6 ms·

I'm an American, and I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, nor do I have a problem with electronic records of gun purchasers. I assume FOID cards ar

I'm an American, and I have no problem with responsible gun ownership, nor do I have a problem with electronic records of gun purchasers. I assume FOID cards are in a database already. If I was a law enforcement officer responding to a domestic violence call of a husband battering his wife, I'd want to know if the oldest male in the house purchased an AR-15 derivative and several handguns. EDIT: Many adults also explicitly show their possession of a lethal weapon every day: their car, which is registered in a statewide database. EDIT2: I'd further like to be able to query that database as a civilian, so I know which of my neighbors may own an unusual cache of guns, so that I can have better situational awareness if I'm ever in a dispute with one. EDIT3: To apply a standard of transparency to this data collection, the person whose data about firearm purchases should be able to be notified by some immediate or otherwise automated means that their record was viewed by a LEO or a citizen or another state/federal agency.

syshum 10y ago
>>EDIT2: I am sure violent criminals would love such a database as well, this way when they need an illegal gun they know which homes to rob. No, you have no right to know what I own, be that Gun, Drones, or TV's. You have no right to compel me to publicly list my assets in a database you can search.
- spdustin 10y ago
  Another good point. Though there are plenty of public records listing your truly high value assets, it should be noted.
  - syshum 10y ago
    And I disagree with all of them. Unlike what you claim to be, I actually am a strong advocate for privacy. The fact that the government has already violated my privacy in many ways, is not a defense or justification for more intrusion upon my privacy. A privacy advocate should never use the justification you have
wyager 10y ago
So we should presume guilt whenever someone is accused without evidence of domestic violence? If it's currently possible to get a SWAT team to show up and break into someone's house with an anonymous phone call, I sure as hell don't want to give police the idea that it's OK to show up and take someone's guns because they got an anonymous phone call accusing them of hitting their wife. > I'd further like to be able to query that database as a civilian You need to consider for a moment how this can be abused. Who do you think is going to be targeted for robbery? You'd be efficiently putting guns directly into the hands of criminals. How about you stop worrying about the statistically negligible threat that your gun-collecting neighbor is secretly about to go berserk? We don't need to spy on each other all the time.
- spdustin 10y ago
  I didn't say anything about presuming guilt. More like a law enforcement officer having increased situational awareness when responding to a call of a violent crime. Nor did I say anything about a cop taking anyone's guns. They have no right to, unless of course they were illegally acquired, or the owner isn't licensed to carry one. As it stands now, I believe a law enforcement officer can discern if you have a FOID card in the US, which may set the expectation that you are armed to the teeth, while a purchase database might show that you purchased a non-functional collector piece. I'd think that information would improve their situational awareness and make their approach more context-appropriate.
  - wyager 10y ago
    >More like a law enforcement officer having increased situational awareness I.e. more likely to shoot you? Many people have irrational responses to knowing that someone has a gun, police officers included. >Nor did I say anything about a cop taking anyone's guns. I assumed you were referring to the number of recent proposals to allow for the "temporary confiscation" of guns from people accused (but not convicted) of domestic violence. >I'd think that information would improve their situational awareness and make their approach more context-appropriate. Why would you think that? What would be more context-appropriate?
pc86 10y ago
