegal, because there are very few bans on type of guns in America. You must be talking about people who are not supposed to have guns.

I see a lot of vague statements like yours. So let's get down to specifics, if you've got 'em.

1. How many of these guns used in homicides were illegally obtained? Of those, were they illegally bought or were they stolen?
2. How many were obtained from other people living in the same home?
3. How many were committed with with guns that were legally obtained outside the jurisdiction in which owning or carrying them was illegal?
4. How many were bought in private sales from people who did not do a background check and did not know that the person who was buying their gun was prohibited from having one?
5. And how many were committed using a stolen gun?

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a wave.. that would certainly take more than a week. There have been break-ins where the thieves when there prepared to deal with the gun safes they were targeting..
first link from google results

 

Re:leaked huh ?

[AmiMoJo]

About 2/3 of those uses are suicides, and the rest are almost all homicides with illegal guns. Gun control has no significant effect reducing either of these numbers.

That clearly isn't true. If you banned guns entirely it would quickly become harder to get one to commit suicide with, and the supply to criminals would be reduced as well since merely trying to manufacture or import a gun would be suspicious.

We had a lot of guns floating about after WW2 in the UK, but due to a lack of available ammunition, parts, knowledge of how to use and maintain them, legal places to practice with them and a series of amnesties we don't any more.

Furthermore, there is no justification for creating intrusive government regulation that prevents me from committing suicide with a gun.

I agree with your right to commit suicide, but there should be a safer way to do it available. Throwing yourself under a truck is irresponsible, it puts others in danger and will probably cause the driver some distress too. Like it or not your right to own a gun and shoot yourself appears to make murder by gun much more common than in other countries, reducing everyone's level of safety.

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

Yes, I deliberately used the ambiguous term "illegal gun" because addressing all those points in a single sentence would be pointless. If you really want to know, do some Google searches.

Furthermore you should go down to specifics: you want to pass laws to restrict our liberties, you need to show that these laws are in fact effective. Unless you can show clear evidence for a strong reduction in homicides through (more) gun control, there should be no additional gun control.

Let me add that I have never owned a gun, am not an NRA member, and never intend to own a gun. But the reasoning and swiftness with which Obama wants to take away liberties, as well as the lack of any sound scientific evidence, scares me, because the same approach can be taken to issues I do care about.

Re:leaked huh ?

[CodeMasterBob]

...and with an automobile an accident often ends up as what? (hint: 35,000 fatalities/year U.S.)

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

That clearly isn't true. If you banned guns entirely it would quickly become harder to get one to commit suicide with, and the supply to criminals would be reduced as well since merely trying to manufacture or import a gun would be suspicious.

If you take very strong measures, yes, you could reduce suicide and homicide rates. I had relatives that lived in a country where that succeeded: the GDR. It is not an acceptable approach. Any actually feasible level of gun control, policing, and border control will not result in significant reductions.

3D printers complicate the issue even further, because in less than a decade, most people will be able to print working guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[dadelbunts]

Uh people die anyway. Japan has one of the highest suicide rates in the world and virtually no guns there. Does it really matter if they die from guns or a knife. Also in Canada, you have a higher violent crime rate than the US. I have to say, i hate arguing with Canadians or British people. You claim banning guns is OK yet you have a higher violent crime rate than us,about twice as high actually, and the UK higher than South Africa. Congratulations on being so ignorant. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html Im sure you can find other sources for the data as well.

Re:leaked huh ?

[1u3hr]

There were quite a few incidences of break ins where when caught the offender admitted to using the list to do their shopping

Really? "I read in a 2nd Amendment blog" doesn't count. But if you have a real source, please cite it.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Fnord666]

If you have a gun and ammo, and want to commit suicide, then fine, go ahead, there's nothing stopping you. But no one, including the government, is obliged to make sure you have access to a gun, in order that you can take that course of action. It's not a right.

The government is obliged to make sure that it doesn't prevent you from having access to a gun. That would be the second amendment to the Constitution.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

There have been at least 3 burglaries attributed to the database. found 1 in 2 seconds on google.

  http://newyork.newsday.com/westchester/journal-news-gun-permit-map-used-by-burglars-to-target-white-plains-home-1.4441678

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of freedom is occasional misadventure.

The price of eliminating misadventure is living in a world devoid of adventure.

Don't be ruled by your fear.

Re:leaked huh ?

[drinkypoo]

If you're in favour of hammer control, then clearly you are in favour of gun control too.

I'm in favor of punctuation intended to denote sarcasm being added to the English language for those with parser problems.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

You highlighted part of a sentence and then answered that as if the context was not there. My post is an answer to someone who thought he had a right to commit suicide (with a gun). Not a right to keep a gun. Not the same thing.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, and doesn't ever make a worthwhile point. It's a passive aggressive habit.

You should have tried satire instead.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Drunk driving is not using liquor as the manufacturer intended.

Re:leaked huh ?

[betterunixthanunix]

The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held weapons is an argument for stricter gun control.

Indeed, but the key thing to recognize here is that the kind of guns that thieves steal are handguns, not rifles. Unfortunately, people keep talking about "military grade" rifles (which is a deliberately deceptive term to use) and the urgent need to keep those kinds of guns out of the hands of lunatics, while ignoring the fact that most gun murders involve low-caliber handguns. I am glad people are talking about gun control; now we just need them to stop making idiotic statements like, "We're not talking about taking away anyone's right to defend their homes with a handgun, we just want to restrict access to military rifles!"

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your citation is still needed.

Re:leaked huh ?

[__aaltlg1547]

I realized this was a tall order when I asked you and because I knew you didn't have data to back up your assertion. The reason is nobody collects really good statistics. Criminals who know they're going to commit crimes with guns often take steps to remove serial numbers and thus traceability. But that is not by any means all criminals. Some people bought guns with no evil intent and only ended up committing crimes with them later when circumstances they did not anticipate happened. (Arguments are the immediate causes of about 30% to 40% of homicides but that doesn't apply to a number of categories of gun crime). Of those who do acquire guns with bad intent, most of them buy them one way or another.

The trouble is that the information is largely not collected in the first place. Most guns involved in crimes are never traced with respect to how they were acquired. However, according to this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes are stolen. The rest are purchased. There are no really reliable statistics detailing how many of these purchased guns were purchased legally versus illegally.

Those data are pretty old, but I doubt that stat has changed markedly.

Also see this study from Maryland https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922

“guns sold in Maryland during the 1990s had at least a 4.7-percent chance of being recovered by police in association with a crime somewhere in the Nation within 10 years. Handguns sold in the Baltimore area had a 3.2-percent chance of being recovered in Baltimore within 5 years” “Most guns recovered in crimes had been sold by a relatively small proportion of dealers located in or close to urban areas.” “The simultaneous or rapid purchase of multiple guns by one individual was a risk factor for gun trafficking related to their criminal use.”

According to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt based on survey data of prison inmates,

In 1997, 14% of State inmates who had used or possessed a firearm during their current offense bought or traded for it from a retail store, pawnshop, flea market, or gun show. Nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon from family or friends. About 3 in 10 received the weapon from drug dealers, off the street, or through the black market. Another 1 in 10 obtained their gun during a robbery, burglary, or other type of theft.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shove your "Citation needed" up your ass and do the work yourself. Jesus Christ, how lazy can you be?

Re:leaked huh ?

[RightSaidFred99]

Alcohol via more means than simply DUIs, and it also has long term effects that kill a number of people each year. Also, including suicides in gun deaths is disingenuous. There are a lot of "first world" countries with higher suicide rates that have draconian gun laws.

Re:leaked huh ?

[RightSaidFred99]

Hells yeah. What's most amusing about the "citation needed" meme is the dolts that use it then go on to make their own baseless assertions.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having sex with a supermodel isn't illegal, but that doesn't mean you have the right to it.

You are confusing conflicting uses of the word "right". The definition of "right" has become muddled in recent years as the term is abused by those seeking government handouts or not wanting to be exposed to something they don't like.

For example, it has been popular in recent years to claim, erroneously, that "people have a right to health care" when what the mean is "people have a right to health care paid for by someone else" (they leave the last part off because they know the thing they want to portray as a right is not in the eyes of most Americans). You do, however, have a (natural) right to pursue whatever medical care you wish (it's your body, not mine), but only if you can get someone to provide it to you voluntarily (perhaps in exchange for money) or can self administer it.

Another example... You have the "right" to free speech which you can exercise fairly freely -- but no one else is obligated to assist you in your exercise of that right (such as by buying you a computer, internet access, a printing press etc.).

So, yes, you do have the right to have sex with a supermodel. Of course, she/he has the right NOT to have sex with you. Just as I have a right to hit a punching bag, but I don't have a right to hit you in the face without your consent. So, the reason you're not getting laid every night by a supermodel is that she/he is exercising her/his right NOT to let you hump her/him.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of the gun deaths in the USA, 2/3 are suicide, and a bit less than 1/3 are with illegal guns?

Do you have some sort of reference for that?

The actual percentage (for 2011) is that 61% are suicides (see Table 2 - page 19 of 52). This same table shows that 51.6% of the suicides in the United States involve the use of firearms.

As far as suicide (which I think is irrelevant to the gun control discussion as I believe it is the right of anyone to take their own life just as it is their right to refuse medical care or to have an early term abortion), guns can be a convenient tool but are certainly not essential. Almost 1/2 the suicides in the US don't involve a firearm. Japan, a country with virtually no private gun ownership/access, has a suicide rate 1.8 times that of the United States.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US, we have no real numbers on gun control and suicide rates, homicide rates

Completely FALSE. See Table 2. Given you start out with a blatant lie, I didn't bother to read the rest of your post.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Besides, look at switzerland. In switzerland every single person there is required to own a gun and given one by the government. But guess what? They have the lowest gun related crimes, gun related deaths and violent crimes IN THE WORLD.

I'm strong supporter of the Second Amendment but I dislike inaccurate information spewed about on either side of the argument and your statement is inaccurate.

Most males between 20 and 30 years old do have an automatic weapon (and, until a few years ago, a sealed box of 50 bullets) at home as part of their military service. Some do choose to keep their weapons after their required service is up, but they are sent to an armory where they are altered to limit them to semiautomatic fire (i.e., the fully automatic mode is disabled). So, it's an extreme overstatement to claim that "every single person there is required to own a gun and given one by the government". See Wikipedia for more info.

Switzerland definitely doesn't have the lowest gun related death rate in the world. Japan, for example, has a gun death rate of 0.07 per 100,000 people while Switzerland has 3.84 per 100,000 people. Indeed, about 55 countries have a lower gun related death rate than Switzerland. See Wikipedia for more info.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

WHOOOOOOSH

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

you also need to include
deaths related to non-auto related alcohol induced death(i.e. being dumbasses in general)
death from alcohol poisoning(not as common but still significant)
deaths from intoxicated individuals committing violent acts(fairly common and may account for many firearm deaths)

There is no legit use for alcohol, there is no reason you "need" to have it other than antiseptic and/or medical purposes.

Really any recreational drug falls within the same logic of banning it as do firearms except that firearms are protected constitutionally, serve a self-defense purpose, serve an anti-gov. purpose(see incident at wounded knee for most recent example), and a food procurement need if you so choose.

I personally use my firearms for:
1)protection from intruders
2) a back up to bear mace when hiking(I prefer not to kill the beast)
3)food procurement in hunting

No I dont own an assault weapon because they are expensive and I prefer sniping(long rifles) to blasting off large amount of ammo.
But they do serve a rare function of fending off crowds(ex. LA riots) and fending off tyrannical gov.(example incident at wounded knee, ogala/lakota using AR-15's to shoot at national guard trying to prop up corrupt tribal gov.)
Before you say that no domestic insurgency could ever fend off the might US military dont forget we are currently being out-done by a rag-tag taliban, we were out-done by Viet cong. furthermore it doesnt have to succeed tactically. In the example I gave they lost but the political gains from that resistance were wide-spread and its considered a major turning point for native civil rights.
All it requires to succeed is a sympathetic population to hide in. High tech weapons are of limited usefulness when its close-range ambush style fighting.

Re:leaked huh ?

[__aaltlg1547]

I said, "Criminals who know they're going to commit crimes with guns often take steps to remove serial numbers and thus traceability." I want to amend that statement. It is not the criminals who intend to commit crimes with the guns who are removing the serial numbers to prevent traceability. There are two possible motives for doing that:

(1) preventing police from being able to trace the gun back to you, the last legal owner who sold it to a prohibited person.

(2) to prevent police from tracing it back to the last legal owner from whom you stole it and thus connecting you with that crime. However the incentive for #2 is not usually that strong. If you feared that a gun would be used to connect you to some heinous crime, you'd dispose of the gun or trade it to some sap. And even if you were later caught with it you'd later be able to raise reasonable doubt that you bought the gun on the black market (for self-protection) which is a lesser offense than burglary. I conclude that every gun from which the serial number has been removed is almost certain evidence that gun was sold by its last legal owner to person prohibited from owning one, either in a straw purchase or an unrecorded or falsified sale from a gun shop or show.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Classic error in using statistics. You are comparing a subset alcohol related deaths, drinking alcohol and operating an automobile with a total set gun related deaths. To have an accurate comparison of alcohol related death to gun related deaths you would have to add in alcohol related deaths such as cirrhosis , heart disease, etc. Or compare the number of deaths that occur while someone is shooting a gun and driving. Probably so rare that guns will look very safe compared to alcohol in the context of operating a vehicle.

Re:leaked huh ?

[the eric conspiracy]

Medical errors are a cause of death. But they aren't a 'dangerous product'.

Re:leaked huh ?

[the eric conspiracy]

Guns are still far more dangerous per use than either alcohol or automobiles.

Citation still needed.

Re:leaked huh ?

[harlequinn]

There are as many or more peer reviewed (unlike the news articles and firearm control advocates you quote) papers showing that the ban had no effect on the already falling murder and suicide rates in Australia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia#Contention_over_effects_of_the_laws

This sums it up nicely.

Re:leaked huh ?

[harlequinn]

Well said.

The solution is to implement a nationwide free of charge mental health system.

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

I realized this was a tall order when I asked you and because I knew you didn't have data to back up your assertion. The reason is nobody collects really good statistics

Don't twist my words. Go to the Wikipedia page on "gun control", it tells you that people have looked at tons of data and never been able to find a strong effect. Some studies have shown small statistically significant effects, but not consistently, and the effects were generally so small that they don't justify gun control.

Also see this study from Maryland https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=242922 [ncjrs.gov]

And how do those statistics relate to the inference that gun control works? Or that guns are in the legal possession of perpetrators?

According to http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt [usdoj.gov] based on survey data of prison inmates,

Seems to support what I was saying: if you add that up, about 90% of the guns used or possessed by state inmates were in their possession illegally. That's what I was referring to by "illegal gun", because a gun becomes an illegal gun when it is transferred from an owner who may possess it legally to someone who may not possess it legally.

If you think that you can choke the supply of illegal guns by choking the supply of legal guns, you're right, you can do that. It worked, for example, in the GDR. In fact, the GDR achieved very low overall crime rates. Of course, everybody's life was completely supervised by their government, they could not travel abroad, and any behavior or ideas that were thought to threaten the security of the state or society resulted in being sent to a psychiatric institution. That is exactly the direction we are heading, and there is a continuum between where we are now (more liberty, more crime, and more inequality than most other developed nations) to where nations like the GDR are (no liberty, nearly no crime, nearly no inequality). Where people like you and Obama are vague, naive, or dishonest (it is hard to tell which), is that you promise to deliver the benefits without the loss of liberty. You haven't experienced it, I have: believe me, it is not a good direction to go into.

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

I conclude that every gun from which the serial number has been removed is almost certain evidence that gun was sold by its last legal owner to person prohibited from owning one, either in a straw purchase or an unrecorded or falsified sale from a gun shop or show.

Why are you even arguing that point? All guns had a "legal owner" at some point who then sold it to an "illegal owner". Isn't that bloody obvious? The question is whether the person committing the crime was in legal possession of the gun at the time they committed the crime, and as your own data shows, very few were.

I believe what you're arguing is that if we put in an intrusive tracking system, we can somehow reduce these transfers. Perhaps we could, but you'd have to take draconian measures. The reduction in gun violence is not going to be proportional to the reduction in gun availability because until you have achieved dramatic reductions, criminals will still be able to get them, and you are mostly reducing guns among harmless, law abiding, and responsible gun owners.

