23 ms·

For those that don't understand the implication of this: Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. By included such detailed information on who's a regis

by yardie 4y ago

For those that don't understand the implication of this: Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. By included such detailed information on who's a registered gun owner, where they live, etc. It makes the gun owner a lucrative target. I'm staunchly pro regulation but this even I can't understand. Like someone just did SELECT * FROM GunOwnersDB and pushed is straight to the web.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
It's 2022. Every web dev knows you don't just spit out PII on your website. But everybody involved kept their mouth shut because they thought to themselves "this is dumb, but I'm not responsible for it and if I try and champion the cause of fixing it I will be" and so they took it to prod. These sorts of "incentive to not rock the boat" or "it will take me months to get clarification on this requirement" type failures are rife in government bureaucracy. Edit: Clearly I'm wrong and this is all malice from top to bottom /s Use your f-ing brains. You think someone is gonna risk their cushy government job to dox a bunch of gun owners and the managers are gonna risk their jobs signing off on it?
- tmp_anon_22 4y ago
  Thats complete speculation.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  I don't think GP had any way to actually know or think the code involved did a "SELECT *", he was just using that as a clever jokey way of saying "looks like they published all the details they had on gun owners?"
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    Whether they selected * is immaterial. The requirement probably said "publish all", or something along those lines and the person who did it had probably been burned in the past when they had tried to do anything other than implementing requirements like a dumb robot so they rolled their eyes and implemented requirements like a dumb robot while counting down the days to retirement. Somewhere there's probably a closed Jira ticket in which they covered their ass.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      OK you've significantly edited your comment since I replied to it, replacing the part I was replying to, my reply is no longer relevant to it.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    There was a map with pushpins and if you clicked them, it showed the names and addresses of all the registered gun owners. It was probably a _lot_ more involved than "SELECT *"
- lamontcg 4y ago
  I think it is more likely the web devs didn't know or care what they were doing and they were just working on contract and they were told to put a button there so they put a button there. The middle management responsible for it probably fucked it up due to simple negligence and not carefully reading a stack of requirements and just not being at all engaged in the broader issues other than delivery. Someone who actual gave a shit probably got a few sentences into the requirements doc somewhere around access controls and PII concerns, but it was not called out clearly and just missed. But yeah whatever really happened I'm quite certain that "the government of California just DELIBERATELY and with MALICE doxxed all the judges with carry permit" is the argument which needs to be met with "that's a hilariously large load of speculation".
- robonerd 4y ago
  > You think someone is gonna risk their cushy government job to dox a bunch of gun owners I doubt anybody will lose their jobs for this as long as there is even a modicum of plausible deniability (every unruly child knows the "it was an accident" excuse, but somehow adults seem to conveniently forget about it in cases like this.)
themaninthedark 4y ago
I wonder if any of the gun owners will file suit for Doxing, that is illegal in CA AFIK. Also, this is why I dislike government databases.
- falcrist 4y ago
  This seems like a reason to dislike all databases that hold this kind of information. These days, your personal info is at the mercy of your bank, your ISP, and a number of other entities who could leak data at any time just by being slightly complacent with security. It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to haul tons of paper around and go through it manually.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    >This seems like a reason to dislike all databases that hold this kind of information Yeah, we wouldn't want the ability to pay people what they're owed, or what they've given to Social Security when it's time for payouts, or what people have criminal convictions for various crimes, or who owns what license plate, or who is registered to vote, because we want all those things to be as wild, wild west as possible. right? No need to track how much money you have in the bank, you can just trust them. No need to track how much you've paid off a loan, you can trust them to tell you when they feel like it. No accountability, no tracking, complete ignorance on everyone and everything... Or we can have databases because they are extremely useful for a modern, well functioning society, and try to mitigate negatives as much as possible. >It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to haul tons of paper around and go through it manually. You mean longer ago than most people have been alive? When things were vastly slower, making them unusable with the numbers of people we serve now? When you paid more for most things since the slowness and overhead of every was also people having to go through all the records manually to get things done? Good idea. We can set mankind back nearly 100 years, or if we really try, let's push us back before any automation.
    - falcrist 4y ago
      Why are you coming at me with strawman arguments. Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? No. I said this is a reason to dislike them. Did I say we should go back to using paper recordkeeping for everything? No. Again, that was never argued. Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the Butlerian Jihad?
lettergram 4y ago
It’s funny, because in Illinois there was a fight over making the list of gun owners public. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-officials-spar-over-order-to-make-list-of-gun-owners-public https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-officials-spar-ove...
- xdennis 4y ago
  If you're wondering how that ended, they passed a bill to keep the names private. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-house-approves-bill-keeping-names-of-gun-owners-private https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-house-approves-bil... One thing I dislike about the news is that every article drops you into a situation, but you don't know how it ended up like that or what happened afterwards. It would be nice if some modern news site placed stories on a timeline.