I often see statements like your one about the car but it's entirely irrelevant to this thread. And if you get into enough disputes with your neighbors that you feel you need to know what things they've purchased perhaps you should focus more on conflict resolution and less on their shopping habits. Because your definition of "unusual" may be very different from theirs, and whether or not I purchased a handgun, or a rifle, or a shotgun, or a Bowie knife, or a pallet of rifle ammunition is not my neighbor's business. People outspoken in favor of gun ownership have been routinely swatted by those who disagree with them. Nothing is gained by giving those mentally ill people more information with which to put innocent lives in danger.
- spdustin 10y ago
  I would suggest that my approach to any conflict resolution would be tempered knowing if they owned a cache of assault rifles. We already have access to other information as a matter of public record, I really don't see a problem knowing that someone has a gun. Also, you seem to imply that I either have a conflict with a neighbor, or am ill-equipped to resolve one respectfully. Neither is true. But I can understand how that data, in civilian hands, could be used for potentially nefarious purposes. I only suggested the idea as a way to make the information more "transparent", but someone a lot smarter than me would have to discern the risks involved, and I am 100% able to adjust my expectations based on such risks. I'm not committed to the issue one way or another.
  - syshum 10y ago
    >>We already have access to other information as a matter of public record 2 wrongs do not make a right. There is FAR FAR FAR too much information accessible to police and even other citizens now. It is clear you believe everything about a person should just be open to everyone. Do you believe in any privacy at all?
    - brewdad 10y ago
      What does the Second Amendment have to do with privacy. Your right to own a gun isn't being infringed in any way. We the people would simply like to know who owns the guns. If the police every really decide to come take away everyone's guns, they are going to search every home, armed to the teeth, anyways just to be sure they get them all. Being a registered gun owner does not endanger you in any significant way.
xtreme 10y ago
> I'd further like to be able to query that database as a civilian. You are not entitled to know the details of my private property, similar to how a civilian can't access a list of cars you own. More pragmatically, this can lead to increased crime. Owners of valuable firearms would be targeted by burglars. A robber would easily know which homeowners don't have any guns, and would target them with less risk.
- spdustin 10y ago
  I can see, in some ways, the point of being targeted by burglars. The same burglars who see the box of your new big screen tv on trash day (or dive for receipts), or who case your house for a few weeks before Christmas to see what you;re unloading from your car. I would think that a thief would be less interested to steal from someone who is, by virtue of owning a gun, equipped to defend his or her property with lethal force. I honesty don't see this as a threat vector, unless I'm missing something. What am I missing? I admit ignorance here, and please don't mistake my responses as an argument. If this is a legitimate concern, I'd like to know. I'd hate to think my opinion was uninformed.
  - hga 10y ago
    I would think that a thief would be less interested to steal from someone who is, by virtue of owning a gun, equipped to defend his or her property with lethal force. What you're missing is that in the US, criminals in almost all the states and cities know there's a good chance their targets have guns in their homes, so they generally choose to burglarize them when unoccupied.
    - vkou 10y ago
      They also prefer to do so in countries other then the US, because they are there to burgle, not to get into a potentially dangerous altercation with the resident. Nothing good will come out of burgling an occupied house. 1. You may be identified - this will quickly shut down your criminal career. 2. You may be physically harmed. 3. You may physically harm the resident, which will turn your crime from a police-don't-really-care burglary into a violent robbery.

