Public display of guns- What do you think?

Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Sadly, that law doesn't do the patriots of Virginia any good. As everyone knows, black helicopters come factory-equipped with gundar.

Paleocon wrote:
WOODBRIDGE, Va. -- The drivers of a Jaguar and a dump truck face charges after a road range duel on a Virginia interstate that included shots fired by the driver of the luxury car.

Virginia State Police say that after the truck merged onto Interstate 95 Tuesday afternoon, the drivers sparred aggressively, with the dump truck hitting the Jaguar twice and both ending up against the shoulder wall.

Police say 25-year-old Gabriel Poventud got out of his car and fired 13 shots, hitting the truck four times as it drove away.

And so it is another of the events foreseen in Grand Theft Auto comes to pass.

OG_slinger wrote:

The article didn't say if the guy one of those evil gun-toting criminals we need protection from or one of those responsible owners of a legal firearm.

I suspect he was the former and turned into the latter.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Like we've said before, there's no reason why the PUBLIC should have access to private/personal data - as long as law enforcement has this information I'm ok with that. Why does OG Slinger need the data?

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Like we've said before, there's no reason why the PUBLIC should have access to private/personal data - as long as law enforcement has this information I'm ok with that. Why does OG Slinger need the data?

Normally, I would agree with you, but in this particular case in which a crime has been committed, I would think it is in the public interest to determine if the perpetrator was legally authorized to have the gun on him at the time. I can see the gun rights lobby fighting a FOIA request on this, but I think they would be in the wrong.

I would think it is in the public interest to determine if the perpetrator was legally authorized to have the gun on him

I don't see that it's a public interest at all, since they're not the ones to determine legality or justice in any given case of firearm use. Revealing the information to the general public violates privacy, and the public can't do anything with the information anyway.

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Like we've said before, there's no reason why the PUBLIC should have access to private/personal data - as long as law enforcement has this information I'm ok with that. Why does OG Slinger need the data?

So are you saying that the public shouldn't have access to building permits, liquor licenses, and any other number of government documents? A gun permit is no different. It is a government-issued document, which means any taxpayer should have easy access to it.

The real question is why you are so afraid that someone can find out you're carrying a weapon? Isn't that the entire point? To be bloody obvious you're armed?

Malor wrote:
I would think it is in the public interest to determine if the perpetrator was legally authorized to have the gun on him

I don't see that it's a public interest at all, since they're not the ones to determine legality or justice in any given case of firearm use. Revealing the information to the general public violates privacy, and the public can't do anything with the information anyway.

So, let me see if I have it straight. Keeping a national database of sex offenders is perfectly acceptable, even though the public can't really do anything with that information either (much of which is misleading), but doing the same for gun owners is an egregious violation of privacy? Please. If one use is OK, the other is as well. Personally, I'd like to know who in my neighborhood has a gun or if "Crazy Tom" in Accounting is packing heat.

OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Like we've said before, there's no reason why the PUBLIC should have access to private/personal data - as long as law enforcement has this information I'm ok with that. Why does OG Slinger need the data?

So are you saying that the public shouldn't have access to building permits, liquor licenses, and any other number of government documents? A gun permit is no different. It is a government-issued document, which means any taxpayer should have easy access to it.

The real question is why you are so afraid that someone can find out you're carrying a weapon? Isn't that the entire point? To be bloody obvious you're armed?

Malor wrote:
I would think it is in the public interest to determine if the perpetrator was legally authorized to have the gun on him

I don't see that it's a public interest at all, since they're not the ones to determine legality or justice in any given case of firearm use. Revealing the information to the general public violates privacy, and the public can't do anything with the information anyway.

So, let me see if I have it straight. Keeping a national database of sex offenders is perfectly acceptable, even though the public can't really do anything with that information either (much of which is misleading), but doing the same for gun owners is an egregious violation of privacy? Please. If one use is OK, the other is as well. Personally, I'd like to know who in my neighborhood has a gun or if "Crazy Tom" in Accounting is packing heat.

