4 ms·

Genuinely curious, what do you contemplate/would law abiding citizens be punished for and what is the risk?

by subhro 5y ago

chroem- 5y ago
We are witnessing the circulation of mass shame lists designed to deprive people of their livelihood. Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. This legislation will have a similar effect.
- Shacklz 5y ago
  > Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. Not sure if your choice of words is very unfortunate or if there's a sarcastic undertone; because in the US there seem to be way too many innocent people that are caught in the literal crossfire of gun violence. Finding ways to address this with legislation seems, from my non-American point of view, only reasonable - and yes, of course it will also affect and limit people that did not contribute to gun violence; what would your solution be, enforcing it only for people who already committed a crime, so essentially when it's too late to inconvenience them?
  - chroem- 5y ago
    The vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally, and thus will not be subject to these lists. The data on this is widely available. This legislation is purely a punitive political measure.
    - loeg 5y ago
      Illegal guns are former legal guns. S&W doesn't run a factory that only sells to criminals -- those legal guns are diverted to criminals, via the generally lax attitudes of American gun owners.
      - chroem- 5y ago
        And there will certainly be a great influx of illegal guns once you provide thieves with a state-compiled shopping list of where to find them.
        CompanionCubee 5y ago
        But that will only justify more gun control measures. It's a win-win for them.
      - jacobolus 5y ago
        Indeed. If every gun were registered, and the gun owner (or gun store, or gun manufacturer, whoever last had the registration) faced personal financial/criminal liability when one of their registered guns was used improperly, it would make people take their guns a lot more seriously.
        LinuxBender 5y ago
        This is already a thing. I had a rifle stolen some time ago. Shortly thereafter shootings occurred on a freeway nearby with a rifle with the exact caliber as mine. The ATF and DEA were at my house for a chat. Luckily for me, the person that stole my rifle was caught and imprisoned and forensics verified that my firearm did not match the one used in the shooting. I was also lucky I saved the docket number from the Sheriff when I reported it stolen. I have since left California and moved to a state where everyone is heavily armed. Now my rifles are pea-shooters in comparison to what everyone else around me has. Firearm crime is a very rare occurrence here.
        sgc 5y ago
        If you are attempting to say that stricter guns laws lead to more firearm deaths, you would be quite wrong. California has one of the lowest rates per capita in the US. This law needs some improvements for sure, but here are the CDC stats for the lowest 10 states (columns are deaths, population, and rate per 100k): Delaware (10) 93 973,764 9.6 Iowa (19) 294 3,155,070 9.3 Minnesota (27) 465 5,639,632 8.2 California (06) 2,945 39,512,223 7.5 Connecticut (09) 190 3,565,287 5.3 Rhode Island (44) 48 1,059,361 4.5 Hawaii (15) 62 1,415,872 4.4 New Jersey (34) 368 8,882,190 4.1 New York (36) 804 19,453,561 4.1 Massachusetts (25) 247 6,892,503 3.6 From http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Some people hold opinions on pre-crime approach to crime. Some would even argue that creating lists of potential troublemakers, dissidents, and all around problematic characters is.. not noted for great results throughout history.. including that of US. I personally hold this really controversial opinion that crime should be addressed when crime is committed. Doing it before it is committed breaks the fabric of reality and/or common sense.
    - 8note 5y ago
      The US still has said lists(eg. No fly list and sexual offenders lisssst); are you just more okay with having some people on a precrime list than others?
      - isoskeles 5y ago
        I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I'm against any No Fly lists, both for the pre-crime aspect and for the the opaqueness with which its implemented. Sex offenders, by definition, have committed a crime. So that's not really a pre-crime list. Although, sure, some people may not belong on those lists, and it's pretty life-ruining for them. Your point reads a bit like this: "These injustices exist that you should be against, so why are you supportive of them?"
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
        And I am really uncomfortable with those as well. I am not sure why you would assume I accept those lists and not others for some reason. No fly list in particular is an abomination. That said, given that Delta is creating a its own version ( and asking other cartel members to join ), soon we may be revisiting this conversation.
    - Shacklz 5y ago
      The amount of crimes committed with firearms seems to generally correlate with the ease of access to firearms. Trying to make it less convenient to obtain and own firearms, and this includes registration thereof, generally reduces the amount of firearms in circulation, implicitly also reducing the amount of crimes committed with them. It's like seatbelt-laws, yes, they infringe your personal liberty to do however you pleases, but they also generally help to reduce accidents and, implicitly, reduce cost for society (and not just in terms of money). Again; from my outsider-point-of-view, that the US even has to have these kinds of discussions seems so weird to me. There are way too many people dying in the US because of the absurd amount of guns, not trying to address this with legislation (as every other advanced nation managed to do) seems outright absurd.
- DisjointedHunt 5y ago
  Precisely. Can't wait for employers to include this in their background checks and deny employment if you own a gun. I was going to write a statement saying "I hope they sue and the state of CA is held liable for damages" but then the gravity of that sentence hit me. Why do private citizens wanting to simply enjoy a constitutional right have to go to such lengths to do so? What even if they win the suit? The information is out there legally right now and any one who wishes to use that information to target or harass law abiding citizens is going to be free to do so.
  - isoskeles 5y ago
    I can already picture some public health official explaining to CNN viewership that denying employment because of gun ownership is "technically legal because gun owners are not a protected class." Further, I can picture the countless numbers of individuals repeating that factoid on Twitter and in real life like it's some cheatcode to winning the argument.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
The risk is always the same. Regular people who happen to own guns will eventually have access to that property removed. Actual criminals won't care, because they don't follow the law. It is an old dance, but it placates specific demographic, who is more scared of a tool than of government power.
lambdasquirrel 5y ago
Gun ownership can be politicized. Let’s not be naive. You would not want to be a known gun owner in some social circles of Alameda County, just as much as you wouldn’t want it to be publicly known that you are LGBTQ+ in Calaveras County. Privacy is an important right for good reasons. I don’t own a gun and tend to dislike them. But I work with perfectly fine, sane and normal people who do own guns, and shouldn’t have to be subjected to the judgments of the crowds, just as much as I’ve worked with perfectly fine, sane and normal LGBTQ+ who shouldn’t be subject to the judgments of the crowds.
- loeg 5y ago
  It seems like you're trying to draw an equivalence between being LGBTQ and choosing to own guns?
  - irl_chad 5y ago
    Yes he is, and it seems like you’re upset by that. But his comparison in the context of the fundamental human right to privacy is valid. You have a right to not publish a list of what you own, and you also have a right to not publicly declare your sexuality.
- ErrantOctant 5y ago
  Gun ownership is a choice whereas sexuality and gender identity generally are not. I agree that privacy is important and that there are sensible gun owners out there but this is a poor way to frame the argument.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Are you saying if somebody who is naturally gay chooses to have straight sex it's then okay to publish a list indicating their sexuality? Sex acts being a choice or not is irrelevant.
harlanji 5y ago
If an extra-governmental criminal were to get access to the data and wanted to go steal some specific property they would have an efficient seed dataset to be combined with for example MyLife data which lists addresses and family members given a name to go on holiday with.
bitcuration 5y ago
I believe it's documented already in <<mein kampf>> and the nuremberg trials. Why human lose memory after merely two generations every single time in the history?

