have a permit that would be a matter of public record.

Parents should have a way of finding out which homes in their neighborhood their children perhaps shouldn't be spending time in.

not "gun permits", as they don't cover rifles or shotguns. And if you knew how incredibly hard it was for a New Yorker to get one of those permits, you'd feel differently about the people who have them.

This is just an open invitation to rob the homes of people NOT on the list, and I'm one of them. For now.

I'm pretty sure, without looking it up, that the number of guns stolen from homes is far greater than the number of burglaries thwarted by gun totin' residents of said homes.

it's easier to burgle a home where the thief has already ascertained that the resident is not home. If they were a little bit stupider, you might see those numbers shift.

No shit, Sherlock. "Well, if people were more stupid, I could get their money by asking for it and having them give it to me. Unfortunately, that's not reality, but that's the only reason it doesn't happen. If people were that dumb, I'd be rich."

is that it's easier to steal guns from a place where the owners aren't, than where they are, because they might just shoot the thief, and even the theives know that.

Any disagreement with that premise?

It's even easier to not have guns.

to publicize that information. You have to give them the info but one would hope it would remain with the dept. An open invitation for thieves is right.

Imagine if some reich-wing publication put out a searchable map of every couple who applied for a marriage license where both people were the same gender, in the states where equal marriage is legal.

We'd describe that as targeting the individuals involved.

Is that people will realize how many of their friends and neighbors have guns, and therefore there will be less of a stigma attached to it.

I know I'll get flamed for exercising my 1st amendment rights to support the Constitution as written and interpreted by the SC.

I think there should be much more regulation of gun ownership. I am of the mind that the second amendment is very clear about the fact that "the militia" should be "well regulated"!

For anyone who shares my views on gun control (namely, we need more of it), after seeing this:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/12/24/piers-morgan-deport-gun-control/

I decided to create my own petition:

http://wh.gov/QIOg

It needs 25,000 signatures by January 23, 2013, to have the White House review the petition. I don't have enough posts on DU to start my own thread and I really want to put some light on this. I'm looking for related threads to get the word out. Help!

this information to steal the weapons when the occupant wasn't home?

Tough shit.

Buy a gun safe.

... they have so many that they won't remember where they buried them.

that the homeowner bought for defending the home is a very real one, maybe a dog would be better protection.
FYI I am not pro-gun, everyone running around with a gun is crazy, more guns = more deaths.

ok so he's worked one, and the yorkshire terrier just wasnt a deterrent. I have two(2) 100 pound lab huskies. They let me know, somehow without seeing them, when someone is in our front yard. (a city park is across the street) Plenty of time to pop out of bed and react. oh my, the cable guy came into our backyard one time. Seriously, I was afraid for him, and afraid they would take my dogs. They were literally ready to tear him up. I love my dogs. Sweet. unbelievably gentle and baby proof (babies have grabbed their faces, pulled and twisted with no reaction) - but they know what they are supposed to guard.

a lakohta told me once 'treat a dog as if he's part of your family, so he will protect you like you're part of his'.

Had an extremely loveable Springer Spaniel who was in the house the whole time it was being robbed. Probably the only resistance she offered was to whine at them to pet her.

When I came home and saw the door had been kicked in, she was the first thing I was worried about.

They made off with a TV, my wedding rings and some jewelry, electronics, about 2K worth of stuff.

But the most precious thing was safe. Utterly useless as a watch dog, but a wonderful pet!

I would like to learn more about this dangerous trend.

Sounds like a great argument for either buying a better safe or for owning fewer of these expensive and coveted guns!

People didn't keep their guns locked up in gun safes whether or not their address is posted.

I thought the point of increased gun ownership was to increase safety? Having guns out there in homes is supposed to be a deterrent to crimes. Knowing which houses have guns should, according to the claims of gun afficionados, increase the safety of those homes, and decrease everyone elses safety.