SkyMarshal 4y ago
>It makes the gun owner a lucrative target. Doesn't it do the opposite though? It gives criminals a map of exactly who they shouldn't rob, lest they risk getting shot. I imagine criminals will go after the softest, easiest targets, not the hardened, well-armed ones. >Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. Are you sure about that? I thought it was more via buying guns in states where they're easy to get and which don't keep registrations or records, then illegally, covertly transporting them across state lines, and then sometimes removing/filing serial numbers and other identifying info.
- WaxProlix 4y ago
  Not at all, because, as OP mentions, the guns themselves are especially lucrative targets.
- noah_buddy 4y ago
  In the city I reside in, trucks are targeted specifically because many truck owners have guns in the glove box. Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean you’re always around to use it.
  - supercanuck 4y ago
    that's comforting to know.
  - jmspring 4y ago
    Just because you own a gun, using it is not without ramifications. In high school, my driver's ed instructor (here in California) said (jokingly) if you screw up and hit a person, you better hope they die. The implications of a death on your hands is a bounded lawsuit / jail problem. Someone surviving is a much less constrained problem. While crass, it made a point. If you shoot someone in self defense and they are killed, you are dealing with voluntary manslaughter as the most likely charge, argue accordingly. If they survive, they get the opportunity to muddy the waters.
  - twothamendment 4y ago
    I've never understood the glove box gun. Either carry it on your person or leave it home in the safe.
jstarfish 4y ago
Plenty of them already out themselves by slapping NRA stickers on their cars and refusing to STFU about their stockpiles.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  Surely you can see a difference between someone choosing to announce “I own a gun” and a state published database of gun owners?
- jmspring 4y ago
  And some are just 2a and happen to have voted for Bernie. But yes, there are many that like to brag.
- brandonmenc 4y ago
  About a third of adults own a gun. Does every third car you see have an NRA sticker? Not even close. Because most people aren't trying to advertise it.
- quarantaseih 4y ago
  The vast majority of us are quite shy about our guns. The stats are obvious. About half of households in the US have guns. Do half of cars have NRA stickers? A quarter? One in ten? Gun owners are shy. Thats why we prefer concealed carry instead of open carry.
  - splintercell 4y ago
    > About half of households in the US have guns I was not able to find a good state on this one. Some stats are reporting a stat from 30 to 40% of ownership with data jumping up and down every alternate year, whereas others are porting 20-something percent ownership. About half of households in US having guns means gun control issue being totally dead.
    - quarantaseih 4y ago
      Good comment! I was hesitant to put a number. Thats why I chose "household". But its pretty close to the right figure (probably closer to the low to mid 40s). No one knows how many guns there are in America (more than one per person though) and who owns them. We know its mostly men, with a significant, increasing, number of women. Minorities are also increasing their share of legal gun ownership. About 20%-30% of the adult population owns a gun, but many women don't say they "own a gun" if their husbands own one - guns are, for many reasons, very much "personal" property. It's the husband's gun or the house's gun, not necessarily hers [1]. However, in my experience talking to other gun owners, the wives support or encourage their continued ownership. Hence "household" ownership estimated somewhere about a third to half. (Its actually probably closer to the mid to low 40s, but varies regionally. Chicago has very little legal handgun ownership, Kennesaw GA has basically universal gun ownership.) Furthermore a lot of Americans own a gun without considering themselves a "gun owner". The single shot .22lr they got for their 12th birthday. The Ruger 10/22 that was passed down. An emotional relic they cling to that is still very much a firearm. Then there is the "shy conservative" who will lie on a survey. This to say, there is a significant amount of people with guns who will answer "no" to a survey question about gun ownership. I think the best way to gauge this, an to your point about gun control, is its electoral significance. Democrats aren't really affected at the pols for failing to deliver gun control, but Republicans are demolished if they waver a little bit (note every GOP senator who voted for bill is retiring or not up for election). I think this hints that gun ownership and tolerance is widespread among the GOP and independents. [1] imagine 250 lb hubby has a double stacked 10mm and is married to a 90lb petite. The physics doesn't work. Even myself, Id love for my wife to come to the range one day, but Ill have to rent her a smaller pistol - the 92 has a very large grip even for me.
drc37 4y ago
If I were the bad guys, I would look for the houses without the guns first. Much easier targets. I feel like this puts everyone without a gun at risk. I hope every gun owner in CA sue him up and down.
- ejb999 4y ago
  not if you are hoping to steal guns.
- bluedino 4y ago
  The bad guys steal from gun stores as well
- ruste 4y ago
  Most burglaries happen when the occupant isn't home. Unsurprisingly burglars don't like people to be there when they break in. Guns don't operate themselves so it's not crazy to think that people who have them would have their homes targeted.
  - coredog64 4y ago
    If you break into an unoccupied house, that’s burglary and is a relatively minor crime. If you enter an occupied house, it’s more likely to be considered robbery which is considered to be a serious violent crime.
albertopv 4y ago
So you are safer if you don't have a gun? Did I understand correctly?
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Sure but that's always been the case. People with guns at home shoot themselves, their spouses, or are shot with their own gun by burglars, at a rate obviously greater than that of people without guns at home. People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people.
  - doitLP 4y ago
    “Normal people”? Your bias is showing. 42% of US households have at least one gun.
    - supercanuck 4y ago
      25 percent of California adults live in households with firearms.
