Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ZebraRaptor t1_j91hala wrote

Reply to comment by Motor_Finding_2647 in here's a question regarding gun control by AdHistorical7107

Exactly. And not only a perfectly legal thing, but a constitutionally protected right.

3

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j91kjsl wrote

The Constitution doesn't say anything about privacy, as the Supreme Court recently confirmed in striking down the privacy penumbra in the abortion case.

The state issues the license. Why shouldn't it be public record who has one?

Freedom of information and open government are generally protected by the First Amendment. The Second Amendment by itself definitely doesn't say anything about privacy.

−2

ZebraRaptor t1_j91lllq wrote

The commenter above me stated it perfectly. It incentivizes criminals to target houses that are listed as “gun owners”. The privacy itself is not in the 2nd amendment, but common sense should come into play. Imagine if everybody who bought a TV for over 2k had to be put on a map?

I personally dislike when gun owners put “CCW” or other gun stickers on their vehicles, and would certainly never put one on mine because a thief will see it and think there is a reasonable chance there is a gun in the car and break in. This happens. Adding a map like the SOR would be just government complicity in the crimes.

5

DeskFan203 t1_j91tlvi wrote

Yessssss as much as I support responsible gun ownership I CANNOT stand people who advertise it on their vehicles. Especially the carry on ones...

You are a target! If not for car break ins, following people to their houses to look for guns there. Duhhhhh

3

ZebraRaptor t1_j921mjf wrote

Yup! You’ll never catch me with one on my car! I’ll never leave my firearm in my car anyway, but I don’t need a broken window. And good point about them targeting homes that have vehicles parked with stickers on them like that!

My opinion is that the whole “conceal carry” is literally that, concealed. I don’t need the whole world to know and put a target on my back or my home or my car.

4

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j91lz10 wrote

>The commenter above me stated it perfectly. It incentivizes criminals to target houses that are listed as “gun owners”

What kind of mental backflips are you doing over there?

−1

ZebraRaptor t1_j91n22d wrote

Either there has been some miscommunication that I’m missing or you’re lashing out for unknown reasons. I don’t know how more succinctly I can state it.

If a criminal who is targeting home owners who have guns they can steal can go to a website like the SOR but instead it shows addresses and names of people who own guns, don’t you think that’s the people who will be using it? Isn’t that putting those home owners in danger? What if they break in when the owner isn’t home and steal the guns. Then that gun is used in a crime. Is that website complicit because it helped the criminal complete the criminal act?

The relevant authorities already have the info. There is not a single good reason as to why there should be a publicly accessible database that shows who owns guns.

5

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j91p83x wrote

If someone steals your gun because you failed to keep it secure, you should be charged as complicit. The state, lol? Have you heard of sovereign immunity?

In your backwards fantasy land of unfounded fear, you think criminals are going to go to a map of who has a gun permit and who does not, and they're going to....target the houses of people who probably have a gun?

I think between First Amendment and FOIA, if the state is issuing permits, there is no valid FOIA exception or exemption that should preclude release of permit information publicly.

−2

Bowditch357 t1_j921bgt wrote

I like how this individual is responding to you with a constructive argument and you just keep lashing out when they won’t agree with you.

“In your backwards fantasy land of unfounded fear..” You’re talking about yourself with this quote correct? Like please tell me you can see the irony here. Considering you’re the one who wants there to be a list of law abiding citizens, over law abiding actions, it’s safe to say you’re the one living in a world of make believe fear.

“If someone steals your gun because you didn’t keep it secure, you should be charged as an accomplice”. Lucky for us, the vast majority of gun owners, at least the ones I know, have a gun safe. So just because I have a gun safe, I should suddenly be okay with my home being broken into? I’ve yet to find a gun safe big enough to fit a house in….

And one last point, if firearms being stolen from legal owners wasn’t an issue, we wouldn’t have laws that require us to report stolen guns within a certain amount of time. But we do have those laws, because believe it or not, it happens more often then you’d think.

5

AhbabaOooMaoMao t1_j929eey wrote

>And one last point, if firearms being stolen from legal owners wasn’t an issue, we wouldn’t have laws that require us to report stolen guns within a certain amount of time. But we do have those laws, because believe it or not, it happens more often then you’d think.

Happens all the time. If we had actual responsible gun owners, it wouldn't. That's why I support strict liability for casualties caused by guns, liability that runs with the gun. Bet nobody would let them get stolen then! You want guns? Cool. I want you to be financially responsible for damage caused by your guns.

The unfounded fear is that people would break into houses because they know the owner has a gun. In reality, the exact opposite would be true.

1

ZebraRaptor t1_j9218lb wrote

You can only keep your guns so secure. Short of anchoring a safe into concrete it wouldn’t be that difficult for a determined criminal to get into a safe. Or just take the safe with them. Ever seen the videos of thieves stealing atms?

Clearly your mind will never change but you’re advocating for a very dangerous idea and I urge you greatly to reconsider.

Why would the average citizen need to care what house has guns? Just to be nosy? Like I said, police and government already know which people have registered firearms. There is zero reason for a database for the public. If you can give me one solid argument as to why they should have access, please do.

4