Now you tell me that they make a home more attractive to the criminal element?

Secondary thought: if people were securing their guns in a responsible fashion, breaking in to steal them would be a fruitless endeavor. So, if this is truely a big concern, then perhaps all those "responsible, law abiding gun owners" are not so responsible after all. And if the assertions of most gun supporters over the past week are true, then if the law changes in such a way that it inconveniences them, they will decline to be law abiding. Which pretty much just leaves "gun owners".

Sure, your average burglar and child will not be capable of breaking into it, but a professional who has targeted you can.

How to describe the feeling that it's for, when it's not for hunting or actual protection (from bears, wolves, etc.) is something I will likely never fully understand, much as I won't understand faith - it cannot be rationalized, because rational thought would lead anyone to the conclusion that there is no purpose to covet a device designed and manufactured for killing human beings.

Increases the value of the house as a burglary target when no one is home.

sure they are weapons, but if you are leaving them unsecured, you have just as much blood on your hands. Positive control of a firearm is a big deal. leaving them 'stashed' is irresponsible.

Of guns, which is not in the community's interest.

well except for concealed weapons..

that reich wingers wanted the same "preventive" information about people with HIV.

They are following the law and have done nothing wrong.

It reminds me a little bit of the harassment of women going for a legal abortion, and the way people feel any behavior is fair and justified because they are 'right' on the issue.

if the paper was publishing the names and addresses of HIV patients, abortion seekers, or mental health patients- or any other private information. Hell, DU even has a policy forbidding doing it here. Its a shame DU has stooped to the level of RW extremists.

is not valid.

How about school records? How about tax returns?
The gun-owners have done the legal and responsible thing to register their weapons, you want to punish them for that? How many gun-owners will now decide NOT to register their weapons? Is that the result you want?
There are about 100 million registered gun owners, you are going to need some of their votes and support if gun control legislation is going to be passed (Obama got a little over 60M votes). Now, if the target is the criminals doing most of the shooting, you may find that support. If you target legal gun owners who are following the law, you won't find that support, and nothing will be done.

I don't think so.

I actually think guns should be legal to posses, but I don't think it should be considered socially acceptable. I think all drugs should be legal too, but I wouldn't want to live next to a meth lab.

It is public information, after all.

But I think it is the wrong thing to do. Just because you CAN harass a woman seeking an abortion, doesn't mean you should.

I also think people are going a bit overboard, demonizing legal and likely responsible gun owners.

They're responsible for not killing people? So is everyone else who doesn't kill people. What happens when their gun falls into the hands of someone who would use it to kill someone? A gun is a time bomb without a clock. A lot of guns will never kill people, but they could at almost any moment.

Sure, there are cases where firearms are used for things like hunting, and I'm ok with that. Handguns are made for killing people. The charade of describing someone who owns something that could be used to kill anyone at any moment as "responsible" should be done away with.

We laugh when they say Obama wants to take our guns. But it turns out they are right, if the anti-gun comments on this site are any barometer.

The massacres have shown us that we need gun control - get rid of semi-automatics, close the gun show loophole, etc.

But once that door is opened, all sorts of people here are demonizing ALL guns and ALL gun owners.

I don't want a gun, but I want to be free to have one if I so desire. I expect it won't be capable of riddling people with bullets over a second's time, and I expect to register it and/or require a license and some training, and I expect that I would need to keep it secured, and I expect I would not be able to shoot blindly every time I am feeling a bit nervous.

But I expect I will be able to acquire one without being publicly ridiculed!

I think people should be free to own anything they'd like, including whatever kind of insane killing device they may want, be it an automatic rifle or a gas chamber.

Like you, I think every single gun that is manufactured and sold should be registered and accounted for. Voting is my right, but I have to register to vote.

However, joining a racist group is also my right, and I wouldn't want to lose it. However, if I were to join a racist organization, I'd hope that I would be publicly ridiculed. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't be ridiculed for it. There are many many things we have the right to do that most people won't do because doing so is reprehensible to most.