  - joshgachnang 4y ago
    You're being downvoted (or were when I commented) but that last part is absolutely what the data say, and I've seen data that say the rates are much higher than triple vs non-gun owners. Lots of suicides are in the heat of the moment and when there isn't an easy, painless way to kill yourself, you don't (e.g. if you take a lot of pills, you have a window where you can realize you don't want to die and call 911). Of course there will be people who plan it out and go through with it in other ways.
  - ChrisLomont 4y ago
    CDC report under Obama demonstrated those with guns at home have much less physical injury during home invasion than those without guns. >People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people. Those studies are widely known to have serious statistical problems since those with suicidal tendencies also may purchase a gun, completely breaking the independent variable requirement to make such a claim. [1] for example at least addresses that these are real issues. Also, Japan's suicide rate, without guns, is larger than the US suicide and homicide rates combined. I think you're pushing as true things that are not demonstrated, and may well be untrue. [1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...
sha256sum 4y ago
> Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. Cool do you have any evidence or a citation to back up the claim. I’m surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the black market. Edit: Instead of downvoting, provide the source. Edit2: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g... > An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.
- mulmen 4y ago
  And where do you think black markets source their wares?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - falcrist 4y ago
    As has been stated elsewhere, straw purchases are probably a major source. Smuggling is possible too. I couldn't say how these compare to theft, because I've never seen any solid data on the topic.
    - SkinTaco 4y ago
      - falcrist 4y ago
        By "a lot of opinions" you seem to mean that I gave two suggestions of possible sources of firearms, and then openly admitted I don't know how they compare to theft. Would you rather I have simply stated those two sources and omitted the part about not having the data to compare the quantity of firearms obtained through those sources? Do you have access to data we could use to make this comparison?
omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago
Most criminals get guns through straw purchases. This is still a big screw up, but overall, the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to better regulate sales. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g... > An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. > In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.
- xbar 4y ago
  This is irrelevant.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  Straw purchases are already illegal. There is no regulation that can actually stop it.
  - mrunkel 4y ago
    So is stealing from people’s homes? I don’t get your point.
    - pc86 4y ago
      I think they're asking how regulating sales will prevent straw purchases when straw purchases are already illegal, so presumably additional regulation won't do anything more. If you're convicted of a straw purchase you won't be able to legally purchase anymore.
      - HideousKojima 4y ago
        And also the vast majority of straw purchases and lying on background check forms are not prosecuted in the first place, despite there being clear evidence for a slam dunk case. Hell, if you're the president's son you can lie on a 4473, have your girlfriend steal the gun and throw it in a dumpster, and then write a book about it and you won't get prosecuted.
jmspring 4y ago
It also enables the relatively easy cross compare with dealer record of sales (DROS) to know what the owners may have. This isn't good.
31835843 4y ago
There are so many guns in this country (far more than people) that criminals don’t need this database and don’t need to rob someone to get a gun.
hintymad 4y ago
Is this leak intentional, as in we can anything because we are righteous?
- jmspring 4y ago
  There is a belief that this was intentional. There were "threats" by CA DoJ to release this information a few years back "in the public interest".
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  The AG said they were releasing the data for "increased transparency", so it seems like pretty clear retaliation for the recent CCW Supreme Court decision
  - Clubber 4y ago
    When people make emotional decisions like that, it scares the hell out of me. They don't think of the repercussions. That stunt will probably get several people killed. I hope the leaker gets prosecuted.
bb88 4y ago
I feel conflicted on this. > It makes the gun owner a lucrative target. I mean, on one side they're saying that owning guns is necessary to protect their property. But now they're saying that owning guns makes them a target for crime? To me it seems like they're trying to have it both ways on this. > Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. Private transactions are still legal. The gun show loophole is still around. Buying a gun and gifting it is legal.
- wyager 4y ago
  > But now they're saying that owning guns makes them a target for crime? They're saying that the government leaking their personal information makes them a target for crime. Is this comment a joke? I'm having trouble believing that anyone could seriously view this as somehow indicating that gun owners are hypocritical. I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to track and subsequently leak their personal details. If you're being serious, this is some of the (unintentionally) funniest sophistry I've seen in a while. > Private transactions are still legal. If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally buy a gun privately.
  - seadan83 4y ago