Sex offenders commited a felony. Gun owners did not.

Shoal07 wrote:

Sex offenders commited a felony. Gun owners did not.

And they also served their debt to society.

Again, I ask why are you so afraid that someone can find out you are armed?

OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Sex offenders commited a felony. Gun owners did not.

And they also served their debt to society.

Again, I ask why are you so afraid that someone can find out you are armed?

I believe we've argued sex offenders before. The registration is part of their debt - just jail time isn't everything.

Instead of assuming that I'm afraid, I question why Joe Public needs my personal information.

Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Like we've said before, there's no reason why the PUBLIC should have access to private/personal data - as long as law enforcement has this information I'm ok with that. Why does OG Slinger need the data?

So are you saying that the public shouldn't have access to building permits, liquor licenses, and any other number of government documents? A gun permit is no different. It is a government-issued document, which means any taxpayer should have easy access to it.

The real question is why you are so afraid that someone can find out you're carrying a weapon? Isn't that the entire point? To be bloody obvious you're armed?

Malor wrote:
I would think it is in the public interest to determine if the perpetrator was legally authorized to have the gun on him

I don't see that it's a public interest at all, since they're not the ones to determine legality or justice in any given case of firearm use. Revealing the information to the general public violates privacy, and the public can't do anything with the information anyway.

So, let me see if I have it straight. Keeping a national database of sex offenders is perfectly acceptable, even though the public can't really do anything with that information either (much of which is misleading), but doing the same for gun owners is an egregious violation of privacy? Please. If one use is OK, the other is as well. Personally, I'd like to know who in my neighborhood has a gun or if "Crazy Tom" in Accounting is packing heat.

Sex offenders commited a felony. Gun owners did not.

In this particular case, the gun owner also committed a felony. Would you be okay in allowing a FOIA request to reveal whether or not he was carrying his gun lawfully?

Shoal07 wrote:

Instead of assuming that I'm afraid, I question why Joe Public needs my personal information.

I have to speak up a second (I'm interested in this discussion, I just don't have a strong stance either way) and mentioned that Shoal's got a good point here. The "what are you so afraid of" attack on privacy is pretty thin; Republicans used it to defend warrantless wiretapping, and we condemned that, so we should be universal in its coverage.

Shoal07 wrote:

Instead of assuming that I'm afraid, I question why Joe Public needs my personal information.

Because Joe Public's tax dollars paid for the permit and all the government employees and processes behind said permit.

Again, your permit to carry a gun is no different than a building permit, a liquor license, or any number of government issued permits that I easily find out about because they are government documents.

Given that a gun permit is just another government document, the burden rests with you to show how you could possibly be harmed by that information being published or otherwise made available to citizens.

Seth wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:

Instead of assuming that I'm afraid, I question why Joe Public needs my personal information.

I have to speak up a second (I'm interested in this discussion, I just don't have a strong stance either way) and mentioned that Shoal's got a good point here. The "what are you so afraid of" attack on privacy is pretty thin; Republicans used it to defend warrantless wiretapping, and we condemned that, so we should be universal in its coverage.

And to be clear, I'm not interested in fishing expeditions either. That said, I don't think finding out if a person who committed an act of public mayhem was carrying a weapon lawfully qualifies as one. I am not looking to see if you or anyone else has a gun. I want to know the circumstances surrounding the commission of a serious felony.

OG_slinger wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I am actually curious about that myself. If he had a lawful CCW permit, we'll know.

Well, had the Virginia legislature and governor not passed a law to block public access to a database of concealed carry permit holders we could know right now. Ah, anything to make it harder for those black helicopters to find gun owners...

Like we've said before, there's no reason why the PUBLIC should have access to private/personal data - as long as law enforcement has this information I'm ok with that. Why does OG Slinger need the data?

So are you saying that the public shouldn't have access to building permits, liquor licenses, and any other number of government documents? A gun permit is no different. It is a government-issued document, which means any taxpayer should have easy access to it.