Genuinely curious, what do you contemplate/would law abiding citizens be punished for and what is the risk?

by subhro 5y ago

Genuinely curious, what do you contemplate/would law abiding citizens be punished for and what is the risk?

We are witnessing the circulation of mass shame lists designed to deprive people of their livelihood. Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. This legislation will have a similar effect.

Shacklz 5y ago
> Whether or not you agree that the people on these lists deserve to be hurt for their political opinions, many innocent people are also being caught in the crossfire. Not sure if your choice of words is very unfortunate or if there's a sarcastic undertone; because in the US there seem to be way too many innocent people that are caught in the literal crossfire of gun violence. Finding ways to address this with legislation seems, from my non-American point of view, only reasonable - and yes, of course it will also affect and limit people that did not contribute to gun violence; what would your solution be, enforcing it only for people who already committed a crime, so essentially when it's too late to inconvenience them?
- chroem- 5y ago
  The vast majority of firearms that are used in crimes are obtained illegally, and thus will not be subject to these lists. The data on this is widely available. This legislation is purely a punitive political measure.
  - loeg 5y ago
    Illegal guns are former legal guns. S&W doesn't run a factory that only sells to criminals -- those legal guns are diverted to criminals, via the generally lax attitudes of American gun owners.
    - chroem- 5y ago
      And there will certainly be a great influx of illegal guns once you provide thieves with a state-compiled shopping list of where to find them.
      - CompanionCubee 5y ago
        But that will only justify more gun control measures. It's a win-win for them.
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      Indeed. If every gun were registered, and the gun owner (or gun store, or gun manufacturer, whoever last had the registration) faced personal financial/criminal liability when one of their registered guns was used improperly, it would make people take their guns a lot more seriously.
      - LinuxBender 5y ago
        This is already a thing. I had a rifle stolen some time ago. Shortly thereafter shootings occurred on a freeway nearby with a rifle with the exact caliber as mine. The ATF and DEA were at my house for a chat. Luckily for me, the person that stole my rifle was caught and imprisoned and forensics verified that my firearm did not match the one used in the shooting. I was also lucky I saved the docket number from the Sheriff when I reported it stolen. I have since left California and moved to a state where everyone is heavily armed. Now my rifles are pea-shooters in comparison to what everyone else around me has. Firearm crime is a very rare occurrence here.
        sgc 5y ago
        If you are attempting to say that stricter guns laws lead to more firearm deaths, you would be quite wrong. California has one of the lowest rates per capita in the US. This law needs some improvements for sure, but here are the CDC stats for the lowest 10 states (columns are deaths, population, and rate per 100k): Delaware (10) 93 973,764 9.6 Iowa (19) 294 3,155,070 9.3 Minnesota (27) 465 5,639,632 8.2 California (06) 2,945 39,512,223 7.5 Connecticut (09) 190 3,565,287 5.3 Rhode Island (44) 48 1,059,361 4.5 Hawaii (15) 62 1,415,872 4.4 New Jersey (34) 368 8,882,190 4.1 New York (36) 804 19,453,561 4.1 Massachusetts (25) 247 6,892,503 3.6 From http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html http://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Some people hold opinions on pre-crime approach to crime. Some would even argue that creating lists of potential troublemakers, dissidents, and all around problematic characters is.. not noted for great results throughout history.. including that of US. I personally hold this really controversial opinion that crime should be addressed when crime is committed. Doing it before it is committed breaks the fabric of reality and/or common sense.
  - 8note 5y ago
    The US still has said lists(eg. No fly list and sexual offenders lisssst); are you just more okay with having some people on a precrime list than others?
    - isoskeles 5y ago
      I can't speak for the person you're replying to, but I'm against any No Fly lists, both for the pre-crime aspect and for the the opaqueness with which its implemented. Sex offenders, by definition, have committed a crime. So that's not really a pre-crime list. Although, sure, some people may not belong on those lists, and it's pretty life-ruining for them. Your point reads a bit like this: "These injustices exist that you should be against, so why are you supportive of them?"
