4 ms·

The gun scare is getting ridiculous. Things like this make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting.

mkarazin 14y ago
And makes it easier for criminals to avoid houses with guns, thus putting the non gun population at risk.
- coryl 14y ago
  Is there evidence or any cases of criminals doing informational background searches on their targets?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    Burglars routinely monitor the obituaries for dates of funerals to break into houses while the funeral is taking place. For instance: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 But there are many more examples of that. For criminals information is a competitive edge, just like for everybody else. The safe bet is that they exploit that edge to the maximum of their abilities to increase their rewards.
    - droithomme 14y ago
      This is definitely a huge problem in many areas. I've known around a dozen people whose houses were robbed while they were at a funeral. Last funeral I went to, recently, the funeral director told the family members they needed to arrange for people to housesit during the services. They did and two of them were then faced with burglars trying to break in. There are organized crime gangs that read obituaries and make it their business to take your stuff. If you are flying out of state to bury your spouse or parent, the risk is greater. In two cases I know of, a moving truck arrived as soon as they left for the airport and took absolutely everything.
  - csense 14y ago
    If a criminal can gather information about his target easily, simply and anonymously, it would be stupid for him (or her) not to do so. AFAIK police departments everywhere have been advising people for at least five decades to be sure someone picks up your mail and newspapers if you're planning to be away, because criminals will realize that nobody lives in or checks up on a house if the mailbox is overflowing. Haven't you ever seen the scene in the original "Home Alone" where the Wet Bandits are casing the neighborhood before they hit the houses?
  - nekojima 14y ago
    A number of professional footballers in the UK had their houses broken into during matches they were playing in, in the last two or three years. In some cases repeatedly, after new items were purchased to replace those stolen, the house was broken into again, during another match. I'd guess home matches are best, because their wife/gf/partner will be more likely to go to the stadium, rather than for an away match, when their wife may not travel.
- Luff 14y ago
  A Swedish e-bay type of service recently got in trouble with the press for allowing private sellers of guns to post their phone numbers in the ads. The reasoning behind this was that criminals could use the phone number to figure out where the sellers lived, and go steal their guns. Funny how these things differ between places.
csense 14y ago
> make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting. That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. It's a notion that "ordinary" people aren't capable of responsibly making life-or-death decisions. That guns have to be a monopoly of "extraordinary" people -- police and miliatry -- who are working for the state. (As if they aren't themselves "ordinary" people!)
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  >That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. And these strawman arguments being tossed around is exactly why we can't have a productive discussion regarding guns in this country. When you insist on turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature, why do you expect to be taken seriously?
  - csense 14y ago
    I don't know who you're accusing of "turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature," me or the paper. But I'll respond as if the answer to this question is "me." Let's imagine they published a list of all the African-Americans in their area instead. What's your gut reaction? It could be claimed to be just a matter-of-fact reporting of data obtained in a routine government census. But I have a feeling that race, in this country, is such a divisive issue that a lot of readers -- of all positions on the issue of race, and both African-Americans and non-African-Americans -- would read into it an implication of Us versus Them, that we should be Concerned about the distribution of African-Americans. Many readers would see an implication that this piece is supposed to be an eye-opener, deemed worthy of newspaper publication on the angle of "You may think your neighborhood doesn't have any African-Americans, but actually they're everywhere." Now re-read the previous two paragraphs, but replace the word "race" with "gun control," and "African-Americans" with "gun owners." I will admit that I'm deliberately making the argument as bald as possible, in a way that makes it as easy as possible to see the fallacy. When you read the way I explain it, you may say "No one believes that!" And I would agree that almost no one consciously believes that. But a lot of human thinking is unconscious, not based on reasons, facts, and observations. Sometimes this unconscious reasoning is based on tribal psychology, Us versus Them, and that's what this article is speaking to. Since the argument's not laid out in plain terms, it may escape the reader's conscious thought process. But if it doesn't escape the unconscious thought process -- if it makes you feel "With all the news about gun violence lately, and all those gun owners around, I don't feel safe...someone should really do something about all those gun owners..." it can sway a person's position without capturing their full attention or being subjected to the scrutiny of the rational mind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Ac...