    > They're saying that the government leaking their personal information makes them a target for crime Why is this? Are we talking about burglars who want the valuable guns? That does seem odd as the number two deterrent to burglary is knowledge that the home-owner has a gun (the number on apparently are large dogs). If the above is the case, the idea is that a burglar will scan this list for nearby homes and target them? On the basis that they have a gun alone (which again, is the number two deterrent to burglary). Plus, there is a lot of precedent that it takes almost nothing to use deadly force against an intruder and have zero consequences. > I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to track and subsequently leak their personal details. I'm guessing that California gun owners are perhaps amongst those who particularly do not want their personal details leaked. There are all sorts of reasons to not want that for anyone. This argument though of "we're now bigger targets for crime", when they have guns to "prevent" that crime, I can't reconcile that. So is the gun a deterrent, or not? I can think of a lot of other things that would make someone the target for burglary, like having a 4 car garage and gated fence. > If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally buy a gun privately. While that is the case, if there is no obligation to run a background check (gun-show loophole) - then how do you prevent these people from purchasing guns? The loophole is not that it's legal or illegal, the loophole is that someone is obtaining a gun that shouldn't.
threatofrain 4y ago
I believe that American crime literature indicates that the presence of guns offers general protective effects against home robberies for the entire region, and that the visible presence of alarms offers very specific protective effects for that home alone (while pushing the crime to other homes), and that the presence of invisible alarms confers a modicum of protection to the region. I'm inclined to believe that this will push home robberies onto those without guns.
lightlyused 4y ago
Ham radio ops have had their information public for years, lot's of expensive radio equipment to be had. I don't understand the issue here.
- jasonladuke0311 4y ago
  Do you think your average criminal would rather have a gun, or HAM radio equipment?
- chmod600 4y ago
  I think you just fundamentally misunderstand human nature, the criminal mind, and the overall practicality of running a criminal enterprise even if you assume well-informed rational actors. If you get burglarized, your ham radio equipment probably won't get stolen. And if it does, it's a crime of opportunity, not because someone found you in a database and somehow knew you had the good equipment. But sometimes criminals are desperate for guns, or the quick cash that guns can bring. You don't want desperate, potentially violent criminals finding out that your house has exactly what they are desperate for. If they want the cash, they could even prearrange a fence based on the database search. That's a little too convenient.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Is a gun really an easier profit flip than grappling a laptop or phone (more common than guns), or shoplifting a store (rarely prosecuted)?
  - lightlyused 4y ago
    "If you get burglarized, your ham radio equipment probably won't get stolen. And if it does, it's a crime of opportunity, not because someone found you in a database and somehow knew you had the good equipment." I think you missed the premise here: ham radio equipment = $$$, open registry of people who may have ham radio equipment available for years, chance of having other expensive things very likely, correlation to crime and open registry of names pretty much zero. The article is just trying to foment a controversy when there isn't one.
zorpner 4y ago
bluedino 4y ago
A study of crime scenes in Pittsburgh, PA, found that more than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen.x Fabio A, Duell J, Creppage K, O’Donnell K, Laporte R. Gaps continue in firearm surveillance: Evidence from a large U.S. City Bureau of Police. Social Medicine. 2016; 10(1).
more_corn 4y ago
Robbing the home of a gun owner is a double edged sword. You know there’s a gun in there that you might want. You don’t know if it’s pointed at your head.
plandis 4y ago
Doesn’t seem any different than accessing public records to see house sale transactions and then going and robbing people who spent a lot on their home?
- b5n 4y ago
  I haven't viewed the whole thread, but one thing I haven't seen any discussion on is how dangerous this is for survivors of abuse. It's not uncommon for victims of domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, etc. to apply for CCW as a means of defense. Their address and other PII was made immediately available to the general public, _including their abuser_. I've not submitted a PRI in the state of CA (which is what I believe is required for CCW data), but based on privacy laws I assume they're not handing out addresses on a whim.
brightball 4y ago
Leaks like this are one of the main reasons national registries get opposed. A few years back there was a paper in NY that published a Google map with similar data IIRC. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-after-ny-newspaper-publishes-gun-holders-names-addresses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-after-ny-newspaper-publ...
throwaway894345 4y ago
It's either gross incompetence or the AG cares less about gun crime than he does about spiting gun owners.
ransom1538 4y ago
"Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery." True. But, not BY robbing people on the CCW list. That is a damn death wish. CCW is a privilege in CA. CCW permits are difficult to get, a large portion is issued to ex-police and judges. CCW holders practice at the gun range as it is required to pass and hold the CCW. EG. There isn't dust on their pistol. God help you in court - if you are standing there charged with armed burglary of another judges / officers house [with CCW].
throwaway81523 4y ago
Apparently (based on Reddit posts) the DOJ used some kind of graph or map generation package to create the statistical summary that they put on the web. The package worked by accessing the raw data (complete with PII) and producing summaries and a map from it. It also inserted a helpful link to download the raw data. Oops. And that the raw data was reachable from the public-facing server at all was a double oops. And that the web dev department had access to the raw data rather than having it compartmentalized (presuming this happened) seems like a triple oops. I don't know if the map was dynamically generated from the data on every page load (thus requiring the data to be there), but the slowness of the server suggests maybe it was. Another good reason to use static sites unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. This database only went through 2021, so it wasn't changing.
YeBanKo 4y ago
Last year Californian passed the bill that allows the release of the entire registry with PII to any research institution [1], that studies gun violence. So not only they leaked it themselves, but they also made sure that a grad or undergrad student at one of the universities can loose a flash drive with a info about all gun owners in California. [1] https://thereload.com/new-california-bill-would-allow-the-release-of-gun-owners-personal-information/ https://thereload.com/new-california-bill-would-allow-the-re...