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
      And I am really uncomfortable with those as well. I am not sure why you would assume I accept those lists and not others for some reason. No fly list in particular is an abomination. That said, given that Delta is creating a its own version ( and asking other cartel members to join ), soon we may be revisiting this conversation.
  - Shacklz 5y ago
    The amount of crimes committed with firearms seems to generally correlate with the ease of access to firearms. Trying to make it less convenient to obtain and own firearms, and this includes registration thereof, generally reduces the amount of firearms in circulation, implicitly also reducing the amount of crimes committed with them. It's like seatbelt-laws, yes, they infringe your personal liberty to do however you pleases, but they also generally help to reduce accidents and, implicitly, reduce cost for society (and not just in terms of money). Again; from my outsider-point-of-view, that the US even has to have these kinds of discussions seems so weird to me. There are way too many people dying in the US because of the absurd amount of guns, not trying to address this with legislation (as every other advanced nation managed to do) seems outright absurd.
DisjointedHunt 5y ago
Precisely. Can't wait for employers to include this in their background checks and deny employment if you own a gun. I was going to write a statement saying "I hope they sue and the state of CA is held liable for damages" but then the gravity of that sentence hit me. Why do private citizens wanting to simply enjoy a constitutional right have to go to such lengths to do so? What even if they win the suit? The information is out there legally right now and any one who wishes to use that information to target or harass law abiding citizens is going to be free to do so.
- isoskeles 5y ago
  I can already picture some public health official explaining to CNN viewership that denying employment because of gun ownership is "technically legal because gun owners are not a protected class." Further, I can picture the countless numbers of individuals repeating that factoid on Twitter and in real life like it's some cheatcode to winning the argument.

A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago

The risk is always the same. Regular people who happen to own guns will eventually have access to that property removed. Actual criminals won't care, because they don't follow the law. It is an old dance, but it placates specific demographic, who is more scared of a tool than of government power.

lambdasquirrel 5y ago

Gun ownership can be politicized. Let’s not be naive. You would not want to be a known gun owner in some social circles of Alameda County, just as much as you wouldn’t want it to be publicly known that you are LGBTQ+ in Calaveras County. Privacy is an important right for good reasons. I don’t own a gun and tend to dislike them. But I work with perfectly fine, sane and normal people who do own guns, and shouldn’t have to be subjected to the judgments of the crowds, just as much as I’ve worked with perfectly fine, sane and normal LGBTQ+ who shouldn’t be subject to the judgments of the crowds.

loeg 5y ago
It seems like you're trying to draw an equivalence between being LGBTQ and choosing to own guns?
- irl_chad 5y ago
  Yes he is, and it seems like you’re upset by that. But his comparison in the context of the fundamental human right to privacy is valid. You have a right to not publish a list of what you own, and you also have a right to not publicly declare your sexuality.
ErrantOctant 5y ago
Gun ownership is a choice whereas sexuality and gender identity generally are not. I agree that privacy is important and that there are sensible gun owners out there but this is a poor way to frame the argument.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Are you saying if somebody who is naturally gay chooses to have straight sex it's then okay to publish a list indicating their sexuality? Sex acts being a choice or not is irrelevant.

harlanji 5y ago

If an extra-governmental criminal were to get access to the data and wanted to go steal some specific property they would have an efficient seed dataset to be combined with for example MyLife data which lists addresses and family members given a name to go on holiday with.

bitcuration 5y ago

I believe it's documented already in <<mein kampf>> and the nuremberg trials. Why human lose memory after merely two generations every single time in the history?