syshum 10y ago

>>EDIT2: I am sure violent criminals would love such a database as well, this way when they need an illegal gun they know which homes to rob. No, you have no right to know what I own, be that Gun, Drones, or TV's. You have no right to compel me to publicly list my assets in a database you can search.

spdustin 10y ago
Another good point. Though there are plenty of public records listing your truly high value assets, it should be noted.
- syshum 10y ago
  And I disagree with all of them. Unlike what you claim to be, I actually am a strong advocate for privacy. The fact that the government has already violated my privacy in many ways, is not a defense or justification for more intrusion upon my privacy. A privacy advocate should never use the justification you have

wyager 10y ago

So we should presume guilt whenever someone is accused without evidence of domestic violence? If it's currently possible to get a SWAT team to show up and break into someone's house with an anonymous phone call, I sure as hell don't want to give police the idea that it's OK to show up and take someone's guns because they got an anonymous phone call accusing them of hitting their wife. > I'd further like to be able to query that database as a civilian You need to consider for a moment how this can be abused. Who do you think is going to be targeted for robbery? You'd be efficiently putting guns directly into the hands of criminals. How about you stop worrying about the statistically negligible threat that your gun-collecting neighbor is secretly about to go berserk? We don't need to spy on each other all the time.

spdustin 10y ago
I didn't say anything about presuming guilt. More like a law enforcement officer having increased situational awareness when responding to a call of a violent crime. Nor did I say anything about a cop taking anyone's guns. They have no right to, unless of course they were illegally acquired, or the owner isn't licensed to carry one. As it stands now, I believe a law enforcement officer can discern if you have a FOID card in the US, which may set the expectation that you are armed to the teeth, while a purchase database might show that you purchased a non-functional collector piece. I'd think that information would improve their situational awareness and make their approach more context-appropriate.
- wyager 10y ago
  >More like a law enforcement officer having increased situational awareness I.e. more likely to shoot you? Many people have irrational responses to knowing that someone has a gun, police officers included. >Nor did I say anything about a cop taking anyone's guns. I assumed you were referring to the number of recent proposals to allow for the "temporary confiscation" of guns from people accused (but not convicted) of domestic violence. >I'd think that information would improve their situational awareness and make their approach more context-appropriate. Why would you think that? What would be more context-appropriate?

pc86 10y ago

I often see statements like your one about the car but it's entirely irrelevant to this thread. And if you get into enough disputes with your neighbors that you feel you need to know what things they've purchased perhaps you should focus more on conflict resolution and less on their shopping habits. Because your definition of "unusual" may be very different from theirs, and whether or not I purchased a handgun, or a rifle, or a shotgun, or a Bowie knife, or a pallet of rifle ammunition is not my neighbor's business. People outspoken in favor of gun ownership have been routinely swatted by those who disagree with them. Nothing is gained by giving those mentally ill people more information with which to put innocent lives in danger.

spdustin 10y ago
I would suggest that my approach to any conflict resolution would be tempered knowing if they owned a cache of assault rifles. We already have access to other information as a matter of public record, I really don't see a problem knowing that someone has a gun. Also, you seem to imply that I either have a conflict with a neighbor, or am ill-equipped to resolve one respectfully. Neither is true. But I can understand how that data, in civilian hands, could be used for potentially nefarious purposes. I only suggested the idea as a way to make the information more "transparent", but someone a lot smarter than me would have to discern the risks involved, and I am 100% able to adjust my expectations based on such risks. I'm not committed to the issue one way or another.
- syshum 10y ago
  >>We already have access to other information as a matter of public record 2 wrongs do not make a right. There is FAR FAR FAR too much information accessible to police and even other citizens now. It is clear you believe everything about a person should just be open to everyone. Do you believe in any privacy at all?
  - brewdad 10y ago
    What does the Second Amendment have to do with privacy. Your right to own a gun isn't being infringed in any way. We the people would simply like to know who owns the guns. If the police every really decide to come take away everyone's guns, they are going to search every home, armed to the teeth, anyways just to be sure they get them all. Being a registered gun owner does not endanger you in any significant way.

xtreme 10y ago

> I'd further like to be able to query that database as a civilian. You are not entitled to know the details of my private property, similar to how a civilian can't access a list of cars you own. More pragmatically, this can lead to increased crime. Owners of valuable firearms would be targeted by burglars. A robber would easily know which homeowners don't have any guns, and would target them with less risk.

spdustin 10y ago
I can see, in some ways, the point of being targeted by burglars. The same burglars who see the box of your new big screen tv on trash day (or dive for receipts), or who case your house for a few weeks before Christmas to see what you;re unloading from your car. I would think that a thief would be less interested to steal from someone who is, by virtue of owning a gun, equipped to defend his or her property with lethal force. I honesty don't see this as a threat vector, unless I'm missing something. What am I missing? I admit ignorance here, and please don't mistake my responses as an argument. If this is a legitimate concern, I'd like to know. I'd hate to think my opinion was uninformed.
- hga 10y ago
  I would think that a thief would be less interested to steal from someone who is, by virtue of owning a gun, equipped to defend his or her property with lethal force. What you're missing is that in the US, criminals in almost all the states and cities know there's a good chance their targets have guns in their homes, so they generally choose to burglarize them when unoccupied.
  - vkou 10y ago
    They also prefer to do so in countries other then the US, because they are there to burgle, not to get into a potentially dangerous altercation with the resident. Nothing good will come out of burgling an occupied house. 1. You may be identified - this will quickly shut down your criminal career. 2. You may be physically harmed. 3. You may physically harm the resident, which will turn your crime from a police-don't-really-care burglary into a violent robbery.