by yardie 4y ago

throwaway0a5e 4y ago

It's 2022. Every web dev knows you don't just spit out PII on your website. But everybody involved kept their mouth shut because they thought to themselves "this is dumb, but I'm not responsible for it and if I try and champion the cause of fixing it I will be" and so they took it to prod. These sorts of "incentive to not rock the boat" or "it will take me months to get clarification on this requirement" type failures are rife in government bureaucracy. Edit: Clearly I'm wrong and this is all malice from top to bottom /s Use your f-ing brains. You think someone is gonna risk their cushy government job to dox a bunch of gun owners and the managers are gonna risk their jobs signing off on it?

tmp_anon_22 4y ago
Thats complete speculation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
jrochkind1 4y ago
I don't think GP had any way to actually know or think the code involved did a "SELECT *", he was just using that as a clever jokey way of saying "looks like they published all the details they had on gun owners?"
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Whether they selected * is immaterial. The requirement probably said "publish all", or something along those lines and the person who did it had probably been burned in the past when they had tried to do anything other than implementing requirements like a dumb robot so they rolled their eyes and implemented requirements like a dumb robot while counting down the days to retirement. Somewhere there's probably a closed Jira ticket in which they covered their ass.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    OK you've significantly edited your comment since I replied to it, replacing the part I was replying to, my reply is no longer relevant to it.
- bmelton 4y ago
  There was a map with pushpins and if you clicked them, it showed the names and addresses of all the registered gun owners. It was probably a _lot_ more involved than "SELECT *"
lamontcg 4y ago
I think it is more likely the web devs didn't know or care what they were doing and they were just working on contract and they were told to put a button there so they put a button there. The middle management responsible for it probably fucked it up due to simple negligence and not carefully reading a stack of requirements and just not being at all engaged in the broader issues other than delivery. Someone who actual gave a shit probably got a few sentences into the requirements doc somewhere around access controls and PII concerns, but it was not called out clearly and just missed. But yeah whatever really happened I'm quite certain that "the government of California just DELIBERATELY and with MALICE doxxed all the judges with carry permit" is the argument which needs to be met with "that's a hilariously large load of speculation".
robonerd 4y ago
> You think someone is gonna risk their cushy government job to dox a bunch of gun owners I doubt anybody will lose their jobs for this as long as there is even a modicum of plausible deniability (every unruly child knows the "it was an accident" excuse, but somehow adults seem to conveniently forget about it in cases like this.)

themaninthedark 4y ago

I wonder if any of the gun owners will file suit for Doxing, that is illegal in CA AFIK. Also, this is why I dislike government databases.

falcrist 4y ago
This seems like a reason to dislike all databases that hold this kind of information. These days, your personal info is at the mercy of your bank, your ISP, and a number of other entities who could leak data at any time just by being slightly complacent with security. It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to haul tons of paper around and go through it manually.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  >This seems like a reason to dislike all databases that hold this kind of information Yeah, we wouldn't want the ability to pay people what they're owed, or what they've given to Social Security when it's time for payouts, or what people have criminal convictions for various crimes, or who owns what license plate, or who is registered to vote, because we want all those things to be as wild, wild west as possible. right? No need to track how much money you have in the bank, you can just trust them. No need to track how much you've paid off a loan, you can trust them to tell you when they feel like it. No accountability, no tracking, complete ignorance on everyone and everything... Or we can have databases because they are extremely useful for a modern, well functioning society, and try to mitigate negatives as much as possible. >It's not like the old days where an attacker would have to haul tons of paper around and go through it manually. You mean longer ago than most people have been alive? When things were vastly slower, making them unusable with the numbers of people we serve now? When you paid more for most things since the slowness and overhead of every was also people having to go through all the records manually to get things done? Good idea. We can set mankind back nearly 100 years, or if we really try, let's push us back before any automation.
  - falcrist 4y ago
    Why are you coming at me with strawman arguments. Did I say we should stop using databases altogether? No. I said this is a reason to dislike them. Did I say we should go back to using paper recordkeeping for everything? No. Again, that was never argued. Have you considered that maybe there's a middle-ground between collecting, trading, and analyzing every possible scrap of data we can squeeze out of people... and the Butlerian Jihad?

lettergram 4y ago

It’s funny, because in Illinois there was a fight over making the list of gun owners public. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-officials-spar-over-order-to-make-list-of-gun-owners-public https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-officials-spar-ove...

xdennis 4y ago
If you're wondering how that ended, they passed a bill to keep the names private. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-house-approves-bill-keeping-names-of-gun-owners-private https://www.foxnews.com/politics/illinois-house-approves-bil... One thing I dislike about the news is that every article drops you into a situation, but you don't know how it ended up like that or what happened afterwards. It would be nice if some modern news site placed stories on a timeline.

SkyMarshal 4y ago

>It makes the gun owner a lucrative target. Doesn't it do the opposite though? It gives criminals a map of exactly who they shouldn't rob, lest they risk getting shot. I imagine criminals will go after the softest, easiest targets, not the hardened, well-armed ones. >Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. Are you sure about that? I thought it was more via buying guns in states where they're easy to get and which don't keep registrations or records, then illegally, covertly transporting them across state lines, and then sometimes removing/filing serial numbers and other identifying info.