But the effect of such a tracing system is enormously intrusive; nearly half the US households would be registered and tracked in such a system, without ever having committed a criminal act. Furthermore, if you accept this principle, why not put into law complete tracing of prescription drugs and sexual contacts? Why not eliminate all cash transactions and make all financial transactions traceable by the government? Why not track, record, and send to the government all Internet connections? All of those can be argued to allow the government to reduce crime and death, so why not implement those as well? Or is that next?

You're starting with the wrong premise, namely the premise that it is the federal government's responsibility to make my life safer, and it can do whatever it wants to in order to achieve that goal. No, the federal government has a small set of enumerated powers. To the degree that any governmental entity has that duty or right, it's the state and local governments, but they are limited by the Constitution as well. "It makes you safer/healthier/whatever" by itself simply is not justification for federal law or federal intervention, even if it were unequivocally true (which, in the case of guns, it isn't).

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would cite a CDC study on gun violence, but I can't. Because the NRA successfully lobbied to eliminate the funding for it 20 years ago.

Re:leaked huh ?

[ChrisMaple]

John Lott started studying guns and crime with the intention of linking the two. No gun lobby tried to end his career, and his research has demonstrated that gun ownership reduces crime.

Unlike stories from the NYT, Lott's data isn't cherry-picked to make gun owners and the US look bad.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

Whoosh!

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held computers is an argument for stricter computer control.
The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held TVs is an argument for stricter TV control.
The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held jewelery is an argument for stricter jewelery control.
The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held :type of object: is an argument for stricter :type of object: control.

After all, plenty of :type of object: owners make no secret of the fact - bumper stickers and endless commentary to those around them for example.

Do you see the flaw with your logic yet?

Re:leaked huh ?

[__aaltlg1547]

I conclude that every gun from which the serial number has been removed is almost certain evidence that gun was sold by its last legal owner to person prohibited from owning one, either in a straw purchase or an unrecorded or falsified sale from a gun shop or show.

Why are you even arguing that point? All guns had a "legal owner" at some point who then sold it to an "illegal owner". Isn't that bloody obvious?

No. Guns can also be stolen. But for guns used in crimes that figure is under 15%. Presumably that's much higher than the general population of guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If modern medicine, which *accidentally* kills more people than guns do *intentionally*, isn't a dangerous product, then neither are guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[LiENUS]

Try reading the thread you're posting in.

Re:leaked huh ?

[LiENUS]

England has government cameras on just about every street corner in major cities, I wouldn't exactly say they have almost the same freedoms as people in the USA

Re:leaked huh ?

[tompaulco]

The American Law and Economics Review found that our gun buyback scheme cut firearm suicides by 74 percent.
So when access to a gun is taken away, the percentage of suicides by gun is reduced. Not surprising. Now, what about the suicide rate in general? Did it also go down, go up, stay the same? My guess is the latter.

Re:leaked huh ?

[tompaulco]

The fact that thieves may (and do) steal legally held weapons is an argument for stricter gun control.
No. You do not solve a crime problem by restricting the rights of the law abiding.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Alcohol is used by a much larger proportion of the population much more frequently. these arbitrary comparisons of, "what's more dangerous2 are ridiculous. The bottom line in this is that guns are dangerous and just because something else is also dangerous doesn't mean we shouldn't do something about guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about swimming pools:

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm

Re:leaked huh ?

[CAIMLAS]

On the contrary, gun control has a significant impact on increased homicides committed with illegal guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet once again, you ignore (either deliberately or otherwise) the main point as to why you're comparing apples to oranges.

The absolute primary purpose of a gun is to kill things (be it animal, target, or person). The absolute primarpy purpose of alcohol is to be alcoholic, whatever that affect may have on you (relaxant, remove inhibitions, etc). The primary purpose of guns is distinctly NOT to relax, and the primary purpose of a bottle of beer is NOT to kill.

So you can take your 'OMG, there's more alcohol deaths than gun deaths' argument and shove it. That's the exact same argument as comparing vehicle accident deaths to gun deaths... they're completely unrelated, aside from "has potential to kill", which even the corner of a pocket calculator could be a part of."

How about you take gun deaths and compare it to related things... things with ALSO have the distinct, express purpose of killing. Now, there's extraordinarily little available to the average person that has that express purpose (even the primary purpose of knives are not to kill things). Cyanide capsules maybe? Crossbows? Explosives (although the primary purpose of that is in all actuality for industrial purposes, dropping buildings (legally), excavating, fireworks, etc, but if guns get 'killing targets', then this counts as killing granite to extend a tunnel)?

One way or the other, compare guns to anything that has a primary purpose of killing. PLEASE avoid comparing it to anything else, because you're just doing more harm than good. The ignorant will latch onto your uneven comparisson, and then go about life from that point being just a bit more misinformed than they used to be... and that's something we very desperately need LESS of in the world.

Re:leaked huh ?

[ak3ldama]

I disagree. We are talking about modern society and the things in our lives that can induce fear. As well we are discussing the rights we as individuals, and as a whole have, and whether those rights deserve being retained or being taken away.

Specifically, do we need the ability to drive at the high rates we enjoy now or should we lower that to make everyone's lives safer. Does a family with a high schooler or college age student need to live in fear that some weekend that student will get too drunk and make the choices (or not "make" the choices) that will endanger their lively-hood? Do those kids deserve the right to drink like that? With guns do we allow some, or thus all/most, the right to peacably own these weapons at the risk of occasional accidental or even intentional harm? Do we allow a farmer to hire high school age kids, or even their own kids, to work around dangerous equipment? (This was just in the news the last year as the US federal government tried to impose restrictions - and failed - due to backlash.)

These are all inter-related discussions. Guns are not some special case. There is a lot of technology in our lives which can very quickly cause harm and thus does, and should, induce fear and respect. I have tried to not too often take a side but instead have tried to cite examples that various sides of this issue selectively care about.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

No. You do not solve a crime problem by restricting the rights of the law abiding.

Sure you do. Why do you think your car has license plates? If everyone was law abiding there would be no need for them. But everyone isn't law abiding. So everyone has to carry visible car identification, even the law abiding ones.

There are thousands of other such examples.

Re:leaked huh ?

[g4sy]

Americans alone purchase 10-12 Billion rounds of ammo per year, not counting reloading (which is basically recycling a case) and most users I know re-use a case 3-6 times depending oh how it holds up. So a conservative estimate is 20 billion rounds are fired in the US per year. "More dangerous per use" my ass. You don't have an argument. You've been proven wrong so many times. Your arguments are typical illogical "oh guns are bad and all these liberty types want them" and then you throw yourself at the feet of your government and cling to its tyrannical feet begging to have the guns taken away from us. And before you say citation needed... prove my numbers wrong. I got them from good sources.

And while I'm on it, the point is that gun ownership is the tyrant's greatest living nightmare. The constitution never said Americans have the right to bear arms except if gang-bangers made guns statistically more "dangerous" than cars or alcohol. The 2nd amendment gives that right full stop and for good reason.

Re:leaked huh ?

[stenvar]

Did I make a distinction between selling/stealing? Is that relevant to any argument I made? No. You're fixating on irrelevant minutiae to avoid the real question, namely providing any sound evidence that gun control has a demonstrably positive effect. Of course, you can't provide such evidence because it doesn't exist:

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

Re:leaked huh ?

[shutdown -p now]

First of all, while murder rate did indeed fall sharply in 1997, one year after the ban, it then went back up - in fact, it was higher in 1998 than it was in 1996. The gun-related murder rate was lower, of course, but it turns out that you can murder people with other things, too - who knew?

If you look at the murder rate graph for Australia for the last twodecades or more - e.g. like this or this - you'll see that murder rate did not meaningfully respond to the gun ban (1996) at all. If you look at the bigger picture and average the spikes out, what you see is an ongoing decline that started somewhere in mid-80s. And if you don't ignore the spikes, the picture is even more bleak for the ban, as there is a big one five years after it went into effect.

As for suicides, again, it does not seem to be correlated with the gun ban. Yes, the ban reduced the number of gun suicides. But it did not affect the overall number of suicides - there were more in 1997 than there were in 1996. The overall number went down over the years, but that is from the peak in late 90s - the overall suicide rate in Australia today is basically the same as it was in early 80s, long before the gun ban. The only difference is that people used to shoot themselves to do it, and now they hang themselves instead.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh, I wasn't aware gun can only be used against people. I've learned my new thing of the day.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I said handguns.

Same goes for detachable-clip (or magazine or whatever) rifles.

If you're a hunter, more power to you, though I fail to see why you'd need anything other than a 5 shot or less, long-barrelled, shotgun or rifle.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those stats are surprising, but the point I was making above - that easy access to suicide methods increases the rate of suicide - still stands. Suicide rates vary a lot, it seems like the uptight, high-productivity nations have higher rates than the more 'relaxed' nations (eg Scandinavia, Japan, Germany, all have high rates). WRT guns, my argument would be: all else being equal, the presence of guns increases the suicide rate. So the high rate in Japan would be higher, if there were more guns there.

Generally,I think it's a right, too, but I also think we should make it as hard as possible. Suicides put a big burden on those around them, and, it's at its core a cowardly, contemptible act. Understandable, in many cases (I don't know what long term depression is like but I'm glad I don't have it). But still, it's the easy way out, and we should discourage that.

That said, if we agree as a society to make the option open, then guns are not the best way. Suicide by gun isn't certain, for one (how much must that suck: going from depression to non-surgical lobotomy), it makes a mess, for another, and the guns themselves can be used for attacking other people, not just suicide (obviously, this is what we are talking about in the first place).

Far better to legalize suicide pills. Make the government sanctioned ones bitter, bright, whatever, and control access - to minimize the risk they'll be used as poison in homicides.

Then, let people who want to die kill themselves with medicine.

And return to the question of guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is surprising that (if I'm reading the stats right, and there aren't any caveats I'm unaware of), Canada has a lower violent crime rate than the USA.

But the USA has a higher murder rate than Canada.

Which strengthens the anti-gun argument: If you folks down south have a lower violent crime rate but more people die violent deaths, and the major diff between the two countries is the rate of gun ownership, then it follows that more guns means more deadly outcomes from any given violent encounter.

In other words, a violent crime in Canada leads to a bloody nose or broken arm. In the States, it is much more likely to lead to death, because it's much more likely that guns are involved.

Which is the fundamental argument: Having more guns means more people will die from guns.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, but the threat there is the threat of using the gun as it was intended, to kill.

And honestly just throwing this out there but don't you think guns are used to intimidate a victim more often than the reverse? Since, you know, the criminals have the element of surprise, and, just guessing, but probably get the drop on their victims more than victims get the drop on criminals. Just saying, that's probably how it is.

Though this is probably a moot point, I highly doubt there are any statistics on the subject.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

Exactly. Good for you for understanding.

Re:leaked huh ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of funny how you tell people to butt out of your politics in thailand buy you have no problem butting into the American's politics.

Re:leaked huh ?

[tompaulco]

Sure you do. Why do you think your car has license plates? If everyone was law abiding there would be no need for them. But everyone isn't law abiding. So everyone has to carry visible car identification, even the law abiding ones.
There are thousands of other such examples.
That's not true. ONLY the law abiding have to have visible car identification. A car thief doesn't concern themselves with the law, so they may or may not display tags. or they may steal someone else's tag. The additional law didn't suddenly make a bunch of criminals decide to be law abiding. Like most laws that are supposed to help stop criminals, all they really do is make the law-abiding people's lives more difficult.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

What nonsense. Criminals also have car registration plates - because not carrying them would mark them out for being stopped by police. Not what a criminal wants. And most certainly car license plate numbers have helped the police detect millions of crimes. Even with the possibility of them being faked.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

Sure. But it's a shame for you that you didn't understand.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

I did. It's why I made the original comment. You then showed your limited comprehension (I assume) by paraphrasing my original statement. Again, good job.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

By all means wallow in your lack of understanding.

Re:leaked huh ?

[LiENUS]

There are plenty of hunters who use handguns, further it's nice to have a gun that can fit in your survival bag and store the ammunition in a secure manner. a 30 round magazine can last you a while if you are a good shot. If it's your thing you could easily go out in the wilderness and stay on an extended trip using just your high capacity rifle to hunt and take food. Commercial hunters also have a need to carry extended capacity magazines. Alligator hunters in a busy area may move from line to line to line non stop being able to not have to stop to reload as often can increase your take for the day or if you come into an area with more than 5 alligators on the water all right on the surface allow you to pop one, move to get it then while your partner is bringing it into the boat pop the next before the gators have a chance to leave the area. Commercial alligator hunters can have hundreds of tags to fill in a single month, you're talking about severely handicapping those people and drastically increasing the population of gators in the area if they are unable to fill their tags.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

You didn't get the point the OP made. It passed you by, and you chose to assume what he meant, missing the point in your reply. Hence the WHOOOSH, as the point was so far over your head that it made the sound passing by. Showing just how specially they make them in the UK, you replied with a Whoosh of your own, confirming my point.

Well done, kiddo.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

You didn't get the point the OP made. It passed you by, and you chose to assume what he meant, missing the point in your reply.

No, I noticed the OPs sarcasm, and replied with sarcasm. You didn't get that and and thought I didn;t spot the sarcasm and so replied with Woooosh! I replied to you with Woooosh because you didn't get my sarcasm.

There's a big difference between what you think happened here and what actually happened here.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

Sigh.

That's the problem. You think you know what happened here, but you don't.

The original Whoosh is now more apt than I ever meant it to be.

Read the thread again. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

I know the meaning of my post. You don't. Dumbass.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

You clearly don't, because your attempt at sarcasm makes no fucking sense. Read the thread again, and you will see why. Moron.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

I'm not responsible for your lack of comprehension ability.

Re:leaked huh ?

[metrix007]

I'm not failing to comprehend anything. As the only one who seems to be able to comprehend it, I'm trying to explain it to you. You're unwilling to listen, because you can't conceive that you might be wrong.

Re:leaked huh ?

[BasilBrush]

You're trying to explain my post to me? Or what it was I understood from the original post? Idiot.

Why the backlash?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the backlash? With this list bad guys know who have a gun. That makes it safer for the people on the list to walk the streets by pro gun owners logic!

Re:Why the backlash?

[JakeBurn]

What we really need is a list of every single person's name and address who has ever posted anti-gun rhetoric online. That could be fun, right? Knowing which of their neighbors who will absolutely never have protection in their homes might be useful information. Or, the criminals could just get the gun owners list and by process of elimination know which homes are free of guns. You were absolutely right. By gun owner logic or any other logic, that list does make it safer for gun owners. Its their non-gun owning neighbors who need to worry.

Re:Why the backlash?

[Anonymous Coward]

and your idiotic logic seems to ignore the fact, that they know who own the guns, they also know who doesn't. There's such a thing called element of surprise, which is now gone.
This does basically make it safer for the gun owners, unless the robbers are in it for the guns, they can now just skip to the places without guns. That's a great advantage to them.

Re:Why the backlash?

[Barsteward]

"By gun owner logic or any other logic, that list does make it safer for gun owners. Its their non-gun owning neighbors who need to worry."

no, the criminal will just shoot first and ask questions later of a gun owner.

Re:Why the backlash?

[tompaulco]

The gun-owners will be safer when they are at home because the criminals know they have a gun. The gun-owners will be more likely to get broken into when they are not home because the criminals know they have a gun.Of course, they probably have it in a gun safe, but meanwhile the criminal will go ahead and steal whatever isn't nailed down and can be pawned for pennies on the dollar.
The non-gun owner houses will still be fair game at any time of day to the criminals, although they still prefer to be non-confrontational and just break in when they know nobody is home.

Gawker and John Cook

[Fnord666]

The summary makes it sound like Gawker had a choice when it didn't publish the addresses of gun owners.

In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses

The only reason John Cook didn't publish them is because the NYPD didn't give them to him.. John Cook made it pretty clear that he would have published the addresses if he had them.

Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees.

Re:Gawker and John Cook

[Anonymous Coward]

eating ladies

Wow, the NYPD really is out of control these days.

F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously. I'm in Canada and own no guns. You're doing it wrong.