I was talking about simply owning a gun. I don't think anybody should be ridiculed for simply owning a gun.

On edit - You do realize you don't have to join the NRA to own a gun, don't you?

I absolutely think people should be ridiculed for owning guns or any other devices designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing human beings. Not only is there no rational reason to possess such devices (but people own many things that have no logical purpose for being), they are devices which, when used properly, kill people. That's scary as shit, and I don't think it should be regarded as being socially acceptable.

I don't mind people owning guns designed and manufactured for hunting or sport, but I still think they should have those guns registered in a national database.

Who wants to use a drug whose production involves chemicals that were used as war gasses in WWI.

(This is why meth melts you from the inside out)

Apart from that, meth heads would still use meth.

Why smuggle in risky quantities of stuff you can make in a bathtub right there in the US?

People already using meth would be likely to continue perhaps. I don't see them jumping to another simpler drug.

People don't kick one addiction just because another is available, and as long as that first one's around, new people will find it.

See: Portugal.

Also, addicts are much more likely to submit to rehab if they know they won't go to jail for it. This is also demonstrated in Portugal.

However, people are going to get high, one way or another. Having a war on drugs is going to do nothing about it.

This is now how I view the debate on gun control. Trying to have some sort of "war on guns" isn't the answer. We're not going to change the culture with laws. We need to change the culture by actually changing the culture - changing attitudes, conceptions, values.

If you look a this in the abstract, as a simple VIOLENCE policy question, and take Guns and gun related injuries, deaths, all of that out of the picture...

Americans are still shockingly violent.

I don't feel like I've been terribly productive if I get a gun off the street that might be used to kill me, if I get beaten to death anyway. If we can move people toward non-violence, the guns become a moot issue. In fact, they will probably fade somewhat in total numbers. The less people are motivated by hate, the fewer responding people are motivated by fear. That would really suck for the gun industry, there. Bans don't seem to bother that industry at all.

My real question is what is the actual reason that people want to own guns. It's not rational, because there aren't rational reasons for owning them. That in itself is fine - most things we own aren't owned for rational reasons. Is there a rational reason to have art on your walls? However, we can't address the number of guns that are around if we don't address why they're around. We can't get to that so long as we refuse to be self-reflective about it.

Though it was seen as a "gaff" I think what Obama said in the 2008 election is true, at least in part. People are dejected and feel that they have little control over their lives, so they cling to a few rights that they absolutely do have very strongly; religion, guns.

Coca tea, not cocaine or meth.

Poppy concoctions, not heroin or Oxycodone or Vicodin.

Marijuana, not all those pharmaceuticals.

Smoked tobacco, not some weird industrialized nico-heroin powder. (What we do to opium poppy and coca.)

Mushrooms, not Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

__________

Would meth user still use meth if they had decent substitutes? I knew a Belgian drug activist meth user who switched over to prescribed oral amphetamines under a doctor's care and seemed to maintain for a long time. I've also heard of studies where they are trying Adderall (or is it Ritalin?) in a sort of amphetamine maintenance therapy approach to meth users, but I don't know how they've turned out or if they've even concluded.

Do you really think marijuana, coca, and poppies aren't being grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides? Unless you grew it and processed it yourself, count on those things being in/on there.

owning a weapon, the express purpose of which is to injure or kill?

is to defend one's household, if need be.

It's all about which irrational fears a person has.

Is a person going to whack an intruder on the head with their gun?

That's the point of having an effective weapon, rather than just a bludgeon. You have to be able to have some certainty that the weapon is going to do it's job the first time you use it, the consequences of failure are monumental.

I CAN control my decision to own/house a firearm.

the evil assholes who want to break into your home, especially in a bad neighborhood, but you can decide to protect yourself if they come charging in.