WaxProlix 4y ago
Not at all, because, as OP mentions, the guns themselves are especially lucrative targets.
noah_buddy 4y ago
In the city I reside in, trucks are targeted specifically because many truck owners have guns in the glove box. Just because you have a gun doesn’t mean you’re always around to use it.
- supercanuck 4y ago
  that's comforting to know.
- jmspring 4y ago
  Just because you own a gun, using it is not without ramifications. In high school, my driver's ed instructor (here in California) said (jokingly) if you screw up and hit a person, you better hope they die. The implications of a death on your hands is a bounded lawsuit / jail problem. Someone surviving is a much less constrained problem. While crass, it made a point. If you shoot someone in self defense and they are killed, you are dealing with voluntary manslaughter as the most likely charge, argue accordingly. If they survive, they get the opportunity to muddy the waters.
- twothamendment 4y ago
  I've never understood the glove box gun. Either carry it on your person or leave it home in the safe.

jstarfish 4y ago

Plenty of them already out themselves by slapping NRA stickers on their cars and refusing to STFU about their stockpiles.

sokoloff 4y ago
Surely you can see a difference between someone choosing to announce “I own a gun” and a state published database of gun owners?
jmspring 4y ago
And some are just 2a and happen to have voted for Bernie. But yes, there are many that like to brag.
brandonmenc 4y ago
About a third of adults own a gun. Does every third car you see have an NRA sticker? Not even close. Because most people aren't trying to advertise it.
quarantaseih 4y ago
The vast majority of us are quite shy about our guns. The stats are obvious. About half of households in the US have guns. Do half of cars have NRA stickers? A quarter? One in ten? Gun owners are shy. Thats why we prefer concealed carry instead of open carry.
- splintercell 4y ago
  > About half of households in the US have guns I was not able to find a good state on this one. Some stats are reporting a stat from 30 to 40% of ownership with data jumping up and down every alternate year, whereas others are porting 20-something percent ownership. About half of households in US having guns means gun control issue being totally dead.
  - quarantaseih 4y ago
    Good comment! I was hesitant to put a number. Thats why I chose "household". But its pretty close to the right figure (probably closer to the low to mid 40s). No one knows how many guns there are in America (more than one per person though) and who owns them. We know its mostly men, with a significant, increasing, number of women. Minorities are also increasing their share of legal gun ownership. About 20%-30% of the adult population owns a gun, but many women don't say they "own a gun" if their husbands own one - guns are, for many reasons, very much "personal" property. It's the husband's gun or the house's gun, not necessarily hers [1]. However, in my experience talking to other gun owners, the wives support or encourage their continued ownership. Hence "household" ownership estimated somewhere about a third to half. (Its actually probably closer to the mid to low 40s, but varies regionally. Chicago has very little legal handgun ownership, Kennesaw GA has basically universal gun ownership.) Furthermore a lot of Americans own a gun without considering themselves a "gun owner". The single shot .22lr they got for their 12th birthday. The Ruger 10/22 that was passed down. An emotional relic they cling to that is still very much a firearm. Then there is the "shy conservative" who will lie on a survey. This to say, there is a significant amount of people with guns who will answer "no" to a survey question about gun ownership. I think the best way to gauge this, an to your point about gun control, is its electoral significance. Democrats aren't really affected at the pols for failing to deliver gun control, but Republicans are demolished if they waver a little bit (note every GOP senator who voted for bill is retiring or not up for election). I think this hints that gun ownership and tolerance is widespread among the GOP and independents. [1] imagine 250 lb hubby has a double stacked 10mm and is married to a 90lb petite. The physics doesn't work. Even myself, Id love for my wife to come to the range one day, but Ill have to rent her a smaller pistol - the 92 has a very large grip even for me.

drc37 4y ago

If I were the bad guys, I would look for the houses without the guns first. Much easier targets. I feel like this puts everyone without a gun at risk. I hope every gun owner in CA sue him up and down.

ejb999 4y ago
not if you are hoping to steal guns.
bluedino 4y ago
The bad guys steal from gun stores as well
ruste 4y ago
Most burglaries happen when the occupant isn't home. Unsurprisingly burglars don't like people to be there when they break in. Guns don't operate themselves so it's not crazy to think that people who have them would have their homes targeted.
- coredog64 4y ago
  If you break into an unoccupied house, that’s burglary and is a relatively minor crime. If you enter an occupied house, it’s more likely to be considered robbery which is considered to be a serious violent crime.

albertopv 4y ago

So you are safer if you don't have a gun? Did I understand correctly?

jeffbee 4y ago
Sure but that's always been the case. People with guns at home shoot themselves, their spouses, or are shot with their own gun by burglars, at a rate obviously greater than that of people without guns at home. People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people.
- doitLP 4y ago
  “Normal people”? Your bias is showing. 42% of US households have at least one gun.
  - supercanuck 4y ago
    25 percent of California adults live in households with firearms.
- joshgachnang 4y ago
  You're being downvoted (or were when I commented) but that last part is absolutely what the data say, and I've seen data that say the rates are much higher than triple vs non-gun owners. Lots of suicides are in the heat of the moment and when there isn't an easy, painless way to kill yourself, you don't (e.g. if you take a lot of pills, you have a window where you can realize you don't want to die and call 911). Of course there will be people who plan it out and go through with it in other ways.
- ChrisLomont 4y ago
  CDC report under Obama demonstrated those with guns at home have much less physical injury during home invasion than those without guns. >People with guns at home kill themselves at triple the rate of normal people. Those studies are widely known to have serious statistical problems since those with suicidal tendencies also may purchase a gun, completely breaking the independent variable requirement to make such a claim. [1] for example at least addresses that these are real issues. Also, Japan's suicide rate, without guns, is larger than the US suicide and homicide rates combined. I think you're pushing as true things that are not demonstrated, and may well be untrue. [1] https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-availability-suicide.html https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/fir...