All you idiots are doing is invading peoples' privacy, advocating vigilante justice against people who have broken no laws, and providing a database of places that criminals can go steal guns that won't be traced to them.

Proper education and required licensing country-wide is the direction you should be going in. And that involves posting your Congressmens' e-mail addresses and phone numbers. Not the constituents.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that works fine until someone shows up with a gun at your door. Then you see that having a gun yourself is not too bad after all.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[arth1]

Yeah, that works fine until someone shows up with a gun at your door. Then you see that having a gun yourself is not too bad after all.

On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you. If you're packing, it becomes imperative that he does, or you will shoot him.

Criminals often carry guns for the same reason gun owners claim they carry guns - self-protection. But in a country where the police is always packing, and potential victims often are, it is a valid argument.

If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life.

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.
This, I think is a net win, even if some will still have them.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather not put my trust in the good intentions of a criminal who has shown up at my door.

LOL: catchpa enslave

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[houghi]

In Belgium they had some people rob money transport vehicles. So they put people on it with guns. This did not lower the amount of attacks, but it raised the severity of the attacks. i.e. shoot the guards before they were able to shoot back.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ganjadude]

replace gun with knives. If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher. Just because a criminal does not have a gun does not mean he is no longer a criminal. He is still going to kill you be it with a gun or a knife.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I am a 55 year old female target shooter, who, having shot for 40 years, never wounded or killed any one, find my tools, a pistol and a rifle, are now both illegal.
People have had guns in their homes for 150+ years and never had a problem, but now, thanks to the misdirection of the Govt, we are evil incarnate, the reason our society is falling apart.
Do a root cause analysis here folks. Before 1950, these mass shootings never occurred. Kids brought their rifles to school and stored them in their lockers till time to practice for the shooting team. Now, a 5 year old girl get suspended for having a Hello Kitty Bubble Gun, 2 little boys suspended for using their hands, yes hands in a play shoot out. (no matter, a hand can only have 3 in the mag. Go on. check....)
Mothers are no longer in the home, having to work to help support the family. Feral kids, learning from other kids, how to live on the streets, while their parents work.
Meds given to these shooters are KNOWN to cause suicidal tendencies. And as we all know, BIG Pharma has a lot more invested in politicians than the NRA.
Why was the social worker for the Colorado shooter stopped from issuing a warning about his behavior? She tried, but was shut down. Why isn't the press pushing this failure of the system?

I see this as a redirect. Why didn't they start this after the Colorado shooting? Because they weren't in as much trouble fixing the economy, balancing the budget, stopping the hemorrhage of money from all of our pockets.
They can say "See how I protected you from those EVIL gun owners?" And you nod. "Yes! Thank you! I feel SOOOO safe now that the law abiding citizens are criminals!" But then, how did that stop the criminals from obtaining guns? Did they stop illegal aliens from crossing the border? The drugs? Did Holder stop selling guns to the Mexican cartels?

You've been conned my friends. Give up on harassing the old lady with the .22 rifle and go after what REALLY needs to be done.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[arth1]

One of my first jobs was money transport for a bank. We had kevlar vests in the vehicle, but refused to wear them. Not only did they announce who we were, but if an armed robber saw us wearing them, he'd shoot us in the head instead,
A few years after I left, the transport did get robbed. The drivers did not wear their vests, and they did not get shot.
Money is replaceable; lives aren't.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[tranquilidad]

Studies on the other hand (one highlighted here: http://www.catb.org/esr/guns/gun-control.html) show that it is better to resist a violent crime with a gun:

12-17% of gun-armed resisters were injured. Those who offered no resistance were twice as likely to be injured (gratuitously) and those who resisted without a gun were three times as likely to be injured.

The base source for the numbers comes from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and Criminal Victimization surveys.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Barsteward]

So do you always answer your door with a gun in hand? Or do you ask the criminal to wait 5 minutes whilst you go and fetch yours?

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[gnasher719]

If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life.

In Germany, carrying a weapon while committing any kind of theft automatically turns it into "armed robbery". Very, very good reason not to carry a weapon during a burglary. And it caught out one or two policemen who were stupid enough to get caught shoplifting while carrying their gun. And in England, if there is a gun in sight during a crime you'll get an armed response unit after you. Which means your chances of getting caught just went up from close to 0 to close to 100%.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[gnasher719]

I looked at the link that you offered and stopped reading when I found the first gross stupidity. The claim that Switzerland is a country with high "availability of weapons". While it is a fact that every male citizen at the right age has a gone and ammunition in case it is needed to defend their country, these guns are in no way available. There will be regular checks that these guns are _very_ safely looked away, that they haven't been used, and that all ammunition is there. Using one of these guns to commit a crime makes it guaranteed to be caught. Using one of these guns for "sport" or "entertainment" will put you into jail as well.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher.

Not true.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you. If you're packing, it becomes imperative that he does, or you will shoot him.

Criminals often carry guns for the same reason gun owners claim they carry guns - self-protection.

NO. Criminals don't carry guns for self-protection - there is no such provision in ANY law that lets you commit crimes but use a gun to protect yourself while doing so. (DUH!) On the contrary, almost every "lesser" crime becomes a F-E-L-O-N-Y when a gun is involved.

But in a country where the police is always packing, and potential victims often are, it is a valid argument.

Except, criminals almost NEVER (1 of 1,000,000) try to rob police officers. Take one good guess why. Hint: It isn't because of respect for law.

If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life.

Troll much?

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.
This, I think is a net win, even if some will still have them.

Which is why NO criminals take weapons across state lines -- that is already a felony.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ScentCone]

So do you always answer your door with a gun in hand? Or do you ask the criminal to wait 5 minutes whilst you go and fetch yours?

As someone who has turned away a large disturbed person trying to bash down our door in the middle of the night by: going to fetch a gun and pointing it at him, I can say I'm glad to have had that option. The police didn't show up for 20 more minutes. I really don't care what you think, because you weren't there. I'd like to have seen how you dealt with the guy, though. 6'-4", almost 300 pounds, and very altered on controlled substances. But he didn't have the door all the way broken up before a gun was in hand. Your question is a false set of limited choices that don't always apply to reality.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

>> When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.

This argument has no basis in the current US dialogue. The assault weapons bans will not remove guns from the streets, nor reduce the number of gun owners. It will simply raise the bar for new weapons to enter the market.

Oh, and BTW - as resale of assault weapons will still be legal, (just cost a bit more) it only significantly impacts lower economic individuals. If you have money, you will still be able to purchase that "banned" AR15 with little thought except for the 400% price markup.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you.

Are you *seriously* advocating putting your life in the hands of someone that's already shown they're ethically deficient? The criminal still has a very strong incentive to kill you - to eliminate anyone that might testify against him in the event he's caught.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[timholman]

On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you. If you're packing, it becomes imperative that he does, or you will shoot him.

Or ... the criminal, who doesn't want to shoot you or get shot himself ( because he carries that gun to intimidate his victims) turns and runs, and you wind up not being his victim. Carrying a gun doesn't automatically turn you into a cold-blooded killer willing to murder someone on the spot.

Criminals often carry guns for the same reason gun owners claim they carry guns - self-protection. But in a country where the police is always packing, and potential victims often are, it is a valid argument.

Funny, I thought armed robbers carried guns to shove them in the faces of their victims, and demand that they comply or else. But it is interesting how you can rationalize the need for a criminal to carry a gun in self-defense, yet not do the same for his victims.

If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life.

No, if you were a burglar in the U.S., you wouldn't carry a gun at all, because in most of the country being caught with a gun while burglarizing a home or business automatically escalates the charges against you. The vast majority of burglars will burgle unoccupied homes and businesses to avoid confrontations with the owners for exactly that reason.

On the other hand, if you're an armed robber, a home invader, or a carjacker, you're definitely going to be carrying a gun, and not for self-defense. You're going to point it at someone's head and tell him or her to comply, or else.

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns. On the other hand, my chances of being a victim of a crime will not be affected in the least. If anything, it goes up, since a couple of 20-year-old toughs can be pretty much guaranteed to come out on top in any confrontation with me or my wife or my parents.

This, I think is a net win, even if some will still have them.

There is no "net win" when the fundamental human right of self-defense is removed for everyone except young, large healthy males. Guns are never going away in America, and for exactly that reason. Guns are not called "the Great Equalizer" for nothing.

Despite all the hysteria about guns in the U.S.A., the fact remains that you are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than be murdered with a gun. And if you are not a young minority male living in poverty, your chances of being murdered with a gun are far lower still.

I don't quake in fear when I get in my car because I don't fear inanimate objects. For that same reason, I don't fear guns. What I might fear is the actions of other human beings, but I also realize that people who mean to do me harm will do so regardless of the weapons in their possession. The only question is whether I will be a defenseless victim, or a citizen who at least has the potential to defend himself.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you.

911 Hijackers

Are we STILL this stupid in this country? Yea, we used to do that until 3500 people were killed using your logic.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm thinking you're in some form of self-discussion over whether you should carry... We'll wait until you've finished.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ninetyninebottles]

If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life. When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns. This, I think is a net win, even if some will still have them.

I think we should measure a net win by how many violent crimes are committed and how many homicides and assaults, not how many people have guns. Sure fewer people have guns in the UK, but a lot more people are beaten in their homes or stabbed, relative to the size of the population. In Brazil, fewer people have guns but a lot more people are hit by shrapnel or fire from drive by bombings and fire-bombings. If half as many people are shot with guns, but twice as many are murdered, by your metric that is a win. I strongly believe you should change your metric.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats a funny link. It spends all its time trying to explain why the increase in homicides and higher violent crime rate are not relevant to the seizing of guns. At no point does it actually REFUTE the increase in crime, which I have to now take as a fact. All it does is try to spin the increase as being from something else with no evidence to back up its claims.

So I'll just have to chock this up to another liberal lie in attempt to force their views on other people.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[CrimsonAvenger]

While it is a fact that every male citizen at the right age has a gone and ammunition in case it is needed to defend their country, these guns are in no way available. There will be regular checks that these guns are _very_ safely looked away, that they haven't been used, and that all ammunition is there.

And noone in Switzerland would go bat-s*&t crazy and decide to see how many people he could blow away, starting just AFTER his "regular inspection"?

There are more than good and sufficient reasons that violent crime is low in Switzerland without inventing something like "They'd never DARE to use their fully automatic weapons because the regular inspections scare them too much."

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[arth1]

Are you *seriously* advocating putting your life in the hands of someone that's already shown they're ethically deficient? The criminal still has a very strong incentive to kill you - to eliminate anyone that might testify against him in the event he's caught.

Being willing to burgle and rob does not imply a willingness to murder a fellow human being. Things are not black or white, and despite what certain outspoken people want you to think, there is no moral switch where you either are a good citizen or you're willing and able to commit the worst crimes. Most criminals were as good citizens as you, and their unwillingness to lie down in an alley and take it doesn't mean they're willing to shoot someone. I see far more willingness to shoot someone from the gun owner side.

Truth is, the "average" burglar wants the job to go with as little problems as possible. Murder is a problem. He needs the money, not a police force after him for murder. Where burglaries end up as murder, it is often because the owner tried to play hero and escalated the conflict. The castle doctrine is a great part of the problem here, as it puts your fear and the value of your possessions above the value of someone's life.

And even if a burglar or robber should somehow have lost his inhibitions to take life (like many gun owners seem to have), not being chased down for murder is a pretty strong disincentive to shooting anyone.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you always knock on the front door when you burgle a house? ...I have no idea where this comment was going.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Source please?

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[porjo]

Small point of order: Australia did not 'outlaw' guns. You can still legally own a gun, there's just a lot more hoops you have to jump through. Sure violent crime has gone up...but linking that to reduced gun ownership is crazy talk. If I had to choose what a home invader was armed with: gun or knife - I'd be picking the knife every time.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[atgaaa]

not true http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

The point here is we can all find statics/studies to support our argument(s) In this case http://www.gunfacts.info/ presents argument and counter argument for most of the "facts", we hear in the "gun control" debate.
None of this is decisive, and it will not be, it is all, tired, old and waste of time.

If we want to reduce violent crime, I believe it is possible. We should agree to do it without violating the constitution. What methods do you propose, that do not include additional restrictions on gun ownership?
If you want to disarm citizens, for what ever reason, lets talk about changing the constitution,

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[harlequinn]

That's right - this page shows that crime rates were dropping before the buyback - and continued to drop after.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[DECula]

Hell I don't get why this hasn't been modded up. I was taught to shoot by an neighbor in the Air Force. My father was busy doing something in Vietnam, so he didn't get the opportunity. I was 8. The lady who commented above is bang on, there were guns. We respected guns, but humans even more so. Why should she be penalized for the criminal actions of others? I hope you get to enjoy shooting those targets forever - it was promised to you.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ChrisMaple]

You are arguing that a burglar carrying a gun has that gun to protect his life, i.e. for defensive purposes. It is transparently obvious that he's carrying the gun for offensive purposes, to make his attack stronger.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ChrisMaple]

I always look through the window first.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

The point here is we can all find statics/studies to support our argument(s)

You didn't read my link did you. It was Snopes, the well known debunker of internet claptrap. It wasn't an alternate set of stats, it was pointing out that the entire method of argument is nonsense.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[mjwx]

replace gun with knives. If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher. Just because a criminal does not have a gun does not mean he is no longer a criminal. He is still going to kill you be it with a gun or a knife.

Actually, if you paid attention that didn't happen.

It's an old myth that has been disproven many, many times.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

Crimes have actually decreased since 1997.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Liar

Guns effective for self-defense and suppression of tyranny are effectively outlawed in Australia. "You can have a 20 gauge single shot break open shotgun and a box of bird shot" doesn't count as "can have guns"

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Criminals often carry guns for the same reason gun owners claim they carry guns - self-protection.

Oh fuck you cunt. They also carry them to KILL any witnesses.

 

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.

Mexico and a number of other countries fly in the face of your faulty conclusion.

Again, fuck you. Don't like guns? Don't own em. Just like abortion.. don't like it? Don't have one. Just stay the fuck out of my way. Somebody invades my house at night I want their fucking bodies hitting the floor and losing blood volume pronto.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

You didn't read his link or his post did you? His link related to violent crime (and his post) your link related to just gun crime, there is a different there buddy.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

Gun crimes actually went up a statistically insignificant amount (as per your link), violent crime however has gone up as per http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[tompaulco]

So we should alter our lifestyle to suit the whims of the criminals? I think not. 6 blocks from my house a criminal robbed a man at gunpoint and forced the man's girlfriend to strip in the middle of the street. The man offered no resistance and handed over his wallet. The criminal murdered the man in front of his girlfriend. I have no intention of taking my chances that a criminal is just going to rob me and then let me go. Just as we as a country are no longer going to allow a a terrorist to take over a plane thinking that they will just fly us to Cuba. If a criminal is willing to break the law to steal from you, then you have no ability to say for certain just how far they are willing to escalate the situation.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[tompaulco]

If you were paying attention to australia after they outlawed guns violent crime went up over 30% and home invasions even higher. Just because a criminal does not have a gun does not mean he is no longer a criminal.
Well, criminals can still have guns. They don't have to obey the law. Only law abiding people have to obey the law.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to have seen how you dealt with the guy, though. 6'-4", almost 300 pounds, and very altered on controlled substances.

My father was a special forces grade combat instructor during the 70s, not a martial artist. He used to beat them up all the time. He has this to say:

You are a fucking idiot.

Size and bulk have very little to do with who wins in a fight. In the untrained, and those who simply practice in a gym but never fight on the street, whoever gets the first two or three strikes to the head will usually be the victor.

Put simply, if this guy grabs you by the throat, fasten one hand on his wrist, and with the other you strike at the outside of his elbow as hard as you can. Or you can twist him around, put him in an armlock and break his elbow.

If he charges at you, sidestep at the last minute and use his momentum to throw him.

I knew a girl who went through a similar training course, about ten years ago. She would be about 100 to 110 pounds. She'd have made that 300 pound guy scream like a little girl, and he wouldn't have had a hope of stopping her.

Your question is a false set of limited choices that don't always apply to reality.

You appear to be an aggressive nerd with no concept of what you're talking about, beyond "Me got gun! Me shoot! You go!"