Fearing the law-abiding citizen in NY who had to jump through a hundred hoops to get a pistol permit is just as irrational as fearing the neighbor who has HIV. Neither one makes any sense.

competitor ranking to target homes for burglary.

Most of them take place when you're not there.

Do the guns get up and shoot the burglars on their own?

Thanks for recognizing guns don't commit crimes and mass-murders, people do.

If guns are going to be much protection, the user has to be continually on the alert and armed, like a soldier or police officer. They're no good if you're not there or if you're asleep. More and more, it seems as if we're being told that we should live like that, like we're in a war zone all the time, and that this is real FREEDOM as defined by the 2nd Amendment.

If you want to go on a rampage, however, you choose your own time and go get your guns. And the more gunpower you have, the easier it is to kills lots of people, very fast.

those who commit mass-murder.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/117296269

of the journalists with names and an indication of Lack of gun ownership..turn the tables. Look, gun ownership is not a crime. Next the idiots from Kansas will post your name and address and tell people that you don't go to church.
"For evil to flourish, all that is needed is for good
people to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
- Al Capone (1899-1947)

the names, addresses, work phone & fax #s, work e-mail addresses, facebook pages, pics of the cars they drive - the publisher, editors, the name of the journalist, publishing the fact that he lives in NYC, has a residential pistol permit and identifying it's make, model, and caliber. And listing the full names of a large number of the staff, and their work e-mail addresses.

It's getting ugly, and this:
[link:http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood|is going to make it uglier. I can only pray that this only devolves into noise and finger pointing, but I am deeply concerned that something bad is going to result.

Every person who signed the recall petition against Walker, this seems completely okay with me.

Someone can request my professional license because it is public record. They can request my driving record, my license plate for the auto, and whether or not a I voted or signed a recall petition against out moron Governor. It seems only fair that it should have to be a specific request, but since that doesn't seem to actually matter anymore to anyone, might as well publish names of the people who have guns to kill people so I can be sure to protect myself as best I can against their arsenals.

I do not understand the purpose if they legally own the guns

Are some pretty sick RW fascists.

to prevent them doing something that is....legal

We have become populated with a surplus of self-righteous zealots here and it's getting old.

He said "A left jackboot up your ass feels no better than a right jackboot up your ass."

He's a pretty smart young man.

Would it make you uncomfortable if your neighbour owned a private gas chamber, electric chair, or table with straps along with the rest of the equipment to cause lethal injections?

I *KNOW* MY NEIGHBORS OWN KILLING DEVICES

I despise gun nuts like any normal, thinking person does and I believe America's sick gun culture needs some fixing but this kind of tactic is DANGEROUS

This is not actually dangerous in the same way that having guns is dangerous. If owning guns came to make it hard to get insurance, change property values, and have other negative effects on the owners lives in such trite ways compared to how their guns may actually take lives, maybe we could have a change. Gun control won't be the answer. Removing the desire to own killing devices may. I think anyone should be allowed to own a gun. I also think they should be ostracized for doing so. If this starts that process, I think it's for the best.

there are ways to accomplish such ostracizing without resorting to rightwing fascist tactics

All of this was publicly available information. I think even more of it should be available. I think people should know if their lives are in danger due to their proximity to killing machines. Guns are ACTUAL danger. Some other feared danger pales in comparison to this real and present danger in our lives.

And apparently warmly embraced by many on DU. Hell, DU doesn't even allow the posting of personal information...how can DU endorse a media oitlet doing it? Hypocrisy? Selective morality?

I really don't think these things you're describing are equivalent.

I don't know for sure. Either way, it's irrelevant to my question.

I would suspect they are NOT legal and that is highly relevant, when compared to an item that can be used for killing, but is owned in a licensed, lawful manner by a law abiding owner.

I'm fairly certain I could build my own electric chair, and I don't know what would be illegal about it. The exact chemicals used in gas chambers and for lethal injections may be illegal to posses, but I'm sure there are legal workarounds which would enable me to have functioning versions.