sha256sum 4y ago

> Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. Cool do you have any evidence or a citation to back up the claim. I’m surprised, seems more likely they would buy off the black market. Edit: Instead of downvoting, provide the source. Edit2: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g... > An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal.

mulmen 4y ago
And where do you think black markets source their wares?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- falcrist 4y ago
  As has been stated elsewhere, straw purchases are probably a major source. Smuggling is possible too. I couldn't say how these compare to theft, because I've never seen any solid data on the topic.
  - SkinTaco 4y ago
    - falcrist 4y ago
      By "a lot of opinions" you seem to mean that I gave two suggestions of possible sources of firearms, and then openly admitted I don't know how they compare to theft. Would you rather I have simply stated those two sources and omitted the part about not having the data to compare the quantity of firearms obtained through those sources? Do you have access to data we could use to make this comparison?

omgwtfbyobbq 4y ago

Most criminals get guns through straw purchases. This is still a big screw up, but overall, the best way to keep guns out of the hands of criminals is to better regulate sales. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/g... > An expert on crime gun patterns, ATF agent Jay Wachtel says that most guns used in crimes are not stolen out of private gun owners' homes and cars. "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," Wachtel said. Because when they want guns they want them immediately the wait is usually too long for a weapon to be stolen and find its way to a criminal. > In fact, there are a number of sources that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands, with gun thefts at the bottom of the list. Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales.

xbar 4y ago
This is irrelevant.
jaywalk 4y ago
Straw purchases are already illegal. There is no regulation that can actually stop it.
- mrunkel 4y ago
  So is stealing from people’s homes? I don’t get your point.
  - pc86 4y ago
    I think they're asking how regulating sales will prevent straw purchases when straw purchases are already illegal, so presumably additional regulation won't do anything more. If you're convicted of a straw purchase you won't be able to legally purchase anymore.
    - HideousKojima 4y ago
      And also the vast majority of straw purchases and lying on background check forms are not prosecuted in the first place, despite there being clear evidence for a slam dunk case. Hell, if you're the president's son you can lie on a 4473, have your girlfriend steal the gun and throw it in a dumpster, and then write a book about it and you won't get prosecuted.

jmspring 4y ago

It also enables the relatively easy cross compare with dealer record of sales (DROS) to know what the owners may have. This isn't good.

31835843 4y ago

There are so many guns in this country (far more than people) that criminals don’t need this database and don’t need to rob someone to get a gun.

hintymad 4y ago

Is this leak intentional, as in we can anything because we are righteous?

jmspring 4y ago
There is a belief that this was intentional. There were "threats" by CA DoJ to release this information a few years back "in the public interest".
Rebelgecko 4y ago
The AG said they were releasing the data for "increased transparency", so it seems like pretty clear retaliation for the recent CCW Supreme Court decision
- Clubber 4y ago
  When people make emotional decisions like that, it scares the hell out of me. They don't think of the repercussions. That stunt will probably get several people killed. I hope the leaker gets prosecuted.

bb88 4y ago

I feel conflicted on this. > It makes the gun owner a lucrative target. I mean, on one side they're saying that owning guns is necessary to protect their property. But now they're saying that owning guns makes them a target for crime? To me it seems like they're trying to have it both ways on this. > Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery. Private transactions are still legal. The gun show loophole is still around. Buying a gun and gifting it is legal.

wyager 4y ago
> But now they're saying that owning guns makes them a target for crime? They're saying that the government leaking their personal information makes them a target for crime. Is this comment a joke? I'm having trouble believing that anyone could seriously view this as somehow indicating that gun owners are hypocritical. I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to track and subsequently leak their personal details. If you're being serious, this is some of the (unintentionally) funniest sophistry I've seen in a while. > Private transactions are still legal. If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally buy a gun privately.
- seadan83 4y ago
  > They're saying that the government leaking their personal information makes them a target for crime Why is this? Are we talking about burglars who want the valuable guns? That does seem odd as the number two deterrent to burglary is knowledge that the home-owner has a gun (the number on apparently are large dogs). If the above is the case, the idea is that a burglar will scan this list for nearby homes and target them? On the basis that they have a gun alone (which again, is the number two deterrent to burglary). Plus, there is a lot of precedent that it takes almost nothing to use deadly force against an intruder and have zero consequences. > I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to track and subsequently leak their personal details. I'm guessing that California gun owners are perhaps amongst those who particularly do not want their personal details leaked. There are all sorts of reasons to not want that for anyone. This argument though of "we're now bigger targets for crime", when they have guns to "prevent" that crime, I can't reconcile that. So is the gun a deterrent, or not? I can think of a lot of other things that would make someone the target for burglary, like having a 4 car garage and gated fence. > If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally buy a gun privately. While that is the case, if there is no obligation to run a background check (gun-show loophole) - then how do you prevent these people from purchasing guns? The loophole is not that it's legal or illegal, the loophole is that someone is obtaining a gun that shouldn't.