Like I've said a number of times to a number of people, you put a gun in my face and I will kill you with it, and I will use your own hands to do it. Time to grow the fuck up, ScentCone.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

Since, you asked. As a general rule, I don't answer the door. Not many people know where I live, and the ones that do generally call first. In the rare case it is someone else I look through the keyhole. If it is someone that I don't recognise then, again, as a general rule, I don't answer the door.

I have specific reasons for behaving in this manner. I know, all too well, that it is possible to jump a 6 foot fence, and it is possible to get on the roof. However, these things are unlikely in the casual criminal and if they really want to jump into some rose bushes in the dark then I will come around and take pictures of the blood, again, and have a chuckle about it while reviewing the security camera. No, not the footage from the fake cameras up high, from the hidden ones.

You only get done once before you learn that some things are necessary.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't bring down violence by outlawing guns. But there are other ways, that works. Have enough police, so thugs simply don't get away with murder. That takes away the desire to "get rid of witnesses", because doing so will get you caught in the murder investigation that follows. When over 90% of murders get caught, criminals rarely kill any more. Killing gets counterproductive for them.

Getting rid of poverty is another trick, as it removes much of the motivation for crime. But it is also much harder.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ganjadude]

Anti gun people seem to only look at gun crime statistics. I am talking about all violent crime statistics because it really does not matter to the victim what tool us used to terrorize and hurt or even kill them. Its still a violent crime.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

Anti gun people seem to only look at gun crime statistics. I am talking about all violent crime statistics because it really does not matter to the victim what tool us used to terrorize and hurt or even kill them. Its still a violent crime.

The statistics show that violent crime does not rise just because guns become more controlled.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[shutdown -p now]

On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you. If you're packing, it becomes imperative that he does, or you will shoot him.

And if he shoots you and gets caught, he's now in for murder (or at least attempted murder), as opposed to burglary or robbery.

70% of the time, when people have drawn a gun in self-defense in the USA, they did not fire it because the perp ran away. A smart course of action, since you can't legally shoot at a running criminal in self-defense (as he's no longer a threat to you).

When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.

It doesn't really matter, if it doesn't result in fewer murders (and other violent crimes). Which it doesn't.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[shutdown -p now]

If you are serious about discussing numbers, instead of calling your opponents names, how about answering to this post of mine, which specifically talks about Australia?

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

Read the Snopes article.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[shutdown -p now]

I've read the Snopes article. It concludes with:

"The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics offered here. And no matter what the outcome of that analysis, the results aren't necessarily applicable to the USA, where laws regarding gun ownership are (and always have been) much different than those in Australia."

Did you read my comment? It talks about more numbers, as well as the context for those numbers.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

The statistics in england show gun crime rose when guns became more controlled and violent crime rose when guns became more controlled, try reading the link he linked you to and notice how it says violent crime while snopes says gun crime (violent crime is a superset of guncrime and the snopes article only covers a small subset of violent crime, see how they can both be right?)

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

"The main point to be learned here is that determining the effect of changes in Australia's gun ownership laws and the government's firearm buy-back program on crime rates requires a complex long-term analysis and can't be discerned from the small, mixed grab bag of short-term statistics"

Did you read my comment

Yes. It was attempting simplistic short-term analysis. For example comparing single years with each other. It was exactly what Snopes was warning against.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

The statistics in england show gun crime rose when guns became more controlled and violent crime rose when guns became more controlled

They most certainly do not.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[shutdown -p now]

Thanks for proving that you either haven't read it, or you don't understand what you've read. The core of the argument was centered around taking the murder rate graph for two decades, and looking at the trend. The parts where I compared two years was in response to a commenter, who made a similar comparison (but focusing strictly on "gun deaths" - I pointed out why his focus was pointless by showing the overall number for those same years).

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[Anonymous Coward]

I may be a little late in replying, but what the fuck? What part of "proper education" and "required licensing" says you can't have a gun? In fact, the only reason to get proper education and required licensing is so that you will have a gun.

So when someone shows up with a gun at your door, you will have been trained in how to use your gun and how to aim properly so that you have the advantage against the person with the gun, what you can and can't do in self-defense so that you don't find yourself going to jail for plugging a guy that tossed his gun away after you shot him in the knee, and also be able to show police that the gun that you shot the guy with was bought legally and being carried legally.

And counter to that, a criminal that does not have proper education or required licensing is going to have a harder time getting a gun, so a two-bit robber with no connections becomes more likely to show up at your door with a knife. Now they've brought a knife to a gun fight. Yes, many criminals will still have guns, but they will still have guns regardless of whatever happens. However, even if it does nothing to career criminals, it will cut down on the number of common criminals with guns, domestic disputes involving guns, and the number of suicides by gun (which is double that of the number of homicides by gun each year).

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

Then you have an inability to read
Australia Violent crime rose when guns became more controled (note snopes does not debunk this and doesn't even address it so stop citing it as a response) http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847/
England gun crime rose 35% as of 2003 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-154307/Gun-crime-soars-35.html/
and had doubled as of 2012 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html/

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

Your first link is an anti-governemnt pro-guns lobbist.

Your second link is to the UK's equivalent of Fox News. A newspaper that always claims that crime is rising despite the fact that crime has actually been falling pretty consistently in all categories since 1995.

Your third link is broken, but at a guess it's to an opinion piece by Joyce Lee Malcolm. An author that writes pro-gun books.

It's all cherry picking and distortion. That's why I pointed you at Snopes.

What's needed is the lifting of the Republican ban on government research on gun crime. They are afraid of real definitive figures being researched and published.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

It's all cherry picking and distortion. That's why I pointed you at Snopes.

You pointed me to a snopes article that doesn;t even cover violent crime in response to Australia violent crime. It's entirely irrelevant to anything in this discussion. If you notice my sources all cite studies, check the studies you'll notice you're wrong.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

What's needed is the lifting of the Republican ban on government research on gun crime. They are afraid of real definitive figures being researched and published.

also what ban on research on gun crime? there's just a ban on pro gun research afaik.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

there's just a ban on pro gun research afaik.

Well that shows how little you know.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

I know the difference between gun crime and violent crime, I know gun crime has doubled in the UK since the gun ban and violent crime has gone up in Australia since the gun ban. I also know that there is no ban on gun crime research just as I checked, look into it sure enough there's a narrow restriction on gun crime research

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

I know the difference between gun crime and violent crime, I know gun crime has doubled in the UK since the gun ban and violent crime has gone up in Australia since the gun ban.

Rarely has a cherry picker of data made it so plain that's what he is doing. You are dishonest.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[ganjadude]

says the man ignoring the numbers in front of his face. So since we debunked your snopes claim, where are your numbers on VIOLENT crime stats since guns have been restricted?? both in the UK and australia please. If you are going to refute the numbers, then provide some of your own

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

I'm not cherry picking i googled gun crime in the uk and violent crime in australia, first links for those googled results or are you saying google is cherry picking? (mind you google banned guns from their google shopping listings so that wouldn't make much sense) but here some hard numbers for the uk since you have trouble in 1998/99 there were 13,874 instances of reported gun crime, of those 566 were "imitation" firearms and 8,665 were air guns (note these are both covered under the ban and actually are quite deadly in and of themselves at the ranges involved) leaving 4643 total actual true powder powered gun crimes. In 2005/06 there were 21,521 reported gun crimes (note this is the lowest point since the ban in the report the other years were quite a bit higher) where 3,275 were "imitation" guns and 10,437 were air guns leaving 7,809 total true powder powered gun crimes.

Now on the imitation guns this includes things like improvised weapons firing non bullet projectiles and blank firing guns, anyone who has ever dealt with .either of these can tell you at close range both of those are just as deadly as a pistol, take a blank to the face from an open barrel and you will not survive.
On to the airguns, all that needs to be said about those is Girandoni Air Rifle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_Air_Rifle/) Those aren't handguns mind you but there are less powerful (though still quite lethal) air powered handguns in use in the world.
Now I "cherry picked" as you put it the best numbers in your favor, they still point to gun crime showing a drastic rise since the gun ban was instituted in the UK. If you think the other years in the report are better... well theres 2002/03 with 24,070 or 2003/04 with 24,094. Sorry buddy the numbers absolutely aren't in your favor in UK Gun crime.
Now on to Australia's violent crime ahref=http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.htmlrel=url2html-7348http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html /> Enjoy the graph it shows a clear trend upwards 2007 has the highest recorded rate since 1996 when the gun ban was instituted. The numbers absolutely are not in your favor in either region and snopes is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

I did a write up for him http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3394401&cid=42675931/ with irrefutable numbers

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

Forgot to cite my uk numbers, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/hosb0207.pdf that is the source of the numbers involved in the uk.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[BasilBrush]

I'm not cherry picking i googled gun crime in the uk and violent crime in australia

Why not violent crime for the UK and gun crime for Australia. The opposite cherry picking.

Here's a hint: If you have to use different measures for different countries, that's because you're trying to find stats to match your prejudice. It's called cherry picking.

Then there's the cherry picked years you are using.

Re:F*ck off, gun haters

[LiENUS]

Because the gun crime showed an insignificant change as per your snopes article and violent crime in the uk has always been nearly 4x the rate of the us. You yourself already covered the Australia one and the uk violent crime rate is just ridiculous, why do you think they push government monitored security cameras so heavily?

I really hate gun control morons like these

[Sycraft-fu]

Because they make any real, useful, gun control much less likely to happen. Their grandstanding is counter productive.

For example you try and say "Hey, we really should register firearms. After all you register your car, why not guns too? It would allow for some tracking and accountability, and in the event someone becomes a prohibited person easier allow courts to determine if they have any guns that need to be surrendered." Well the gun lobby shoots back with "No, unacceptable, if you have a registry it can be used to target gun owners." You respond "That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

Then, this happens, in a place that has a gun registry. Now the gun lobby doesn't have to talk in hypotheticals, or other nations, they can point to something that happened right in America that is precisely the kind of shit they are talking about. Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

As such trying stupid shit to do things that are bans but not in name, or to harass or make things difficult for gun owners are counter productive. All they do is polarize things, convince gun owners that any and all controls are bad because they'll be abused.

Stunts like this are nothing but harmful.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[watice]

I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. I'm actually pretty pro-gun, AND reside/work in NYC but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. Are we going to seal the records of crime stats because it might lower property value? What about code violations? Should we seal every single damaged sidewalk complaint too? The argument that this somehow puts gun owners in danger or subjects them to unfair scrutiny is absolutely ridiculous. These people are armed, they have one additional means of protection (if not more, since the only limit as far as I know in NYC is to have a safe after 7 guns). Speculation about what kind of criminals these lists/maps/dbs can attract is just foolish. By that logic, all store locators on websites could potentially attract thieves because they know where the goods are.

I'm not sure how I feel about it or where I stand on it yet, but the recently passed gun control laws in NYS allow permit holders to limit their information from public release: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/19/ny-gun-control-law-limits-public-info/1847485/

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is really the point, gun registries are abused and this is just one example. That's why so many gun owners oppose them. They have also been used for mass confiscation, which is another reason they are opposed.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[cirby]

"That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

Two of the homes listed in the first publication of gun owners' names have had their homes burglarized - and one of them only had their gun safe stolen.

Meanwhile, there have been calls by leglislators to confiscate guns - by forcing registration and/or using current registration lists.

Neither of those are "straw men." Indeed, they were mostly just predictions based on knowing how people think and act.

"Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned," ...then why are some people calling for gun bans? And trying to pass laws that effectively ban guns? And why are there many places in the US with fairly comprehensive gun bans, like Chicago?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[gbjbaanb]

surely this a public service for burglars - now they know which homes *not* to target because they stand a chance of getting shot by the homeowner when they go to in take his valuables.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[peragrin]

What if Samsung published the addresses of every home that had a 55" TV? You were supposed to register that too.

Store locators are there because you go to them to buy stuff. if I go to your house can I go through your belongs and take what I want if i leave some cash on the counter?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you know, the fact that this happened vindicates what the "gun lobby" (because you have to be a lobbyist to give a shit about your privacy?) has been saying.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[jezwel]

unless they want to steal guns...which has apparently already happened to people on the list

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[geekmux]

Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that they will not fight to repeal the 2nd Amendment. That would be too difficult a battle. No, instead they simply re-define what rights an "individual" has, and look to disarm you. Today that happens to be anyone convicted of a felony, no matter how victimless that crime may have been, or unrelated to protecting ones self or family. Every convicted felon has lost that right to defend themselves.

Tomorrow that may be re-defined to include anyone who commits even the slightest infraction in our ever-tightening big brother watchdog society. Ran a red light? Oh, now you're deemed "unsafe" and lost your ability to apply for your state and federal gun permits. They'll just confiscate those until you can become eligible again, in 3 years...you know, the new mandatory "cooling off" period.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right."

I don't want guns banned. But it shouldn't take repeal of constitutional amendments to get some reasonable controls. Guns are useful tools. Even in countries with very strict regulations people still own and use guns. What part of "reasonable regulations" != "repeal 2nd amendment" are gun owners failing to comprehend?

I've used guns. I don't happen to own one myself, but I got formally trained in how to use them safely and have used them. I wouldn't want them to go away. That doesn't prevent me from wanting the regulations for use and ownership to be strict. "Harass" gun owners? Please. They're a bunch of whiners that *say* they want to use these dangerous and useful tools responsibly, but the moment anyone wants to attach more legal responsibility to them, "OMG, the government is trying to take away ALL our guns/repeal the second amendment!" That's nonsense.

This kind of privacy breach does not inspire confidence, but that's not a good reason for abandoning registration of firearms, any more than it would be if somebody leaked the entire DMV car ownership database. Hold the government to account for the slip-up, but we wouldn't ban cars or stop registering them in that circumstance either.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

The three things burglars are looking for are cash, jewelry, and pistols. Everything else is too large/heavy and/or too difficult to turn into cash. If your home is broken into then that pistol you keep by the bedside is guaranteed to be gone. Burglars also take great pains to ensure a home is not occupied by anyone else when they go in. Therefore, a list of pistol owners is in fact a list of homes guaranteed to have something good inside.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. ...

Really?

OK, then. Let's post a list of all women who have abortions. With addresses.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Pharmboy]

Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

Actually, it simply proves the gun lobby correct. Obviously, we need to incorporate mental health records into state checks and do a background check on everyone who wants to buy any firearm, but "registering" them is a different animal and IS fraught with problems that the 2nd Amendment was created for. The system needs work, but registering isn't the solution. The Sandy Hook shooting wouldn't have been prevented, for example, because the guns were stolen, not legally purchased.

A little homework shows that most crimes are by illegally purchased (or stolen) firearms anyway. Making it harder for normal people, like me (who had an FFL for years but isn't really into guns) only drives the black market more. Just like how prohibition made booze easier to get, and how pot prohibition makes pot easy to get. It also makes it profitable. Forget registering, and put the money where it would actually make a difference, the ILLEGAL trade of firearms.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[squiggleslash]

Or it's a list of homes to burgle to get their hands on a gun they otherwise wouldn't be able to get due to background checks. The "Yes, but they're at risk of being shot!" argument only works if you assume that every gun owner stays at home all day, every day, and leaves no evidence of their absence behind if they do leave for any reason.

I still don't see the point of the disclosure beyond straightforward harassment of gun owners. And all this does is encourage gun owners to be scared of registration and permit requirements, no matter how legitimate. Given some kind of permitting system ought to be part of any discussion of sane gun control, it's hard to see how this kind of idiocy helps the public debate.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Grimbleton]

Please tell me one consumer good more highly regulated than firearms.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

You are pro-gun like sh!t is tasty.

You're like the people who say, "I am a believe in the 2nd Amendment, but..." [fill in retard, anti-gun statement]

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[watice]

If Samsung published the addresses of every home that had a 55" TV, somebody on the internet would cry that it was encouraging the burglary of 55" TV's. Although quite slim nowadays (about the width of a dime), it's no OLED. You're not just going to roll up a TV under your shirt & walk out with it. Store locators are there to find the stores. Would you insist on removal of your gps coordinates & directions to your house from all location aware services on the chance it may lead burglars to your home?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[geekmux]

I really don't see how posting this kind of information is harassing, or making things difficult for gun owners. I'm actually pretty pro-gun, AND reside/work in NYC but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this...The argument that this somehow puts gun owners in danger or subjects them to unfair scrutiny is absolutely ridiculous.

Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for high-dollar valuables in their home, right? Perhaps you have a nice collection of diamonds. I'm certain you won't mind telling me all about them, as you see nothing wrong with sharing this kind of information. Yes, I'm sure you and everyone else would have nothing to fear at all when you leave your house, leaving your valuables unprotected.

Remove the fact that we're talking about guns here. These are valuables that are now listed online for every criminal to target while the vast majority of citizens leave an empty house behind for hours every day. At least try and think of the bigger picture here. The fact that we are talking about guns as the targeted valuable only makes the consequences of theft even more dire.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[ganjadude]

tell my neighbors, who were on this list, and broken into since the list was posted, and nothing but the gun safe was touched that you have no problem with this. This list was made in their own words "so readers could decide where it is safe" which is kind of a weighted line in the context. What if we had a list of all gay people, or all people who buy porn because "we want our readers to know where its ok for the children to play" I dont think that would fly

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[drinkypoo]

Just like how prohibition made booze easier to get, and how pot prohibition makes pot easy to get.

That's really not how it works, because anyone who can grow a houseplant can grow weed, and anyone who can make soup can make booze.

It also makes it profitable.

Yes, it does do that. It also makes it attractive to kids who want to piss off their parents. (I know it did me.)

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[RedBear]

Wow. Bad at reading comprehension much? The guy you were replying to was basically agreeing with you, and saying exactly what you said. Might want to re-read his post a few times.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me one consumer good more highly regulated than firearms.

Pain medication.

What's that? *You* don't think life-saving pain medication is a "consumer" good? Well, there are a lot of people who don't think that firearms are a "consumer" good.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[misexistentialist]

real, useful, gun control

Would you accept "real, useful" speech control? No, that doesn't mean punishment for yelling "fire," but some sort of gag applied so you couldn't yell anything? Freedom is all or nothing.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Grimbleton]

You beat the fuck out of your wife and went to jail. When you get out you have a condition that requires pain medication, and go buy some at the store.

You beat the fuck out of your wife and went to jail. When you get out, you decide you want a firearm, but it's now illegal for you to purchase one, and even being in possession of one will put you back in jail, and you can't just go buy one at the store because you'll fail the background check and possibly have the police come and put you in jail for trying.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Better yet, let's post a list of hypocritical Christians who make Jesus cry.

Oh wait, damn, sorry, the database is too fucking large.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[RedBear]

Because they make any real, useful, gun control much less likely to happen. Their grandstanding is counter productive.

For example you try and say "Hey, we really should register firearms. After all you register your car, why not guns too? It would allow for some tracking and accountability, and in the event someone becomes a prohibited person easier allow courts to determine if they have any guns that need to be surrendered." Well the gun lobby shoots back with "No, unacceptable, if you have a registry it can be used to target gun owners." You respond "That's silly, it would be used only for lawful purposes by the proper authorities."

Then, this happens, in a place that has a gun registry. Now the gun lobby doesn't have to talk in hypotheticals, or other nations, they can point to something that happened right in America that is precisely the kind of shit they are talking about. Now more moderate gun owners, who might have been amenable, or at least accepting, of the idea hate it because they believe what the gun lobby is saying.

Gun haters have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story, unless the second amendment is repealed. All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

As such trying stupid shit to do things that are bans but not in name, or to harass or make things difficult for gun owners are counter productive. All they do is polarize things, convince gun owners that any and all controls are bad because they'll be abused.

Stunts like this are nothing but harmful.

You really don't go far enough with this comment. You've acknowledged that it happened, but you haven't acknowledged what it really means. The plain and simple truth is this: A firearms registry was just abused to target firearms owners, thus proving that firearms registries will be abused to target firearms owners. There is no other side to this argument. It is not "counter productive" that the list was abused, it is simply reality. The idea that such a list would not be abused has always been preposterous and always will be preposterous. Gun registries are not a workable solution in a free society. Period. QED. Thus it is proven.

It's funny how the gun control crowd is constantly "shooting themselves in the foot" with actions and rhetoric like this that simply strengthens the other side and guarantees there will absolutely be millions more firearms ending up being sold and used, especially illegal black market firearms. The more they push, the more the other side pushes back and the results will end up being the exact opposite of what they want.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[AF_Cheddar_Head]

Were they targeted because of this list or is it coincidence? Gun owners were robbed before this list was made public weren't they?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[AmiMoJo]

If you hadn't noticed most people leave lots of valuable items on public display at their homes. Expensive cars, for example. It isn't really a problem because the reality is every home in a middle class or above area has stuff worth stealing, ranging from jewellery to phones to TVs to cars to cash.

You might want to know if you neighbour is storing something dangerous in his garage, e.g. toxic chemicals or potentially explosive fuels. The question is are guns dangerous and do people have a right to know if their neighbours are storing them?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[dbc]

Really? Imagine a woman who has a restraining order against a violent ex-husband that she has been hiding from, and who owns a gun to keep him from beating her and her kids again just in case he finds them. Tell me again how she isn't harmed.

Retired police have the right to carry in any state. The police unions' argument is that bad people that they helped put away might seek them out for revenge and the cops, even ex-cops, need to defend themselves. Why is the con's ex-wife's life worth something less?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure gun owners were robbed before this list was made public. It is probably too soon to tell right now whether any robbery of a gun owner whose address was published is coincidence or deliberately targeted at this point in time. Give it a few more months and see whether or not more of those gun owners listed have been robbed. If more than a few of them get robbed then it would probably be deliberate targeting to steal their guns rather than sheer coincidence. That's my guess.

A statistician would be better able to give an estimate of how many robberies of the listed gun owners would have to occur in order to be statistically unlikely that the robberies were not simply random.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you honestly think making a firearm is any more difficult? Realize that all you need to make a basic firearm is a piece of threaded steel sprinkler pipe, a cap for said pipe, a small rock and some gun powder, and if you think gun powder is hard to make, I highly recommend you check out the Wikipedia article on it. From that point on, it's more just practice to make better and better firearms.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

in the event someone becomes a prohibited person easier allow courts to determine if they have any guns that need to be surrendered

This is EXACTLY why registration is such a hot-button issue. What constitutes a "prohibited person"? Who's to say that at some point in the future, you post something that someone in power doesn't like on a blog somewhere, legislation gets passed prohibiting said speech, and all of a sudden you're persona non grata?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Please tell me one consumer good more highly regulated than firearms.

Cars.

You've got to register them. You must have insurance on them. You can only drive them after passing a test that in some states includes a demonstration of skill.

Need I go on?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

All kinds of arguments have been tried and all have failed, the supreme court has ruled that the 2nd does in fact mean that gun ownership is a protected, individual, right.

[BUZZ] I'm sorry, but that is incorrect. For more information please Google "John Carlin Rights". The government grants privileges, not rights.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care if you see how it's harassing. Stop the distribution of private information, whether you care about it or not. If your pro-private info distribution, then we have another problem that will need to be addressed.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun owners have to accept and get over the fact that guns are NOT going to be banned, period, end of story,

And that the average person does not give a fuck about guns in anyway, shape or form. Keep your precious guns, no one gives a shit. Stop pretending people are trying to ban them, they are not that important.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that guns are designed to kill, a substantial amount of regulation should surround their sale and use. As far as I'm concerned, they should be one of, if not the, most highly-regulated of consumer goods.

But okay, I'll play your diversion.

Medications have a bewildering number of regulations surrounding their sale and use. They aren't designed to kill people, but they definitely have that capacity. Thus, you have to get some of them only with a doctor's prescription and careful usage instructions, they have "child-proof" caps, and the manufacturers aren't allowed to market them unless they demonstrate a decent level of safety in their use. Also, you aren't permitted to prescribe them without considerable training. Some medications are considered safe enough to be sold over-the-counter without a prescription, but they are less harmful ones, they still have safety precautions, and children can't purchase them.

Is it comparable? Probably not. And people break the rules surrounding medications all the time. But like I said, I'm fine with an exceptional amount of regulation surrounding firearms because they are purpose-built to kill efficiently.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for high-dollar valuables in their home, right? Perhaps you have a nice collection of diamonds. I'm certain you won't mind telling me all about them, as you see nothing wrong with sharing this kind of information. Yes, I'm sure you and everyone else would have nothing to fear at all when you leave your house, leaving your valuables unprotected.

That my friend is a textbook example of a false equivalency (logical fallacy) and your argument is now dead.

Remove the fact that we're talking about guns here.

Now you want to walk all that back by realizing they aren't the same thing?!?!

These are valuables that are now listed online for every criminal to target while the vast majority of citizens leave an empty house behind for hours every day. At least try and think of the bigger picture here. The fact that we are talking about guns as the targeted valuable only makes the consequences of theft even more dire.

Forget the fact that all the info that was published about the gun owners is public information that anyone can get and insurance info isn't. You are someone that should not own a gun. You will probably test mentally unstable with logic like you displayed above, if you haven't already been diagnosed. Guns are weapons, not valuables. Sure, some old guns are worth a lot of money, again, if they still fire and operate as weapons! Of course, if all criminals used your logic and actually went to rob homes with guns (what idiot does that?!?!) there might be a lot fewer criminals but a lot of psychiatrists treating those that gunned them down and those that witnessed. Good time to be a psychiatrist I guess.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Your argument puts gun ownership in the same category as crime. Owning a gun is not a crime. It's not of any public value whatsoever for people to know who in their community owns guns. It has absolutely no beneficial affect on gun crimes whatsoever. The whole point is to shun gun owners.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[SvnLyrBrto]

> Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list
> of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for
> high-dollar valuables in their home, right?

Insurance riders are generally part of a private contract between an individual and another private, *non-government*, entity. That's completely a completely different situation from public records being... well... public, and available TO the public.

And the public certainly does have an interest in regulating firearms. It's even written into the second amendment... in the first half that you people seem to like to conveniently ignore.

The situation here is no different from somebody being able to goto the county records office and look up the easements that may be on land I own, or the assessed value thereof. Public records are public. Big surprise.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Pharmboy]

Anyone can grow a pot plant, but it takes a little more finesse to actually make something smokeable with THC in it. Just like making booze worth drinking is more difficult than soup. You have obviously done neither, but I'm guessing you've never tried to do either. Comparing it to a houseplant is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of the photosensitivity and growth stages. And distilling booze from mash isn't rocket science, but there is a science to it. From experience, it is much more difficult to do it even half way decent than you understand.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[cirby]

Speaking of bad at reading comprehension: where did I disagree with the previous comment, other than my last paragraph?

I merely pointed out some additional information.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Grimbleton]

None of the above applies to a car that's never operated on public roads.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

... jewelry insurance rider for high-dollar valuables ...

While a suitable analogy it doesn't pass the 'smell' test. Firstly, there being the number of people who have expensive jewellery. Next, those people having jewellery also having appropriate insurance. Third, insurance being a private contract, how would you know?

When I hear the 'you've got nothing to hide argument' I demand to know the names of all their sexual partners, or all the times they partook illicit drugs. People don't like these intimate experiences being judged by strangers for some reason.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[drinkypoo]

Anyone can grow a pot plant, but it takes a little more finesse to actually make something smokeable with THC in it. Just like making booze worth drinking is more difficult than soup. You have obviously done neither, but I'm guessing you've never tried to do either.

I'm from Santa Cruz, born and raised. I would have hard to work hard to not know people who have done it, and I know from them that you don't actually have to know shit. Maybe to get the best results, but who cares? Why would you need to get the best results to have acceptable results?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember too, though it seems to be lost in almost EVERY single discussion - gun ownership, as a part of the broader right to self defense, and ability of the individual to secure for themselves their own liberty, is a RIGHT. You were born with it, you did not apply for it at the county firearms office next to the DMV. Publishing lists of registered owners is not akin to a list of licensed drivers, but a list of everyone who attended the Westboro Baptist church last weekend, or the PTA meeting last month. That we so easily believe that one right (to bear arms) should be tracked and published, and yet another (who spoke against the government on the square last week, or supported social security at that rally the other day) should not be tracked, speaks volumes about how much freedom we have willing ceded.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[harlequinn]

In general any citizens life is not worth less than anyone else's life to themselves.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. And yet, prescription drug deaths, being highly regulated, exceeded automotive deaths in 2011.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/17/local/la-me-drugs-epidemic-20110918

Seems like regulation, even strict regulation, does little to protect anyone.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure you just made that up. Given how much easier it is to legally purchase a gun than it is to break into a gun safe, seems very odd someone would try the latter. Then again, it is really easy to make an unsubstantiated claim on the internet in your favor and yell, "See!!! I told you that would happen and now I said it did!"

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

My gun is designed to do what I want it to do. I decide. Not someone who has no interest in guns. It's a tool. Just like a car. I could kill with a car - and it's that moment when someone decides to use it in that fashion that defines it's use - murder. And we have laws that describe it that way. My gun is designed to pop holes in paper in an environment that I enjoy.

You make it sound like all gun owners have guns thinking that they have bought something to kill other people with, specifically. When I visit a target range, I'm not killing anything.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like how prohibition made booze easier to get, and how pot prohibition makes pot easy to get.

That's really not how it works, because anyone who can grow a houseplant can grow weed, and anyone who can make soup can make booze.

It also makes it profitable.

Yes, it does do that. It also makes it attractive to kids who want to piss off their parents. (I know it did me.)

Just like anyone with a 3D printer can, oh wait stupid...

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

There are lots of stuff that are more highly regulated than firearms. Claritin, spray paint are the two I can instantly think of. You can't buy those unless you show ID.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Izuzan]

From the news reports on them, the criminals ignored everything but the gun safes. so that would tell me they were targeted for guns only.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

You're incorrect, and then correct.

The US Supreme Court has *indeed* ruled that gun ownership is a protected right for individuals. That does not mean it was a right *granted* by the government. Especially since, as you admit, the government doesn't grant rights, they exist *in spite* of a government's attempts to infringe them. Rather, it simply means that the US Supreme Court *recognized* that the right existed, regardless of what the legislature might try to do or how it might try to infringe that right.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's not. At least three instances involve homes which were burgled, where nothing *except* the gun safe, and the gun(s) inside it were taken. Had they been looking for *anything* other than the guns, the computers, TVs, jewelery, etc. were in plain view around the ransacked homes.

I believe (but cannot find the reference at the moment) that in at least one case, the perpetrator was found and *admitted* to using the list to find homes with guns to steal.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Phroggy]

What if we had a list of all gay people, or all people who buy porn because "we want our readers to know where its ok for the children to play" I dont think that would fly

No, but there are lists of registered sex offenders, where "sex offender" can include a drunk college student who got caught urinating on a bush.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[tompaulco]

The question is are guns dangerous
It depends on who owns the gun. If it is a registered gun owner, then it is probably not dangerous. If the gun was obtained illegally, then yes, it is probably dangerous.
and do people have a right to know if their neighbours are storing them?
If they obtained the gain legally, then no, you don't have a right to know that. If they obtained it illegally, then I believe you should have the right to know that, but that is harder to know, and if it was known, the government would probably protect the illegal gun owners from having that information shared.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[tompaulco]

And the public certainly does have an interest in regulating firearms. It's even written into the second amendment... in the first half that you people seem to like to conveniently ignore.
You mean the part about "well regulated militia"? Funny that they didn't specify that the government needs to regulate the militia. Of course, if the government regulates the militia then you might as well, not have one, huh?
The big problem here is that gun owners worried that if the government required licensing and control of guns, then that would make it a part of public record and then people would have access to information of who owned guns and how many and what variety. And that worry appears to be quite well founded.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[tompaulco]

No, it is only easy for a law abiding citizen to buy guns. Criminals are only able to obtain them illegally, and also by happenstance, don't mind doing illegal things.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[tompaulco]

I for one don't really care for those lists either, and especially don't care for the kind of crap that they seem to think qualifies as a "sex offense".

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[tompaulco]

Today that happens to be anyone convicted of a felony, no matter how victimless that crime may have been, or unrelated to protecting ones self or family. Every convicted felon has lost that right to defend themselves.
In my state, defending yourself from an armed robber can cause you to be convicted of a felony and you can lose your right to defend yourself. We're already well on our way down the slippery slope, and the criminals are catching on fast that they are safe from those pesky law abiding citizens.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Motor vehicles.

