3 ms·

I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public pr

I believe the paranoia is misplaced. I'm not aware of a single instance in the whole history of the US where a citizen was targeted by members of the public primarily on the basis of their owning a gun (or holding a permit)--are you?

refurb 4y ago
https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/in...
- esrauch 4y ago
  What is they point of your link? The information was made public, but no one whose information was disclosed had any known negative outcomes of that happening. It seems like evidence that a registry is fine: apparently even when a registry is public it didn't result in the owners being "targeted", so a private registry visible only to law enforcement would be surely even safer than that.
  - idiotsecant 4y ago
    I think you're being disingenuous here. Having your name and address attached to a story about how damaging you are to society is not desirable, and if you can't acknowledge that I think you're not arguing from an honest place. Imagine whatever opinion you might have that is controversial, even mildly so. Now imagine that a new story about how that opinion makes you dangerous to society also includes your name and address in it. I think the harm here need not be a physical attack on someone, intentional intimidation is a mild form of violence itself.
    - esrauch 4y ago
      > attached to a story about how damaging you are to society I reread the cnn link again and I still don't know about the article you're referring to; from the text of the CNN article it sounds like it was solely a map and all of the other quotes are from people worried about the potential harm like burglaries. The CNN article doesn't actually even say the names or specific addresses of the gun owners was published, it only describes a map with dots. Overall I'm not sure that that map is actually more risky than a map of where the atheists live, and we don't stop collecting that info on the census. The census data has never been leak published to my knowledge. So even if it is true that example of a published map was a horrible safety violation, that only means that the data shouldn't be available to journalists, which is different than saying the data shouldn't be allowed to be known by anyone in government. The census and IRS are examples of the government being able to maintain secrets, so I don't buy the idea that it would be inevitably leaked if a gun registry had similar legal protections. And it doesn't seem to support some risk of evil powerful people who are going to do something nefarious with this data once they get into power, which is what the thread above is about.

refurb 4y ago

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/in...

esrauch 4y ago
What is they point of your link? The information was made public, but no one whose information was disclosed had any known negative outcomes of that happening. It seems like evidence that a registry is fine: apparently even when a registry is public it didn't result in the owners being "targeted", so a private registry visible only to law enforcement would be surely even safer than that.
- idiotsecant 4y ago
  I think you're being disingenuous here. Having your name and address attached to a story about how damaging you are to society is not desirable, and if you can't acknowledge that I think you're not arguing from an honest place. Imagine whatever opinion you might have that is controversial, even mildly so. Now imagine that a new story about how that opinion makes you dangerous to society also includes your name and address in it. I think the harm here need not be a physical attack on someone, intentional intimidation is a mild form of violence itself.
  - esrauch 4y ago
    > attached to a story about how damaging you are to society I reread the cnn link again and I still don't know about the article you're referring to; from the text of the CNN article it sounds like it was solely a map and all of the other quotes are from people worried about the potential harm like burglaries. The CNN article doesn't actually even say the names or specific addresses of the gun owners was published, it only describes a map with dots. Overall I'm not sure that that map is actually more risky than a map of where the atheists live, and we don't stop collecting that info on the census. The census data has never been leak published to my knowledge. So even if it is true that example of a published map was a horrible safety violation, that only means that the data shouldn't be available to journalists, which is different than saying the data shouldn't be allowed to be known by anyone in government. The census and IRS are examples of the government being able to maintain secrets, so I don't buy the idea that it would be inevitably leaked if a gun registry had similar legal protections. And it doesn't seem to support some risk of evil powerful people who are going to do something nefarious with this data once they get into power, which is what the thread above is about.