threatofrain 4y ago

I believe that American crime literature indicates that the presence of guns offers general protective effects against home robberies for the entire region, and that the visible presence of alarms offers very specific protective effects for that home alone (while pushing the crime to other homes), and that the presence of invisible alarms confers a modicum of protection to the region. I'm inclined to believe that this will push home robberies onto those without guns.

lightlyused 4y ago

Ham radio ops have had their information public for years, lot's of expensive radio equipment to be had. I don't understand the issue here.

jasonladuke0311 4y ago
Do you think your average criminal would rather have a gun, or HAM radio equipment?
chmod600 4y ago
I think you just fundamentally misunderstand human nature, the criminal mind, and the overall practicality of running a criminal enterprise even if you assume well-informed rational actors. If you get burglarized, your ham radio equipment probably won't get stolen. And if it does, it's a crime of opportunity, not because someone found you in a database and somehow knew you had the good equipment. But sometimes criminals are desperate for guns, or the quick cash that guns can bring. You don't want desperate, potentially violent criminals finding out that your house has exactly what they are desperate for. If they want the cash, they could even prearrange a fence based on the database search. That's a little too convenient.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Is a gun really an easier profit flip than grappling a laptop or phone (more common than guns), or shoplifting a store (rarely prosecuted)?
- lightlyused 4y ago
  "If you get burglarized, your ham radio equipment probably won't get stolen. And if it does, it's a crime of opportunity, not because someone found you in a database and somehow knew you had the good equipment." I think you missed the premise here: ham radio equipment = $$$, open registry of people who may have ham radio equipment available for years, chance of having other expensive things very likely, correlation to crime and open registry of names pretty much zero. The article is just trying to foment a controversy when there isn't one.

zorpner 4y ago

bluedino 4y ago

A study of crime scenes in Pittsburgh, PA, found that more than 30 percent of the guns that ended up at crime scenes had been stolen.x Fabio A, Duell J, Creppage K, O’Donnell K, Laporte R. Gaps continue in firearm surveillance: Evidence from a large U.S. City Bureau of Police. Social Medicine. 2016; 10(1).

more_corn 4y ago

Robbing the home of a gun owner is a double edged sword. You know there’s a gun in there that you might want. You don’t know if it’s pointed at your head.

plandis 4y ago

Doesn’t seem any different than accessing public records to see house sale transactions and then going and robbing people who spent a lot on their home?

b5n 4y ago
I haven't viewed the whole thread, but one thing I haven't seen any discussion on is how dangerous this is for survivors of abuse. It's not uncommon for victims of domestic abuse, stalking, sexual assault, etc. to apply for CCW as a means of defense. Their address and other PII was made immediately available to the general public, _including their abuser_. I've not submitted a PRI in the state of CA (which is what I believe is required for CCW data), but based on privacy laws I assume they're not handing out addresses on a whim.

brightball 4y ago

Leaks like this are one of the main reasons national registries get opposed. A few years back there was a paper in NY that published a Google map with similar data IIRC. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-after-ny-newspaper-publishes-gun-holders-names-addresses/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/outrage-after-ny-newspaper-publ...

throwaway894345 4y ago

It's either gross incompetence or the AG cares less about gun crime than he does about spiting gun owners.

ransom1538 4y ago

"Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery." True. But, not BY robbing people on the CCW list. That is a damn death wish. CCW is a privilege in CA. CCW permits are difficult to get, a large portion is issued to ex-police and judges. CCW holders practice at the gun range as it is required to pass and hold the CCW. EG. There isn't dust on their pistol. God help you in court - if you are standing there charged with armed burglary of another judges / officers house [with CCW].

throwaway81523 4y ago

Apparently (based on Reddit posts) the DOJ used some kind of graph or map generation package to create the statistical summary that they put on the web. The package worked by accessing the raw data (complete with PII) and producing summaries and a map from it. It also inserted a helpful link to download the raw data. Oops. And that the raw data was reachable from the public-facing server at all was a double oops. And that the web dev department had access to the raw data rather than having it compartmentalized (presuming this happened) seems like a triple oops. I don't know if the map was dynamically generated from the data on every page load (thus requiring the data to be there), but the slowness of the server suggests maybe it was. Another good reason to use static sites unless there is a good reason to do otherwise. This database only went through 2021, so it wasn't changing.

YeBanKo 4y ago

Last year Californian passed the bill that allows the release of the entire registry with PII to any research institution [1], that studies gun violence. So not only they leaked it themselves, but they also made sure that a grad or undergrad student at one of the universities can loose a flash drive with a info about all gun owners in California. [1] https://thereload.com/new-california-bill-would-allow-the-release-of-gun-owners-personal-information/ https://thereload.com/new-california-bill-would-allow-the-re...