License: Virtually every state requires a drivers license to drive. Firearms, not so much unless we're straying into handgun territory.

Registration: See license.

Categories: Really just four for firearms: Handguns, long guns, "assault rifles" (which I think most want to treat as non-consumer), and out-right military. MVs have a similar concept with their vehicle classes.

Age restrictions: Varies by state, but I think most states allow handling of firearms before allowing one to drive.

Background check: Firearms lose here

Sales: Firearms are more regulated.

Insurance: Mandatory for cars in virtually every state (used to be voluntary in TN not too long ago). No such requirement for firearms.

Fuel: Not sure about bullets, but gasoline is highly regulated stuff.

State mandated check ups: I think most states require cars to be inspected once every year or two years. No such requirement for firearms.

Manufacturing specs: I think MVs and firearms are even here, though MVs are probably more regulated. Cars have a great deal of requirements now to meet safety minimums though obviously there are no-nos for firearms like full-auto.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[AmiMoJo]

It depends on who owns the gun. If it is a registered gun owner, then it is probably not dangerous. If the gun was obtained illegally, then yes, it is probably dangerous.

Most of these mass murders are carried out with legally owned guns, so that suggests that they are in fact quite dangerous.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[tompaulco]

Most of these mass murders are carried out with legally owned guns, so that suggests that they are in fact quite dangerous.
No, most mass murders are carried out with guns that were legally owned but were then stolen from the legal owner. Which is why none of the background checking and red tape being proposed will do any good. More laws has no affect against people who already break the law.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

More laws has no affect against people who already break the law.

Actually, these are not people who "already" break the law.

Massacres which rile up anti-gun outcries are not usually from criminals, but from "normal" people who for one reason or another turn crazy (yes, when they steal a gun, they become criminals, but by then it's a little too late)

Massacres by criminals, as in people with previous criminal records - which probably happen a lot more often - don't get similar reactions. Also note that even when a mass murderer does have a prior criminal records, they may ALSO have mental issues.

It's the Sandy Hooks, the Virginia Techs, and the Columbines that gets all the outrage.

I'm not saying it makes sense, I'm just making the observation.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for high-dollar valuables in their home, right? .

People do that themselves. They wear the damn jewelry to high-class parties. They go and live in expensive neighbourhoods. If the house is big, expensive and well kept - then there is nice stuff to steal. If they have alarm company stickers - they have something worth taking. If they have guards even - you can be sure.

And there are lots of nice lists. Who owns more in the stock market, for example. Who has nice job titles in the phone book? Fortunately, the average burglar is not good at reading - and even worswe with logic. Which is why he don't earn better doing a job.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Aircraft

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[LanMan04]

These are valuables that are now listed online for every criminal to target while the vast majority of citizens leave an empty house behind for hours every day.

You mean like.....cars?

Which every household registers with the State?
Which are worth much more than guns?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[LanMan04]

What if we had a list of all gay people, or all people who buy porn because "we want our readers to know where its ok for the children to play"

Gay people and porn buyers are not a danger to children. Guns are a danger to everyone.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[LanMan04]

Two of the homes listed in the first publication of gun owners' names have had their homes burglarized - and one of them only had their gun safe stolen.

And? I'm sure houses get burglarized all the time, list or no. How do you know the burglaries were related to being listed?

Also, MANY houses that are burglarized only have their gun safes touched. What are you going to do, fence that gigantic 50" TV for....$100? Guns are where it's at in terms of illegal resale value.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[iluvcapra]

Meanwhile, there have been calls by leglislators to confiscate guns

Who?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

lol good thing his guns were "secured" in a "safe"

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

um that information is secured with a private company and we have a written agreement that it will not be disclosed. any other stupid analogies you would like to draw?

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

i have a ccw, several guns, and I have no problem with this. your neighbors can eat shit, if their guns are properly secured while they are gone as they should be there is no problem. OH you meant, their tin box, not a gun safe... irresponsible pieces of shit, maybe next time they'll take their responsibility for their instruments of death seriously before one is used to violate the reproductive holes of the wife.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[shutdown -p now]

There's no reason why you have to publish data that has individual names and addresses. If the public is interested in the overall gun ownership rate in their community - which is a reasonable thing to know - by all means, let's publish aggregated data on that.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[shutdown -p now]

Would you accept "real, useful" speech control? No, that doesn't mean punishment for yelling "fire," but some sort of gag applied so you couldn't yell anything? Freedom is all or nothing.

Your comment is self-contradictory. Yes, punishment for yelling "fire" is, in fact, "speech control". So are slander and libel laws. So are laws against incitement to commit a crime.

If freedom were "all or nothing", then the only way to be free would be to be free to restrict the freedom of other people (e.g. by murdering or robbing them, or making them your slaves). Luckily, this is not the case, and we can still enjoy a great deal of freedom with a number of reasonable restrictions that allow others to enjoy their freedom as well.

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[watice]

So you're saying (hypothetically of course, since I have no kids yet) it's better to have LESS cameras than MORE cameras for my kids' benefit? Get real. There are little kids being kidnapped, chopped up & put in freezers in my borough. I have a security camera outside my home myself. Doesn't make me a pedophile or a peeping tom, makes me feel secure. There's no reasonable expectation of privacy in public areas, and although they've had quite a few fuckups that I'm not happy about, the NYPD & the camera surveillance in place have kept NYC fairly safe. That's a whole different subject though, and really doesn't compare at all to aggregating and simplifying public information. wtf. This is Slashdot, surely there are tons of DBAs & ppl dealing with data on here everyday!

Re:I really hate gun control morons like these

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I see. So, you won't mind if I publish a list of everyone who has a jewelry insurance rider for high-dollar valuables in their home, right? Perhaps you have a nice collection of diamonds. I'm certain you won't mind telling me all about them, as you see nothing wrong with sharing this kind of information. Yes, I'm sure you and everyone else would have nothing to fear at all when you leave your house, leaving your valuables unprotected.

That my friend is a textbook example of a false equivalency (logical fallacy) and your argument is now dead.

Remove the fact that we're talking about guns here.

Now you want to walk all that back by realizing they aren't the same thing?!?!

These are valuables that are now listed online for every criminal to target while the vast majority of citizens leave an empty house behind for hours every day. At least try and think of the bigger picture here. The fact that we are talking about guns as the targeted valuable only makes the consequences of theft even more dire.

Forget the fact that all the info that was published about the gun owners is public information that anyone can get and insurance info isn't. You are someone that should not own a gun. You will probably test mentally unstable with logic like you displayed above, if you haven't already been diagnosed. Guns are weapons, not valuables. Sure, some old guns are worth a lot of money, again, if they still fire and operate as weapons! Of course, if all criminals used your logic and actually went to rob homes with guns (what idiot does that?!?!) there might be a lot fewer criminals but a lot of psychiatrists treating those that gunned them down and those that witnessed. Good time to be a psychiatrist I guess.

People pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for guns when purchased brand-new or used. They are carried on homeowners insurance policies, and usually must be carried under specific riders (again due to the risk of theft that insurance companies see in these valuables) in order to reclaim 100% of the cost if they are ever stolen.

But, according to you, because they are weapons, they're somehow not valuable. Yeah, OK. I can kill someone with a car too. Happens every day. Doesn't suddenly turn the car into a weapon, nor does it make it magically worthless. Clear-as-mud logic you've got there. Impressive. You should probably work for an insurance company.

And what criminal enters a home to rob it when the people are at home? I specifically brought up the scenario of publishing this information and waiting until people leave their homes unattended for a reason. You wanna know what kind of idiot robs a home otherwise? A dead idiot, but they're still an idiot, and therefore are armed with about as much logic and common sense as your statement here.

And if all criminals went into homes armed (or unarmed) and were shot to death every time that happened, you actually believe there would still be a huge influx of criminals continuing that activity? To do what, find a creative way to commit suicide? Ever hear of the word "deterrent"? Unlike our inability to create one with our fucked legal system, take a look at other countries systems, and you'll see that they do actually work. Thieves in other countries are usually not repeat offenders, especially when they're left with one hand as a reminder. But yeah, let's take your logic and create more pointless laws that only help the criminal. Restrict gun magazines? That's a laugh. During the previous 10-year assault weapons ban, 30-round AR-15 magazines were so prevalent that prices didn't even go up, much less become inaccessible. But yeah, let's try that pointless shit again. How you feeling New York? Oh, the city is still a crime-riddled cesspool even after applying the strictest gun law

As a committed Progressive Obamunist...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that all guns should be banned unless you are an oligarch, a banker, a celebrity, or a member of the political class. I realize that many of those categories overlap but bear with me. The "common man" needs to be under total control that way we can establish our global government without any resistance. We've seen terrible violence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan when we removed people there who wouldn't go along with the plans for a global government. Now we need to get rid of the other regimes who won't play ball like Syria and Iran but where we really need to get the ball rolling is here in America. We need the proles to turn in their weapons because we don't like resistance. I think that even if the government has to kill more American school children in order to get a solid gun ban in place then that's the way it has to be. You have to at times break a few eggs in order to form the kind of world order that I think we'd all like to see as progressives.

FORWARD!

A gun for me, but not for thee.

[atgaaa]

New York City has some of the strictest gun laws in in the USA, exactly how does one get a permit/license?
How many people on that list are publicly on record as supporting "gun control"?

I do not want to see the addresses published, it is a very different thing to go to a government office, present
identification, and ask for a copy of the list, then to be able to anonymously access the information.

Re:A gun for me, but not for thee.

[watice]

It's easy. You just need to provide character reference letters (you're told before the interview), and list every single non-civil court encounter from traffic to summons to arrest, as well as list every single narcotic you've ever taken. Oh you forgot you got Vicodin at the hospital that one time you broke your hand? Well you've just lied on a government form. Denied. You can find more info here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/permits/HandGunLicenseApplicationFormsComplete.pdf

It was a privacy matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The people who were listed were the ones following the law - it didn't tell you who had guns, just who had permits.
This information was gathered using freedom of information requests, compiled, and then publicly displayed by a single entity to promote their agenda.
This wasn't journalism, but activism.

To those who see no harm in this, how about if ALL public records were equally displayed - your neighborhood map would show that the person on the corner had a DUI, the guy down the street beats his wife, the nice old lady across the street was arrested at the grocery store for shoplifting, the young couple next door bounced checks...

Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees

[acoustix]

After all, it is legal right? I'm sure nothing bad would happen. :/

Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees

[ganjadude]

It already happened. And they decided to hire guards who have guns to protect them. and yet they still do not believe they did anything wrong.

Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this an attempt at a veiled threat?

No. It is fighting fire with fire. Of course, if you view the parent's post as a veiled threat then I would assume that you viewed the newspaper's action of publishing the list in the first place as a veiled threat.

Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees

[CAIMLAS]

What's more, they probably aren't even bright enough to realize the hypocritical dichotomy.

Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think they were engaged in hypocrisy because they hired armed guards, you missed the point.

Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees

[CAIMLAS]

The point is what, that they thought they needed armed guards?

I think I need a pony; that doesn't make it so. I can scream "I need a pony, I can't walk and people are chasing me" all day, and if it's false (such as is the case with the paper - no threats were made as they claimed), it's just still bullshit.

Targets for Theft

[Anonymous Coward]

Not only does this infringe on privacy, it makes legitimate gun owners targets for theft. Criminals know registered gun owners work for a living, now they have addresses to go steal those firearms when people are at work. Its disgraceful that political grand standing would subject people to such scrutiny. These are legal gun owners, who have committed no crimes. Drunk drivers are felons and still kill more then 1200 children in this country every year; where is the dui registry? We dont create one because its as wrong as a gun registry.

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

How about coins?

[AndyKron]

Hell, why not publish data on who has large coin collections at home while we're at it. This is yet another example why people shouldn't register their weapons with the government.

Re:How about coins?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give them any ideas.

This jackass in Illinois is already up to it...

http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=3341&GAID=11&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=64562&SessionID=84

Re:How about coins?

[__aaltlg1547]

Hell, why not publish data on who has large coin collections at home while we're at it. This is yet another example why people shouldn't register their weapons with the government.

You could perfectly well have mandatory registration AND have the records kept in a database that was is not publicly accessible.

Re:How about coins?

[adamchou]

Wow, that is asinine.

Re:How about coins?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty difficult to kill a lot of humans with coins, moron.

Re:How about coins?

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm, coins -> DOD budget -> drones -> missiles -> boom

I see a path to killing humans with coins. it's called congress
 

Re:How about coins?

[ChrisMaple]

You could perfectly well have mandatory registration AND have the records kept in a database that was is not publicly accessible.

Because the government never loses secret information (Benedict Arnold. Kim Philby.)

Re:How about coins?

[tompaulco]

Ah, I see how coin collections would fail. How about owners of expensive machinery like chainsaws or shop equipment? Surely we should register those and make maps of who owns them?

Re:they should post a list of Blacks

[Rockoon]

Why is this modded down?

The issue really is privacy rights vs the 1st amendment, not the 2nd amendment vs the 1st, but very large numbers of people seem to not care what the issue really is because they have an agenda (either banning guns or preventing the banning of guns) that trumps their abilities to discuss or think rationally about what just happened.

Suppose that was a list of Muslims, or Black people, or High school dropouts, or women who have had an abortion, or Smokers, or children on ADD meds, or SSI recipients, or people who have declared bankruptcy, ...

Is this really the can of worms we will ignore being opened, all because we want it to be about the 2nd amendment rather than the 1st?

You're A Hypocrit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, shit does happen, but with a hammer an accident usually results in little more than a bruised fingernail. Check out the Twitter feed for @GunDeaths to see just how many people are killed by firearms every day. And almost every one of those is a case where the gun is being used as the manufacturer intended, not an accident.

I love this chestnut of a retort.

Please check out @cardeaths and explain to me why guns are ever mentioned with the astonishingly high fatality rate involving cars. Your fallacious (because there are many hammer deaths) comparison of guns to hammers pales when we compare gun deaths to automobile deaths. Even when we adjust the numbers to be percentages of ownership or per capita, cars are FAR more dangerous than guns.

So, will you be campaigning to ban cars? Or, are you a hypocrite that doesn't care about the children?

So now a bunch of people are going to get shot...

[joshamania]

...when thieves break into their houses looking for guns.

Journal News didn't "cave"

[SternisheFan]

The submitted story states that The Journal News 'caved' and removed the list, not true according to the publisher. Below I've pasted an excerpt from Gawker.com (Jan 17, 2013) with the publisher's statement...

By Taylor Berman:

On Friday, The Journal News took down its controversial, interactive online map of licensed gun owners in Westchester and Rockland counties in New York. According to Journal News publisher Janet Hasson, the move was in response to recently passed gun legislation in New York, which includes a provision prohibiting the release of information about gun owners, and not because of the firestorm of criticism the paper's received since publishing the list four weeks ago. From publisher Janet Hasson's statement on the Journal News' website:

"Today The Journal News has removed the permit data from lohud.com. Our decision to do so is not a concession to critics that no value was served by the posting of the map in the first place. On the contrary, we've heard from too many grateful community members to consider our decision to post information contained in the public record to have been a mistake. Nor is our decision made because we were intimidated by those who threatened the safety of our staffers. We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower."

http://gawker.com/5977304/the-journal-news-took-down-its-controversial-map-of-gun-owners

Re:Journal News didn't "cave"

[SternisheFan]

The rest of the article ends with...

Hasson wrote that her staff had received "hundreds of threats" after the list's publishing. Staff members' addresses were published, death threats were issued, and, consequently, a branch of the paper hired armed guards.

Hasson also mentioned the new gun legislation, writing "we do not endorse the way the legislature has chosen to limit public access to gun permit data. The statute is very broad and allows anyone who meets certain criteria within qualifying categories to keep their permit information private...But we are not deaf to voices who have said that new rules should be set for gun permit data." In a statement to the New York Times, Hasson said, "While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit."

The map was viewed over 1.2 million times in 27 days, according to The Journal News.

http://gawker.com/5977304/the-journal-news-took-down-its-controversial-map-of-gun-owners

Re:Journal News didn't "cave"

[harlequinn]

We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower.

Except to the government.