The real question is why you are so afraid that someone can find out you're carrying a weapon? Isn't that the entire point? To be bloody obvious you're armed?

Malor wrote:
I would think it is in the public interest to determine if the perpetrator was legally authorized to have the gun on him

I don't see that it's a public interest at all, since they're not the ones to determine legality or justice in any given case of firearm use. Revealing the information to the general public violates privacy, and the public can't do anything with the information anyway.

So, let me see if I have it straight. Keeping a national database of sex offenders is perfectly acceptable, even though the public can't really do anything with that information either (much of which is misleading), but doing the same for gun owners is an egregious violation of privacy? Please. If one use is OK, the other is as well. Personally, I'd like to know who in my neighborhood has a gun or if "Crazy Tom" in Accounting is packing heat.

Yah I agree with the majority of your points, but comparing legal owners of guns to sex offenders is not an appropriate comparison.

SallyNasty wrote:

Yah I agree with the majority of your points, but comparing legal owners of guns to sex offenders is not an appropriate comparison.

Re-read my comment. I wasn't comparing gun owners with sex offenders but rather calling into question why one database of personal information was perfectly OK to make public and another was considered verbotten.

Shoal said it best -

Shoal07 wrote:

The registration is part of their debt - just jail time isn't everything.

The felony aspect of it is everything. As long as the gun owner has no record, I see no reason for the public to have access to his private info.

You complained about gun owners having their weapons stolen, yet you want a list of every gun and their owner/location.

MaverickDago wrote:

You complained about gun owners having their weapons stolen, yet you want a list of every gun and their owner/location.

But isn't one of the reasons for owning a gun to defend against home invasions anyway?

I'd be more worried about potential burglars using the list of owners to target me, as a non-gun owner.

MaverickDago wrote:

You complained about gun owners having their weapons stolen, yet you want a list of every gun and their owner/location.

Store them properly and criminals won't be able to steal them, will they now?

SallyNasty wrote:

As long as the gun owner has no record, I see no reason for the public to have access to his private info.

It's a government permit, not private information. Just because it involves a gun doesn't kick it into a special class of treatment. It's just another public record and therefore should be available to the public.

Jonman wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

You complained about gun owners having their weapons stolen, yet you want a list of every gun and their owner/location.

But isn't one of the reasons for owning a gun to defend against home invasions anyway?

I'd be more worried about potential burglars using the list of owners to target me, as a non-gun owner.

That is a fantastic point.

OG_slinger wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

You complained about gun owners having their weapons stolen, yet you want a list of every gun and their owner/location.

Store them properly and criminals won't be able to steal them, will they now?

SallyNasty wrote:

As long as the gun owner has no record, I see no reason for the public to have access to his private info.

It's a government permit, not private information. Just because it involves a gun doesn't kick it into a special class of treatment. It's just another public record and therefore should be available to the public.

Can you search to find if people have pilot's licenses (this is a real question, not me being glib)? On one hand, I don't care if anyone knows if I have a gun or not, but don't see how it is really anyone else's business. I am for strict GOVERNMENT control of firearms, but I don't see any reason for my neighbors to be able to look online about what I may or may not have in my possession at home. The governmental authorities (i.e. police) should have that info readily available, and I have no problem with that.

Jonman wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

You complained about gun owners having their weapons stolen, yet you want a list of every gun and their owner/location.

But isn't one of the reasons for owning a gun to defend against home invasions anyway?

I'd be more worried about potential burglars using the list of owners to target me, as a non-gun owner.

This is why I feel that the idea of CC has prevented more crime that any actual CC permit holder. But I gotta say, a database of CC permit holders who've used their gun to commit a crime--not an awful idea.

SallyNasty wrote:

Paleo - thanks.

Yah, that is scary and why people shouldn't get to carry guns. Let's assume that he had the weapon legally - he lost his temper and drew his weapon in anger, not defense, and gives us an example of how guns could be used irresponsibly.