However, my question had nothing to do with whether or not something is legal. That's my entire argument. Would you want to know if the people living around you own devices designed to kill human beings? Would knowing that people near your have killing machines in their homes make you feel differently about them, where you live, and your safety?

Has registered, licensed, passed a background check, and is legally clear in owning a firearm. A firearm is not a dangerous thing in my assessment, in the hands of a law abiding citizen.

There are certainly some who STOP being law abiding citizens, every year, but they are the vast minority of firearm owners.

On the other side, a person with no clear background check, constructing machines like what you describe? Highly irregular and suspicious.

My objection to 'outing' these people has nothing to do with the possession of the devices. Someone can say 'hey, I own a gun, and have a CPL'. That is fine to say in public. Not a problem. I doubt you could say the same of "I built a working and armed gas chamber in my basement".

My objection is around outing people who have done nothing wrong, and nothing suspicious for no purpose. Doing so can have two negative consequences: 1. Outing people who had a valid reason to be anonymous, like an abused spouse that was living anonymously, but didn't have sufficient evidence to have the abuser thrown in jail forever. If that person owned a firearm for self defense, their location (being honestly registered as a law abiding citizen) is now available to the abuser. And then there is the theft issue. Security through obscurity is one layer of, I hope many layers of protection for firearms that aren't carried 24x7 by the owners, when they are away. But it's a good start. That has been taken away, without prior informed consent of the owners that these lists would be published.

OTHERWISE, I have no problems with the publication of the list.

Handguns, like gas chambers, are made for killing people. I can't imagine why anyone would want to own either one of them.

The idea that guns are owned for self-defense is a canard. How many people actually use guns for self defense compared to violent crime? It's a pittance. Of course most guns are simply owned and never used as intended, which is pretty great, but that they're owned at all is disturbing.

in this country anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 every year. (there is considerable variance year over year.)

That involves about 1,000 excusable or justifiable homicides per year, depending on how the states classify it. (that number as low as 400 for a year in the last 3 decades)
The vast majority don't involve discharging the firearm at all. The mere presence of the firearm can have a 'discouraging' effect.

(This stands in contrast to Kleck's study that put the number at a ridiculous 2.5 million per year. I trust the Department of Justice, not Kleck.)

I don't mind the firearms. I'm more disturbed by the number of people that ridicule the Non-Aggression principle, or hell... Did you watch the RNC primary debates? Room full of people booed the 'golden rule'. THAT shit scares me.

not comfortable with this type of info given to the general public. I don't 'feel' this is right. If criminals could be outed like this, which of course they can't, I would be okay with that. But law abiding citizens should not have this info put out, because someone will try to rob them and if successful, another stolen weapon, in the wrong hands, will be on the streets. Not good.

This is a RW-type tactic. We should not be endorsing it.

...are retired FBI, DEA, and Judges whose lives may now be in danger? You people cheering this are some serious sickos...

Handguns are made for killing people. When used properly, that is what they do. Would you want to know if your neighbours had bombs in their homes? The closer you are to a killing device, the more your life is in danger. I think it's ok to let people know when their lives are in danger.

The chances of you being shot by it are very low. If a criminal steals that gun, your chances of being shot by it go up.
Of course, if your neighbor with the registered gun is a woman hiding from an abusive ex, her death warrant was just signed.

No, I didn't think so. If I had a neighbour who made bombs as a hobby and was really serious about never detonating them, I would still not be comfortable with those bombs lying around.

I'm assuming you mean they could be robbed. The only way their lives could be in danger is if they were home when that happened, in which case isn't that what the guns are supposed to be for?

Current and retired LEO and Judges don't have listed phones or publicize their addresses just for that reason. Now their addresses are handed on a platter to anyone who has an old score to settle.
Same goes for a woman hiding from an abusive ex...now he knows where to find her.

subjects of restraining orders.

They deserve all the criticism coming to them.