Re:Journal News didn't "cave"

[SternisheFan]

Well, they're not going to go up against the govt. by breaking newly made laws that way, that would be kind of dumb to. They don't want to get their publishing business shut down over an act of civil disobediance, or whatever it'd be called. The law is brand new, if they decide to challenge it at a later date, they'll still be able to, no sense in becoming a defunct martyr over this, live to fight another day...

Gotta' give them credit though, using the power of a free press they did get their point across.

legal gun owners

[Anonymous Coward]

YEAH! We need to out all those sob "legal" gun Owners!!! How dare they legally own a psitol!!!

You want to impress me, Lets see one of these pathetic "News Investigaters" put a list of illegal gun owners and their addresses on an interactive map online. If I'm not mistaked they are the ones we sould be worried about.

Oh well, you cannot let logic and the truth get in the way of inciting an angry mob of misguidid fools.

I wish they'd post slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

If they ever post a list of every address for a slashdot owner, I will come and find you.

Re:I wish they'd post slashdot users

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, don't. I'm hetero. I really don't want some basement dwelling peter puffing cum guzzling hairy assed neanderthal stalking me. I'll be haunted by the smell of Cheetos forever now.

Note to editors: PLEASE NEVER RELEASE OUR INFO!!!

Guns only for the government...

[Anonymous Coward]

If my neighbor carries loaded guns around I want to know about it.

I saw a movie that accurately portrayed a country where only the government (police and military) had guns and the people had been disarmed.

That movie was called Schindler's List.

I suppose your ilk would wish for the USA to be to become like 1940's Nazi-occupied Poland?

Re:Guns only for the government...

[TobiSGD]

Maybe you should also look at movies from this time, where the story takes place in countries where only the government (police and military) have guns, like Germany, the Netherlands, ... . Oh wait, it isn't a bad thing to live there nowadays, so you can't use that as an argument for your case. Nevermind, stay in you close minded world, where everywhere where gun control is in place the thugs rule the world.

Re:Guns only for the government...

[Sarius64]

Apparently not researching facts continues to be the method of choice around here.

Germany (pop. 81.7M) estimates for civilian guns held is around 25,000,000 guns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/germany

Netherlands (pop. 16.9M) estimates for civilian guns is around 510,000 guns. http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/netherlands

While not at U.S. ratios, data certainly doesn't reflect the bullshit you're passing.

Re:Guns only for the government...

[NoOneInParticular]

Unlike popular myth, Nazi Germany, as well as Saddam's Iraq, actively promoted gun ownership by their citizens.

Re:Guns only for the government...

[edmicman]

In seriousousness, do you have a source for this? I see the popular myth spread all over my social news feeds but my WWII era history is rusty so I would love to have some sort of something to go back to them with proving your statement!

Re:Guns only for the government...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's true. Google "Waffengesetz 1938". Basically they lowered the age limit from 20 to 18 and removed all licensing and restrictions on rifles and quantity of ammo.

Re:Guns only for the government...

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike popular lies spouted on /.
Germany actively sought to highly restrict gun ownership amongst its citizens. Only "trustworthy" citizens were allowed permits, and lets guess how many of those trustworthy citizens were Jews.

I guess the standard on /. really is to lie and bash people you don't like so you can whore points. You should be ashamed for resorting to lying in an attempt to promote the harassment of law abiding citizens in the US. Its people like you that cause all the problems with this country.

Re:Guns only for the government...

[Lord Kano]

Except, of course, for the Jews.

LK

Re:Guns only for the government...

[NoOneInParticular]

Of course. They were not considered citizens, right?

Re:Guns only for the government...

[NoOneInParticular]

Dude, I'm just responding to people that argue that the only reason the Nazis could have taken over the country was by restricting gun ownership. This is demonstrably false: the Nazis didn't need to restrict gun ownership, the majority of the population put them into power and supported them all the way. Furthermore, they did really did something about gun ownership. It's a delusion to argue that the Nazis show that the second amendment keeps the government honest.

BTW, the page you link to shows a change in gun permit law enacted in 1938 (superseding the non-Nazi law of 1928) makes rifles and ammunition for rifles unregulated, lowers the age of the handgun permit from 20 to 18, makes this permit last for 3 years instead of 1, and ... makes gun ownership illegal for Jews. So, except for the Jew thing, (but don't forget about the muslims) this looks more like an action from the NRA than from anyone else.

Re:Guns only for the government...

[Lord Kano]

And that's the sticky wicket, isn't it?

LK

Registration IS the problem

[tranquilidad]

While it's an interesting discussion regarding whether this information should be available via FOIA or subsequently published, what is lost is that the registration list shouldn't even exist.

The purpose of registration, especially when combined with making the data public, serves to inhibit and, therefore, infringe on the fundamental right.

You may not agree with the right but there is no valid governmental reason to require registration of something for which one has a fundamental right. I live in a state that does not have registration and most states do not. It's fascinating to me that most people just assume that guns should be registered and, therefore, the discussion is on publication of the information rather than on registration itself.

Re:Registration IS the problem

[DaveAtFraud]

This is EXACTLY why gun owners are against registration. The government cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality of the data. Regardless of whether someone publishes the data like in this case or the government itself uses the data to coerce gun owners to give up their guns the result is the same.

Cheers,
Dave

Re:Registration IS the problem

[atgaaa]

The government cannot be trusted to maintain confidentiality of the data.

I agree here. My state is one of those that still has handgun registration, legislation to abolish registration failed to pass last year.
In all the discussion and debate, I never was able to determine what useful purpose registration served.
Save the taxpayers some money, and relieve the State of the burden of maintaining and protecting this type information. Win, Win.

Samsung will *sell* you a list of TV owners

[Anonymous Coward]

The only difference here is that the "state" collected the list, and as a result getting it was legally mandated. If you wanted a list of people in Los Angeles who had bought 55" Samsung TVs, I'm sure your could buy such a list from Samsung, the credit card companies, the retailers like Best Buy, or some aggregator. Heck, you could BUY a list of people who had "made inquiries" about buying a big TV. How else would you be receiving targeted email marketing from, say, Amazon: "you may also be interested in"

Okay, so the Scariest Environment Imaginable...

[rmdingler]

There are those to which the removal of your personal freedoms would be a panacea. They come first for the removal of the most obnoxious, and after awhile it becomes clear that obnoxious is in the eye of the beholder. I will cite the removal of civil liberties for sexual offenders and other felons discussed here previously. Do you know the lifetime sexual offender registration list contains the names of men who biblically knew 15 yr old girls when they were 18? The category for Felon itself has been broadened to such a degree that it could include many of us had the dice landed differently.

Re:Okay, so the Scariest Environment Imaginable...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, I got a drug felony for a small amount of cocaine, after jail, graduated uni cum laude in a STEM program. Still hard to find work with Felony on every application.

Let me be the first to say.

[Anonymous Coward]

Information wants to be free.

First, it'll have a price.
Then the price will be "competitive".
Then it will be free.

This is capitalism and the real reality of it. This blowback just proves that those who lead us have no friggin' clue about consequences from their decisions.

Captcha: rebels

Re:Let me be the first to say.

[rubycodez]

you are deluded, the same thing is true in socialist and communist states. hmmm, maybe those "capitalist" pressures are universal.

First they.....

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I think that about says it all. The person who thinks this was the right thing to do is pretty much an idiot or just a garden variety troll/griefer

Stupid people look ahead for a sec:

[Anonymous Coward]

Say government makes guns illegal or extremely hard to purchase:

a. Make criminals richer. Waaaay richer.
b. Make normative people who like/want/have to own guns - criminals.
c. Make robbery, house invasion or any other attack a more attractive venture. Less chances for armed resistance.
d. Total criminal domination of the streets.

Re:Stupid people look ahead for a sec:

[Anonymous Coward]

e. extermination by DHS hollow point!

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Dear /. I WAS YELLING

on the other hand, rapists

[Anonymous Coward]

really easy to look up and see if that cute girl you're stalking is a registered gun owner ...

Re:on the other hand, rapists

[arth1]

Good thing I'm not a stalker then, cause in my eyes she would then have turned uglier.

That said, I wish the type of guns were listed too. There is a difference between a gun designed for harming humans and a gun designed for piercing paper, and I do believe this difference reflects on the owner.
Buying a Saturday night special means you're willing to kill fellow human beings you consider worth less, and I think we have a right to know about that willingness.

Guns are NOT a problem and DONT cause deaths

[Anonymous Coward]

Switzerland is the real answer.

Switzerland has the lowest violent crime and gun related crime in the entire world, they have been number 1 for decades. Yet the twist is in Switzerland citizens are required to own a gun. All citizens are given a gun, ammunition and have annual training.

So if guns cause violence then how does an entire country own a gun yet have the lowest gun violence in the world? Thats because guns do not cause violence because a gun is just an inanmiate object.

You know why a country of gun owners have the lowest violent crimes? Because they are happy. It really is that simple, they are happy. Switzerland consistantly has the 1st or 2nd highest employment rate in the world, they consistantly are at the top of the list for healthcare for europe and the world, they have good education systems, the government takes care of its citizens and so on. Basically, the swiss take care of themselves and eachother so it leads to a country of people who are happy with their lives.

Re:Guns are NOT a problem and DONT cause deaths

[pubwvj]

Or Vermont. Vermont has possibly the highest rate of gun ownership in the USA. Vermont has the least restrictive gun laws in the USA. You don't need a permit to buy a gun, own a gun, use a gun or even for concealed carry. It's written right into the Vermont Constitution even more strongly than the 2nd Amendment just to make this clear.

Yet, despite all those gun toting Vermonters we also have the lowest absolute and lowest per capita rates of gun crimes and gun violence here in Vermont.

Meanwhile, the states that have the highly restrictive gun laws have the highest rates of gun crimes.

Ergo, restrictive gun laws obviously cause gun crimes.

Now, you can argue that because Vermont is so rural and there are so few people we have more space to get away from each other and not get on each other's nerves. That right there is not an argument for gun laws but rather an argument that the problem is cities and people.

Obviously what we need are laws that outlaw cities.

Re:Guns are NOT a problem and DONT cause deaths

[LiENUS]

Switzerland has the lowest violent crime and gun related crime in the entire world, they have been number 1 for decades. Yet the twist is in Switzerland citizens are required to own a gun. All citizens are given a gun, ammunition and have annual training.

Just FYI Switzerland has strict controls on guns and ammunition, the ammunition comes in cans and is accounted for regularly if the can is opened that's a fine there, any bullets missing must be accounted for. If there's a shooting and your ammunition is missing (they search everyone in the vicinity after a shooting) then you're automatically a suspect. The NRA does not endorse Switzerland style gun controls. But you're right with the last bit, the reason Switzerland has low violent crime has nothing to do with gun control and everything to do with how they take care of their people. Fortunately if you look at the world violent crime rates they're dropping everywhere (well everywhere except Australia) so maybe some day we'll all be as low as Switzerland is now and we can all strive to attain Switzerland's new ultra low violent crime rate consisting of drive by resurrections!

Re:Mental Evaluations

[PPH]

Will there be an interactive map for mental evaluation results?

This IS An Act of Domestic Terrorism

[Anonymous Coward]

Several things to consider . . .

1. Never registering anything (doctors, weapons, ammo) ever again because of this PERFECT example of exploiting data regardless of the treasonous fucking excuses!
2. Anonymous poster better hope they are "anonymous" or grow eyes in back of skull
3. Burglary
4. The Harm initiated. Murder/Assassination/Blowback/Payback (News People, Publishers, (Political exploitation by Psychiatrists)
5. The fact this information was disclosed in the first place.
6. Government CAN NOT BE TRUSTED WITH DATA!
7. Lawsuits, Anger, Hatred, Blood in the Streets
8. Right Vs Wrong
9. Oath vs Treason

Frankly I am surprised the whole fucking Journal Building hasn't gone up in smoke -- Though these treasonous fucks keep pushing, it's a MIRACLE the American People haven't snapped. I've had guns for 40 fucking years, never had a problem, but these past 12 years, I am about pushed as far as I motherfucking am going to take it,. JUST LOOK at the fucking US Constitution. And now they want to say that anger is a cock-sucking mental problem!? The mental problems are from the SSRI's not JUSTIFIED ANGER AT TREASON, and DOMESTIC TERRORISM BY OUR OFFICIALS!

There's already a fucking electronic CIVIL WAR.
email reps (dirty tricks like templated bullet point talking point replies dismissing the original content, get put on a list for bring up shit, deny to even receive the fucking email since your not that senator's ZIP CODE!! )
spying
tracking
databases
banks
shopping

In short, there's nothing left to lose, EXCEPT your LIFE, if the Second Amendment get's shit on by these fucking domestic terrorist Oath breaking pieces of fucking shit.
I'm pretty patient. But I only see one of two things happening, a PREDICTION.
(Prediction Because - I Know how those treasonous fuckwads like to twist what you say online)

Either
every single oath breaker is removed from power all at the same time.
Or
Shit will degrade into civil war like this country's never fucking seen.

The first one needs some kind of oath KEEPER constitutional temporary positions to be filled while all the bad guys are off to Ft Leavenworth. It's messy cause next come the banksters, and again, something is going to have to take control of the monetary system once it's is back under the constitution being regulated by the Senate (or temp positions senate) Too much fuckin logistics for my head to handle....
The second option, leaves big holes, forced harsh choices, spiritual devolution, mad max.

The pressure in either event is building. The people BANNING the guns already are drenched in blood themselves with these unconstitutional undeclared treasonous wars, they then proceed to protect themselves with SECRETS, WEAPONS, TREASON, MONETARY, MEDIA, AND FUCKED LAWS

Bold and CAPS angry motherfuckers!

Idealists survive on the backs of realists

[poity]

You are a pacifist only because there are others willing to use violence to keep the peace. Without them, you would continually be on the move in search of safe neighborhoods as crime areas expand.

Re:Idealists survive on the backs of realists

[tragedy]

Conversely, there are others willing to use violence only because of pacifism. Without the majority being peace-loving, we would all be dead from the constant fighting and killing. Obviously pacifism can be taken to the extreme, such as those who refuse to even kill plants and therefore fast themselves to death.

Journalists refuse to show non-gun status

[Amiga500_Rulez]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wt1Zy_ASNyA

Look what happens when journalists who are anti-gun are approached with the idea of having a Gun Free Home sign posted. Some have armed guards. See any hypocracy?

Here is how you stop that from happening again

[MillerHighLife21]

Make sure this never happens again:

Alarm permits have to be filed with the police department too. So just get a list of all of the names and addresses of everybody in New York and then filter out anybody who has a gun or has an alarm. Publish the map and call it "defenseless homes" and be clear that it's only possible to make such a map because citizens privacy isn't respected with respect to FOI requests. See how much people like that out there and then watch the political fireworks.

Re:Here is how you stop that from happening again

[toiletsalmon]

Gun registration is publicly available. Is "Alarm Registration" data publicly available? If it is, have at it. Otherwise, you're just being childish with an inappropriate comparison.

Re:Here is how you stop that from happening again

[MillerHighLife21]

So leave the alarm registration out of it. Point is by publishing one list you make it possible to cross reference. While you are at it cross reference the addresses without guns with Zillow so you can let robbers make educated evaluations of the most valuable defenseless addresses.

But yea, you have to register your alarm with the police department, therefore, it's publicly available via FOI request...just like gun registrations. With and FOI request there is a record of who has accessed the information and it can be denied. When you just publish it you take that entire process out of the equation and make any level of data mining available.

The point is that there need to be FOI limits on data for private citizens especially where it could be used to put people in danger. Publishing any of this stuff is completely irresponsible but people only support it because they aren't even considering the cross reference possibilities.

irony

[Anonymous Coward]

so, the gun owners support the 2nd amendment and against the 1st amendment?

i fully support both

Re:irony

[rubycodez]

news for you, your first amendment rights have limitations as to hate speech, inciting riots and crime, *privacy* and *harassment*.

Re:irony

[MillerHighLife21]

Really? Such as say...publishing a list of gun owners?

DOJ going to pursue leaker?

[CodeMasterBob]

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting to see if they pursue this leaker the way they did Aaron Schwartz.

Re:Mental Evaluations

[LiENUS]

currently in my State, registration and background checks for Rifles don't exist, they do for Hand Guns.

You must not live in the US then, dealers must perform a background check on all cartridge weapons, only black powder guns and airguns are exempt from that requirement.