And by the same logic, no one should be able to have a kitchen knife, because someone, somewhere used a kitchen knife to stab someone. Or a car. Or a sledgehammer, tire iron, or any other of thousand devices or tools that can be misused.

Of course, the counter-argument is that a kitchen knife has other uses. But ... so does a gun, uses that are lawful. Guns can and will be used irresponsibly, just like many other things. That doesn't mean that we should ban their lawful uses. It means the irresponsible uses are the price we pay for the freedom we supposedly care about.

Aetius wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Paleo - thanks.

Yah, that is scary and why people shouldn't get to carry guns. Let's assume that he had the weapon legally - he lost his temper and drew his weapon in anger, not defense, and gives us an example of how guns could be used irresponsibly.

And by the same logic, no one should be able to have a kitchen knife, because someone, somewhere used a kitchen knife to stab someone. Or a car. Or a sledgehammer, tire iron, or any other of thousand devices or tools that can be misused.

Of course, the counter-argument is that a kitchen knife has other uses. But ... so does a gun, uses that are lawful. Guns can and will be used irresponsibly, just like many other things. That doesn't mean that we should ban their lawful uses. It means the irresponsible uses are the price we pay for the freedom we supposedly care about.

I think you should have to have a permit to carry kitchen knives in cars, yes. Also sledgehammers. Especially sledgehammers.

But seriously, a gun has only one use - not multiple. To shoot things. Let's not be ridiculous and compare irresponsible gun use and irresponsible kitchen knife use.

As to the freedom we supposedly care about - I don't WANT the freedom to carry a gun on my hip, and I don't want you to have it either. That in no way affects how I live my life. Freedom of expression, speech, religion are in no way related to gun ownership, and there is no possible argument that could convince me otherwise.

Aetius wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Paleo - thanks.

Yah, that is scary and why people shouldn't get to carry guns. Let's assume that he had the weapon legally - he lost his temper and drew his weapon in anger, not defense, and gives us an example of how guns could be used irresponsibly.

And by the same logic, no one should be able to have a kitchen knife, because someone, somewhere used a kitchen knife to stab someone. Or a car. Or a sledgehammer, tire iron, or any other of thousand devices or tools that can be misused.

Of course, the counter-argument is that a kitchen knife has other uses. But ... so does a gun, uses that are lawful. Guns can and will be used irresponsibly, just like many other things. That doesn't mean that we should ban their lawful uses. It means the irresponsible uses are the price we pay for the freedom we supposedly care about.

I'm not sure they are entirely analogous. I enjoy guns and have several. I participate in shooting sports and know that there are many uses for guns other than killing people. That said, I don't think carrying around a gun has any other purpose than the potential to cause harm to another individual.

Likewise, I love to cook. I own several kitchen knives. I keep them razor-freaking-sharp and even know how to fillet a salmon with them. But if I carry my 10" German steel chef knife under my jacket just in case someone commits a crime around me, I really need to see a psychiatrist.

SallyNasty wrote:

Can you search to find if people have pilot's licenses (this is a real question, not me being glib)? On one hand, I don't care if anyone knows if I have a gun or not, but don't see how it is really anyone else's business. I am for strict GOVERNMENT control of firearms, but I don't see any reason for my neighbors to be able to look online about what I may or may not have in my possession at home. The governmental authorities (i.e. police) should have that info readily available, and I have no problem with that.

Yes. And it also includes addresses and related medical information.

And most states have searchable databases for criminal and civil court cases, which will contain far more private information, like you get a divorce, filing for bankruptcy, being sued, prosecuted for a crime, etc. I have to file building permits if I want to build something on land that I own. All these are instances of private information that is made available to the public. If these are all OK, then what makes gun permits different?

You broke it

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389...

seems appropriate to debate in this thread.

MaverickDago wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389...

seems appropriate to debate in this thread.

Syracuse in the sweet 16? That would make me want to open carry!

If Cornell wins, violent crime is spiking by 1000%