There’s no lynch mob. Those of us who don’t have guns don’t make it a point to brandish weapons in people’s faces as an intimidation tactic. If gun owners don’t think the NRA represents them, they are free to do something about it. God knows the rest of us non-gun owners have been trying to get sensible laws passed but every time almost all gun owners come at those arguments with the slippery slope.
It doesn’t make sense. The contention seems to be that if you own a gun, but a criminal doesn’t know that, you’re the safest. If you don’t own a gun, but a criminal doesn’t know that, you’re still somewhat safe. But if you own one and a criminal knows, you’re somehow less safe, even though as a criminal, I would avoid the people who I know have a gun, and take my chances with people I either know don’t have one, or don’t know if they have one. What the newspaper did doesn’t hinder gun owners at all.
Maybe this was anti-gun, but not in the way you think. Maybe those of us without guns will look at the information and be able to avoid those who have them. I wouldn’t want my kids, if any, to go play at someone’s house if I know they have a gun unless they can prove to me that its safely locked up. Maybe gun owners are lamenting the looks of disdain they’ll be getting from the rest of us. Or they just are annoyed that people know something about them they didn’t want to share
We’ve had data of every sort for decades. What has that gotten us? NRA calling for more guns in the wake of a school shooting. Do you see any progress here?
Let me ask you one thing: What are you afraid is going to happen because of this published information? What is the worst case scenario and what is a reasonable result? I’ll assume those two are different
I like my SC2 references ;p I care not about how you jump or smell
But fine, you’re not a gun owner. Still, many who are have been voicing their displeasure. You’d think that if guns kept you safe, we’d have at least a few people here saying “Fuck yeah! Now criminals know who not to mess with!”
#1 - All this says is that there is a gun registered to the owner of this address. It does not indicate where the gun is currently located. It also doesn’t indicate whether the gun is a valuable .44 Magnum or a cheap .22 plinker. Knowing what street you live on and, thereby, the quality of your neighborhood is a better guide for burglars than knowing if you have a gun permit.
#2 Has been addressed. I’d rather challenge a homeowner with a .22 than a pump action shotgun. This article does nothing to show whether a homeowner is armed. The handgun may not be stored in the house and any house may have any number of non-handguns.
I think you have to be realistic about the risk. If someone truly wants to kill you, they’re going to do it. If they for whatever reason want you dead, they’ll find a way. Even presidents with their full time well armed and well trained guards are not immune from the determined assassin. For the rest of us, it’s a whole lot easier to make us push up daisies if someone wants to, and our being armed just makes it marginally riskier on their part.
More typically, an intruder just wants your valuables. He isn’t going to want to get in a shootout with you. You’re better off just giving him what he wants. He doesn’t want a murder rap, you don’t want to die.
So in the end, those guns in your house are either insufficienct against a determined killer or overkill for the garden-variety burgler.
Some people are posting concerns that the identified gun owners will be targeted or will be more likely to be met with violence, yes. I don’t know if that’s well founded.
They’d be well within their rights to lament ridiculous and arbitrary judgments as well as an invasion of their privacy that doesn’t seem justified by any serious public or journalistic need. Your post would arguably justify their concerns about how the information will be used.
I’m sure this is supposed to mean something, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what.
I think the NRA are idiots. What does that have to do with anything? I do think gun laws in the U.S. are overly lax, although New York is not the best example of that.
I don’t think anything is going to happen. I doubt gun owners in general are going to be subject to a lot of abuse or become pariahs and I’m very skeptical that thieves are going to pick their targets based on the newspaper. I do think the newspaper’s decision to publish this information was stupid. I already explained why.
You might expect that if gun owners actually used the logic you’ve ascribed to them.
Then you can’t complain about someone reading your vitriol and drawing a sensible conclusion.
So? I find the notion that it’s my “duty” to let criminals do what they want towards me while I hope that the police manage to get there in any reasonable time to be odious at best.
It does if you understand that the risk gun owners are worried about is theft. An item is more likely to be stolen if a thief knows to look for it.
A thief can’t steal what he doesn’t find.
The average burglar isn’t a professional. He’s a junkie or a teenager, who’s in the house for five minutes or so and takes only what he can easily find and pocket during that brief time. Usually that’s not going to be a secured gun.
But some thieves ARE professionals, and they do bring tools suitable for breaking into gun safes. The newspaper has just given those people a list of targets to consider. Heck, even the stupid teen burglar might look around the house a bit harder if he knows that there’s probably a handgun in there which he might be able to grab if he can only find it.
Depends on the number and quality of the guns involved. Serious gun collectors may have tens of thousands of dollars of firearms in their possession, making it well worth a thief’s time to get into their safe.
Such a gun owner may also have a permit, or may not. (I’m not familiar with New York’s current gun laws, and whether the information published was just for carry permits or for a broader handgun ownership permit). In either case, they don’t want attention drawn to their gun ownership. What do they gain by it that’s worth the increased risk of theft?
The public (or nerdy thieves) could not get this information from the article. This is the story, by the way. The newspaper published the names and addresses of handgun owners and that’s it. Nothing about the number of guns or what type, and as noted, it’s only for handguns.
I’m aware of that. (And I agree that the article only slightly increases the risk of theft, given that it only mentioned handguns.) But I was answering Procrustis’s question of why a thief would bother with cracking a gun safe in the first place - and the answer is that the (admittedly rare) professional thief knows the reward’s likely to be worth the effort.
Right. I just wanted to make it clear what information was available and what wasn’t. And I wanted to link to the article itself because I don’t think anyone had done it yet. The OP linked to a Huffington Post article about the publication and that article had a link to the original Journal News story, but I didn’t see any direct links.
a) You’ve called 911 before, and that has happened? b) This is not the case for many people, it can take much longer if you are rural or suburban. Last time I called non-emergency police, they brushed me off and told me to make a report online.
“[T]hose willing to pass a rigorous background check (for dangerous mental illness and felonious convictions)” is an elite group which includes “every person who has bought a firearm from a FFL in at least the last 44 years.” Also, really no offense to LEOs, but ISTR that most aren’t highly trained with firearms. They know how to use a Glock 22 and shoot decently, but that’s about it. Their hit rate in a firefight is atrociously low, but then again the same goes for most of us. People against guns usually make an exception for cops and such. And also assume that being a Rent-a-cop at the mall makes you more qualified than the average citizen.
Maybe because it’s much more difficult given the felony conviction from the last burgulary? Also, thieves don’t necessarily need to crack the safe. They can bring a heavy dolly and crack it in their own home.
True, but it’s reasonable to assume that the majority of people who have a handgun permit own a handgun. There’s not a lot of reason to get one otherwise. Some rental ranges here in Nebraska require a permit if you want to rent a gun at the range, but I doubt that’s why the majority of the people mentioned in that article have a permit.
I appreciate the link to the original article, by the way.
I don’t think there is a serious risk of teams of crack antique gun thieves using this information deluge to commit crimes. Like I said, it’s so vast it’s basically like a phone book.
The point I was making is the paper can do something that is legal and relatively harmless and still be wrong to do it. When it serves no purpose and is just basically assholish I fail to see why it’s something a reputable newspaper would want to engage in. That’s basically “Life Troll” style stuff I’d expect out of people who post on The High Road or WBC types.
Yes, it is. I’m just pointing out that it’s not quite the same thing, which both undermines the rationale for printing the article in the first place and somewhat lessens the privacy violation and the threat supposedly created by the article.