I can go down town to a Pawn shop, walk in and walk out with a crippled AK47, come home and order some parts...and have a fully automatic weapon to mow down some folks I'm pissed at.

Well that and don't forget your visit to the machine shop, also don't be surprised when the atf shows up at the same time as your parts. They tend to keep a close watch on parts that can be used to make an automatic weapon. Have them shipped to a name and address not on the list of registered machine guns and they take an interest in it.

I am under firm belief the second amendment pertains to Law enforcement and Military usage.

The second amendment applies to the people and the militia, look it up it uses both of those terms, it doesn't say military or law enforcement in it. Further the guys who came up with the second amendment... said things like

"The right of the people to keep and bear... arms shall not infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." - James Madison, I Annuals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).

(emphasis mine)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public servants." - George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe

"... the British Parliament was advised, by an artful man to disarm the people that was the best and most effective way to enslave the people - but they should not do it openly; but to weaken them and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia." - George Mason, Virginia Ratifying Convention, 1778.

If you look at it they intended for the second amendment to apply to everyone EXCEPT for law enforcement and the military. Law Enforcement officers and military members are not allowed to bear whatever arms they please and are required to bear arms in accordance with the respective policies governing use of arms. The United States Supreme Court even went so far as to disconnect the militia requirement (and if you read the history of the second amendment this makes sense that clause was originally there to protect people who had religious reasons for refusing to bear arms and ended up neutered to prevent abuses of that clause by the government to disarm its people) the Supreme court had this to say in Heller V. DC

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

and on the militia clause

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms

Re:Mental Evaluations

[ColdWetDog]

You Must Like Capital Letters.

Opt-In

[Anonymous Coward]

You my friend, are a fool. The larger problem is that you are trying to Ostrich-ize everyone. If you want to pull your trousers down, bury your face in a pillow and hope you won't be hurt "too badly" I won't begrudge you the choice. Likewise, I don't want your choice forced upon me. Nobodys information of a sensitive nature should be revealed (HIV status, gun ownership, political affiliation, etc) should be revealed unless the person explicitly opts-in. THAT is the litmus test, not your "theory" that nothing bad should happen.

Its the address

[mjwalshe]

He would not know her new address which is the problem BTW in the UK there are a couple of ex BT employees doing serious time who found the address of the parents of a Criminal - Subsequently both of the parents where killed by a hitman.

How long till some on in this group sue the news paper for the costs of relocation - a nice little earner for the legal profession.

Re:Its the address

[Anonymous Coward]

Addresses are easy to get online. Its probably the easiest. All one would need is an official listing from an reliable source with the names of the person to search for. The vital information of, "has firearms" and "person's name" is given. The address isn't the hard part. That is the problem. It is short sighted and creates a dangerous situation- likely raising the chances you'll need to use the firearm to protect yourself on your property significantly.

All this asshole did

[Stan92057]

All this asshole did was make law abiding gun owners targets for gun theft. Good Job Asshole!

Abortions list

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like a list of women in my neighbourhood who have had abortions. I would like to protect my kids from women who think killing an unborn infant is acceptable if it the kid would inconvenience them. I think people who have such a low value on life are far more dangerous to me and local kids than any gun owners.

What do you say to that?

NY S-2230-2013 Passed. It's a moot point.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the passing of New York State Senate S-2230-2013 the gun-owners map website became a moot-point. The bill provides that all persons acquiring a firearms permit within the State of New York will have their name and address published, unless they opt-out.

In order to opt-out, the person must provide sufficient proof to the issuing judge to not release their name and address at that time, AND the judge must deem it necessary to agree to the opt-out. The wording specifically is that they "may" accept the opt-out, not that they 'shall'. Therefore, all judges in NY are empowered to force every registrant to be disclosed. This is similar to the wording regarding issuing the permit --- that the judge "may" issue a permit, not 'shall'.

The information is going to be disclosed publically by the State of New York, so the newspaper will have to follow the orders to not disclose, and probably shuttered the website to a static map to avoid liability after the law has taken effect.

Re:So now a bunch of people are going to get shot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh....

As mugger in NY, I appreciate having a list..

[Anonymous Coward]

OF PEOPLE TO NOT FUCK WITH.

Incorrect about Nazi Germany

[Anonymous Coward]

My mother was born in Munich Germany in 1929 and grew up during Hitler's rise to power. Her father, a prosperous grocer and restauranteur, owned a prized Italian over-under shotgun and a Belgian Nagant revolver. In 1939 the police came and confiscated his guns. In 1940 they came again, and at gunpoint, confiscated his giant beer tents and all his restaurant equipment that he'd used in the Oktoberfests, saying that the army needed them more than he did. In 1945 they came again to forcefully conscript him, at age 50, into the army. A few days later, American forces rolled into Munich. My dad was a 19 year old American GI in those forces.

Both my parents are gone now, but my mother was always adamant to never ever allow the government to take my guns, and my father taught me well how to handle and respect firearms.

Re:Incorrect about Nazi Germany

[NoOneInParticular]

So the Nazis took what they wanted, including guns. Your point is, what exactly? Once the government has become evil and starts to take what they want, hand all over, except your guns? Or, when the government comes in to take what they want start shooting? How would your granddad have fared in 1939?

I agree

[nten]

I agree with him. Most libertarians would too I think, though I am not one.

Re:I agree

[BasilBrush]

That's the 0.1% left over.

my right to know

[citizen.jones]

Live in Westchester Cty, NY. Downloaded the files from dropbox. Searched my community. Found that an electrician and a plumber we have used have registered handguns. Don't like handguns. Will no longer give business to those two. My right to know, and to set criteria for my patronage.

Re:my right to know

[Anonymous Coward]

Live in Austria. Downloaded the files from dropbox. Searched my community. Found that an electrician and a plumber we have used are registered jews. Don't like Jews. Wil no longer give business to those two. My right to know, and to set criteria for my patronage.

Re:my right to know

[shutdown -p now]

I wonder what your reaction would be to someone who'd somehow obtained the list of homosexuals in his area, claiming that he has the "right to know", and then refused to do business with any of them.

Re:my right to know

[citizen.jones]

You don't see any difference between choosing to own a handgun, and being born as gay?

I see a big difference.

A handgun is a dangerous weapon, which its owner has chosen to keep. Registration of handguns makes sense, for the sake of the community. Being homosexual is a natural state and harms no one. There is no registration of homosexuals, nor should there be.

Do YOU think that homosexuals should be registered? Why?

Re:my right to know

[shutdown -p now]

No, I don't think homosexuals should be registered. Neither should be atheists, Jews or stamp collectors.

And I was not commenting on registration. I was asking you why you feel the need to discriminate against people on the basis of them owning guns. It's as stupid as discriminating against any of the categories above. Most people who own guns, use them to plink at paper targets at the range. And a gun stored at home in a gun safe is less dangerous to you than an electric drill.

Correlates to population density?

[KreAture]

Can someone make a population density map to compare to this gun density?
I have a strange feeling they may be almost identical in spread.

do you have any idea what you're talking about?

[fascismforthepeople]

You earlier misquoted the second amendment earlier, so it is no surprise that you don't really know what it is about. Naturally, you more recently instead parroted the words of your church rather than the actual words of the second amendment:

It's there so that you have ability to take down a tyrannical government

The second amendment says nothing about that.

Would the military troops attack US citizens inside the country? I say they very well may.

Being as you don't know squat about the constitution, or anything else that is politically relevant or important in the US, it is not surprising that you are also not knowledgeable on the US military, their power structure, their expenditures, or their investment of resources.

And that is precisely why there can be no limit on what type of weapons the civilians must be able to purchase if they can afford it.

Naturally, you again take on the capitalist / neo-fascist perspective of "if they can afford it". Equality matters not to you. Neither does opportunity or true liberty. You worship at the altar of the mighty dollar and your lord is a retiring congressman from Texas.

Handgun license holders

[jklovanc]

Again the summary is inaccurate as was the last article on this topic. All the state has is a list of handgun license holders not gun owners. Though there is a high correlation between the two there are license holders who do not own their own guns and/or do not store them at home. What can't people understand the simple difference between ownership and licensing?

Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly this is done by some political motivation. Well, turn about is fair play.

Time to DOX the hell out of the politicians, especially the Governor and his family, along with all those involved with writing those illegal gun "laws".

Re:Turnabout is fair play

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear your spirit. but I argue you can't dox them.

THEY ARE AFFILIATED WITH SHIT LIKE CFR, AIPAC, PNAC, UN, NATO, your not going to dox all of them and connect the DOTS.

The way to do this is located at the ROOTS of the tree. e.g. they swear an oath, they broke it, and NOW they need to be chained down in FT LEAVENWORTH. While the unconstitutional graffiti they scribbled on the Constitution is ERASED.

I predict this, if these fucking morons keep pushing unconstitutional shit, they are going to start getting SHOT AT very soon.

Disagree...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no limit to the power of openness. If you don't want your name associated with gun ownership, you shouldn't have one.

If you're so afraid that someone's gunna come after you gun, to take it from you, for whatever reason, you need to question your motives for having one in the 1st place. Hunting is great, but there's absolutely no need to hunt in or around a metropolitan area. There plently of grocery stores.

The potential detriment or injury or loss of life is far greater than any potential good that comes out of gun ownership, even commerce.

Re:Disagree...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no limit to the power of openness. If you don't want naked pictures of yourself posted on the internet, you should *always* wear clothes, even in your own home, and even in the shower. Boy, that sounds about as stupid as your first comment.

More crimes are stopped by law-abiding civilians with firearms than are committed by law-breaking criminals with firearms. That goes *directly* contrary to the rest of your claims, especially your final one.

Confusing

[uvajed_ekil]

I thought (the argument was) that we needed guns to protect ourselves against things like censorship? So why are the gun owners so concerned about dissemination of a list of gun owners? And if widespread gun ownership is a deterrent to violent crime (as gun advocates suggest), wouldn't it make you even safer if everyone knew you had a gun? Add these questions to the other holes in their arguments, as well as crime statistics involving legal and illegal gun use, and I'm quickly becoming pretty anti-gun. I'm still waiting for anything that can prove more guns in the hands of citizens means less crime, while I absolutely know that the more guns we have the easier it is for criminals to buy or steal them, and there is more opportunity for them to be diverted to black market channels.

Stricter laws and punishments are not the solution to gun crimes, either. Every criminal who uses a gun already knows what they are doing is illegal and punishable by prison. The key is that they think they have a good chance of getting away with it. Even improving policing by increasing the police force and giving them better crime solving tools has limits. We need more and comprehensive prevention methods to keep people from becoming desperate and wanting to do illegal things, and we need to make it harder for them to get guns. Guns in places like schools won't prevent violence in schools either, they will just lead to shoot-outs. Can you picture the backlash when we see the first cases of students getting their hands on teachers' guns? That's a mess we surely don't need.

Who's bad?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think owning a weapon by itself makes you a bad person. I don't own a gun but I prefer to have the right to choose.

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

When I think of FOIA, I think of individuals keeping tabs on government, not individuals keeping tabs on other individuals. Transparency on what the government does is very much different from transparency on what private citizens do.

Overlooked point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe I'd see this if I read ALL the comments EVERYWHERE, but it seems that most people are concentrating on the burglaries of homes that were on this list, where only the guns were stolen. But since having/not having a permit is a boolean value, there are really TWO lists: a list of people with gun permits, and an implied list of people without. Even the dumbest criminal could put it together: first you steal the gun from a home on the list while the person is away... THEN you can use the gun to, say, rape the woman who lives across the street, because she was NOT on the list.

objectivity

[luis_a_espinal]

what happens when pacifism meets aggressive violent people?

We're not talking about the broader scale of one nation attacking another nation here. We're talking about neighborhoods. At the neighborhood level, safe communities very rarely meet aggressive, violent people. Therefore, people living in safe communities rarely feel the need to own firearms for personal protection.

I disagree with that. I live in a very well-to-do neighborhood (just like the one I live before I moved to where my family and I are now.) The most well-to-do that I can afford. Gated, with alarms and everything. Guess what? I own a gun. Even with electronic gates and being surrounded by also afluent neighborhood, things happen.

A couple of week ago, our community manager had a police officer coming for a home security measure lecture at our community playhouse (one of the perks of living in a well-to-do neighborhood is to have the $$$ to sponsor such events) because of recent break-ins.

The idea that living in a well-to-do neighborhoods insulate you from crime shows a missunderstanding of the nature of crime. Granted, you will be insulated from, say, gang or drug related violence and street robberies. But it does not insulate you from home robberies. Robbers do not go to poor neighborhoods to commit home robberies. They target well-to-do neighborhoods sufficiently away from their home bases (crossing county lines at times.)

Gun ownership for the purpose of home defense is not targetted for the type of violence you see in poor neighborhoods. They are meant for the time of home invasion or robbery that you are statistically at risk of experiencing in your neighborhood (or in any neighborhood.)

You need to educate yourself well on the nature and statistics of crime robbery.

If I were buying a house, I would see high gun ownership in a neighborhood as a very bad sign, because it means that a large percentage of the people live in constant fear for their lives.

Or maybe because they are into sports shooting? If you find generalizations a good way to make sense out of the world, knock yourself out, so long as you recognized that you do not necessarily have a valid opinion, but a superficial, subjective bias.

This is also the same argument that people make about neighborhoods with lots of police presence - it must be a bad neighborhood. They never stop to consider that well-to-do neighborhoods actually run citizen and police watch programs and other programs that typically increase police presence. You cannot take a peek at complex phenomena and derive overly simplistic conclusions off them. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.

Again using myself as an example. I own a gun. I don't feel fear for my life. I shoot it at the range, what, once every other year. It is locked. I never carried it with me outside of my house other than to go to the range (and probably never will.)

I similary have a lot of colleages, both conservative and liberal leaning that own a gun. One of my wive's best friends, her husband goes hunting regularly, and he (and her) are some of the most easy-going, no-worries couples ever.

I've seen an increase in gun purchasing from among my colleages, and I don't see them doing so because of fear that we are descending into a Mad-Max world, but more as a means to ensure they can exercise their right to own a gun (should they ever want to) before it becomes more expensive.

True that there are a lof of wackos who think they are survivalist warriors and humanity's (read right-fringe lunatic America) last chance before shit hits the fan.

But as vociferous as they are, they do not represent the enormous gamut of political and personal opinions represented by a very politically diversed sector of gun owners.

I won't address the other sentences and statements in your post because I believe my post above is sufficient to answer them.

I would just like to say, screw Gawker Media.

[Anonymous Coward]

Those slimebags are the worst sort of "journalists" I have ever seen.
Anytime anything unethical happens, more and more, their filthy name is attached to the problem.

Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

What these idiots at the Journal News and Gawker don't seem to realize (or care) is the dangerous situation they created by publishing such information, in their attempt to "humiliate" or "embarrass" gun owners. Let me tell you - legal gun owners are not embarrassed or humiliated to be gun owners, and we're not the ones you should be concerned about...

There are two dangerous situations these morons have created, and they are:

1. Some bad guys are going to look up this information and go attempt to break into gun owner's homes to steal the guns - and they're likely to get shot by the gun owners in the process. So, even though "bad guys" might not be worth the skin they're in, they're still people, and now their lives are endangered (albeit through their own actions) because of this foolish media publicity stunt. But if they do succeed at the gun thefts, the result will be more guns "on the street" in the hands of "bad guys". Way to go. There's a reason why we call people who pull stunts like this "libtards".

2. These news outlets have put non-gun-owners in the most danger. When you list everyone who has guns, the opposite is also true - it reveals everyone who does not have a gun. When the bad guys want to rob, rape, plunder and/or kill, now all they have to do is check a media source (or the internet, cause all information lives forever once it's online), for the house where a gun "does not live". Who are they going to target? Will it be the house where they could get shot, or the house down the street where nobody is armed? Again, way to go.

Re:fuck you too

[Anonymous Coward]

See "A well regulated Militia". Fuck your idiotic misunderstandings and learn to read. If you aren't part of a Militia that is being regulated (ex: licensed) you have no right to have any guns.

I may be on that list...

[Anonymous Coward]

... so come and get it mother fuckers. What's inside my house isn't worth dying for.

Answer door with gun in hand

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, as a matter of fact I do and there are more right behind me. Problem?