The self-righteous anti-gun zealots are on the wrong track targeting legal registered gun owners. This will backfire horribly.

I've owned a shotgun for 50 years for bird hunting. This would piss me off.

Who has a gun to protect herself and her kids, NOW, he can find her HOME ADDRESS, ..and know that she is armed..

Could anything BAD happen to her now that her ex has her home address? NO, of course not.

Maybe it's time for states to make it a little harder for personal information about citizens to be released wholesale to anyone.



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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

We should marshal as much opposition as humanly possible to any kind of gun control before we start pushing for it. It's bound to help.

We can kiss any kind of list or registry, which is badly needed, goodbye now. When we demand one all the nuts will have to do is point to this incident for exactly why there shouldn't be one.

that will kill any effective legislation that might have passed. 'effin dumb-asses.

Show just how out of touch, and extreme the gun control movement really is... They have no problem "outing" a Woman hiding from a violent ex, simply because she dares to own a gun to protect herself and children from the ex.

They are so blind to the dogma of Gun Control, they cannot see the effects of their actions.

The solution to the danger of violence is not to plan a murder.

If someone assaulted me, should I get a gun and plan to murder them if they try to assault me again, or should I go to the police? If the police won't help, is murder the answer? No? It's ok for women in certain situations though?

What about bars on the windows and better locks on the doors? Oh, hell, that's too hard - just plan a murder... much easier than actual security.

the mayor or governor, you're not going to get round the clock protection.

They aren't planning a murder, they're planning to defend themselves. Bars on the windows will slow someone down for all of about thirty seconds if they have a crowbar or demo bar, and you can't escape through barred windows. You can reinforce the window frames so that the bars can't be easily pried out, but it costs way more than a woman running from a bad relationship is likely to have. It also decreases your chance of escaping a fire. Better locks on doors are a good idea regardless, but they aren't going to stop someone that's sufficiently determined to get in.

The false dichotomy that there are only two options (Not being allowed to defend yourself at all because if you do it's murder or a gun in every hand) is one of the things that has kept us from useful gun control legislation for so long. FWIW 1/3rd of female murder victims 12 or older are killed by an intimate partner, so this isn't some Rambo taking down a gunman fantasy: Women are killed by their exes every day.

That said I've always recommended pepper spray over a gun. Allegedly 10% of the population is immune to pepper spray, but I've yet to meet anyone that's met anyone that was part of that 10%.

I imagine it's a far higher number than abused women who "defend" themselves with guns. Guns are made for killing people. They aren't made for deterring attack or slowing down attackers. As you say, there are other things which can be used for that. If this hypothetical super-determined attacker is so determined to cause harm, why wouldn't they have a gun themselves? The solution to violence is not more violence.

that a person doesn't have a right to defend themselves?

What if someone breaks into a house, attacks the occupants and gets stabbed? Do you consider that murder too?

Edited to add: There are other options in some places. Tasers and pepper spray aren't legal everywhere.

The truth is, there are very few - if any - possible scenarios where having a gun would ever make someone more safe than having that same gun would put their lives in danger. Trying to concoct them to justify having guns for other reasons isn't going to win me over. If people could examine themselves and figure out the real reason they covet a personal killing device and explain that to me, I'd be more willing to discuss it seriously.

In your hypothetical scenario, is the person stabbed with a special knife that was designed, manufactured, and purchased for the sole purpose of killing human beings with no other possible use? I doubt it, because I don't think such a thing exists.

that are marketed that way, and are absolutely useless for anything else. Truth be told, they're not actually very good for self defense either. They're usually hooked and serrated, which makes them scary looking and much more likely to hang up in clothes, and utterly useless if you're being attacked by more than one person.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA06L04V8945
or


They're usually marketed in the same places gun accessories are, and to the same crowd.

Edited to add: Completely forgot butterfly knives and switchblades. Two more knives that are useless for anything else.