It appears there isn’t anything you can purchase to make you feel secure against any eventuality you can imagine. That must be exhausting.
But not 100%.
I am 100% sure the gun I own will never kill anyone, because I don’t own one.
Again, this is in your own head. Once you remove the database that says “x number of gun owners reside in this neighborhood” or “x person lives here, they have a CCW,” then the main issue goes away.
Afterwards, my house becomes just another random house that can be broken into. If I have a safe, then that is a deterrent. And hopefully it’s enough. Otherwise, I have picture evidence of every valuable I own, and all the serial numbers for those valuables. I would report that to the police like anything else.
I rest easy at night, and don’t worry about it during the day.
Owning guns makes protecting my property less safe in exactly the same way that owning a big-screen TV, a DSLR camera and lenses, a laptop computer, or jewelery makes my property less safe. Should everyone who owns those items sell them as well? Would you be OK with the local newspaper publishing the addresses of everyone in your city who bought a big-screen TV in the past year?
I think the better approach is to respect people’s privacy, and not divulge that sort of information without their express consent.
And that’s fine. But by your logic you ought to get rid of your knives, because those might kill someone, too.
And… probably your TV. Since TVs can fall and crush people. Bookshelves. Soon you’d have an empty home.
Must be stressful worrying about what you might own and how it might kill you.
It has a better chance of being loaded and killing you by suicide or used to kill someone in your family than it does of being used against a criminal.
Really, outside of pure accidents the fact that it isn’t loaded doesn’t change much, since someone who wants to use can just load it. And plenty of people have been killed by guns that someone thought were unloaded.
A trait I share with every other human being. I do what they do: mitigate the risks to a tolerable level, and live with the risks I can’t mitigate. I have insurance, smoke detectors, a car with airbags, and so forth.
The government making my CCW permitholder status public increases the risk of burglary, for no benefit to anyone whatsoever. If there’s a reason to support the idea beyond petty vindictiveness, I haven’t heard it yet. Perhaps you’ll be the first to articulate it.
Luckily, my state of Kentucky isn’t vindictive to permit holders, and permits only limited access (the state police will verify names, but not provide them whole-cloth) to CCW holder information. Others aren’t so lucky.
No. They are both less dangerous than guns and more useful.
Sure, which is why they should follow the rules of gun safety.
You don’t grab a knife by the blade, or start slashing it at your friends randomly. The fact that a gun is unloaded, and kept safe helps to mitigate the risk. If someone really wants to get the gun from a safe they don’t have the combo to, grab cartridges, load it, and hurt themselves or others, they will. If they don’t, then they won’t. A gun is practically useless unloaded, is my point. A knife isn’t by comparison.
I’ve tried shooting clay pigeons with a knife, but it is hard.
Stabbing white-tail deer isn’t much easier.
That depends on what their use is. I’d rather bring a gun to a knife fight. I’d rather bring a knife to the butcher.
I amuses me you’re outraged by the fact I might be able to look up your license in a public database but you can actually walk around in public with a concealed firearm.
You got it bad.
It works both ways. I assume you’re a rational person. I’d be outraged if your information was publicly available, and I’m perfectly fine with you walking around in public with a concealed firearm.
It doesn’t work both ways here. You’re upset I KNOW you have a gun and I yet I don’t get to be upset you HAVE a gun.
I’m not upset that you know I have a gun, or think I might. You, like I said, seem rational. I don’t have any thoughts that you may decide to take my gun.
And, I’m perfectly okay with wearing my gun out in a regular holster (like a cop) if it’ll make you feel better, but I get the feeling that won’t do anything to help you.
It’s the law.
What, exactly is the benefit to releasing license-holder names? We’ve already covered detriments.
Perhaps I’m mistaken but I don’t believe the newspaper that released the gun owner information broke the law.
My being able to walk around in public with a concealed firearm is permitted under the law.
So, what’s the benefit to releasing names?
Since it’s your benchmark, if it’s the law it’s ok. So is it against the law to publish names of gun owner licenses?
Why should it be the law? Can you not articulate any benefit at all?
Varies by state.