mkarazin 14y ago

And makes it easier for criminals to avoid houses with guns, thus putting the non gun population at risk.

coryl 14y ago
Is there evidence or any cases of criminals doing informational background searches on their targets?
- jacquesm 14y ago
  Burglars routinely monitor the obituaries for dates of funerals to break into houses while the funeral is taking place. For instance: http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20120330/NEWS01/703309874 But there are many more examples of that. For criminals information is a competitive edge, just like for everybody else. The safe bet is that they exploit that edge to the maximum of their abilities to increase their rewards.
  - droithomme 14y ago
    This is definitely a huge problem in many areas. I've known around a dozen people whose houses were robbed while they were at a funeral. Last funeral I went to, recently, the funeral director told the family members they needed to arrange for people to housesit during the services. They did and two of them were then faced with burglars trying to break in. There are organized crime gangs that read obituaries and make it their business to take your stuff. If you are flying out of state to bury your spouse or parent, the risk is greater. In two cases I know of, a moving truck arrived as soon as they left for the airport and took absolutely everything.
- csense 14y ago
  If a criminal can gather information about his target easily, simply and anonymously, it would be stupid for him (or her) not to do so. AFAIK police departments everywhere have been advising people for at least five decades to be sure someone picks up your mail and newspapers if you're planning to be away, because criminals will realize that nobody lives in or checks up on a house if the mailbox is overflowing. Haven't you ever seen the scene in the original "Home Alone" where the Wet Bandits are casing the neighborhood before they hit the houses?
- nekojima 14y ago
  A number of professional footballers in the UK had their houses broken into during matches they were playing in, in the last two or three years. In some cases repeatedly, after new items were purchased to replace those stolen, the house was broken into again, during another match. I'd guess home matches are best, because their wife/gf/partner will be more likely to go to the stadium, rather than for an away match, when their wife may not travel.
Luff 14y ago
A Swedish e-bay type of service recently got in trouble with the press for allowing private sellers of guns to post their phone numbers in the ads. The reasoning behind this was that criminals could use the phone number to figure out where the sellers lived, and go steal their guns. Funny how these things differ between places.

csense 14y ago

> make people think that anyone who owns a gun might just walk into a crowded place and start shooting. That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. It's a notion that "ordinary" people aren't capable of responsibly making life-or-death decisions. That guns have to be a monopoly of "extraordinary" people -- police and miliatry -- who are working for the state. (As if they aren't themselves "ordinary" people!)

hackinthebochs 14y ago
>That's exactly how a particular side of the debate wants to frame the issue. And these strawman arguments being tossed around is exactly why we can't have a productive discussion regarding guns in this country. When you insist on turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature, why do you expect to be taken seriously?
- csense 14y ago
  I don't know who you're accusing of "turning the other side into a ridiculous caricature," me or the paper. But I'll respond as if the answer to this question is "me." Let's imagine they published a list of all the African-Americans in their area instead. What's your gut reaction? It could be claimed to be just a matter-of-fact reporting of data obtained in a routine government census. But I have a feeling that race, in this country, is such a divisive issue that a lot of readers -- of all positions on the issue of race, and both African-Americans and non-African-Americans -- would read into it an implication of Us versus Them, that we should be Concerned about the distribution of African-Americans. Many readers would see an implication that this piece is supposed to be an eye-opener, deemed worthy of newspaper publication on the angle of "You may think your neighborhood doesn't have any African-Americans, but actually they're everywhere." Now re-read the previous two paragraphs, but replace the word "race" with "gun control," and "African-Americans" with "gun owners." I will admit that I'm deliberately making the argument as bald as possible, in a way that makes it as easy as possible to see the fallacy. When you read the way I explain it, you may say "No one believes that!" And I would agree that almost no one consciously believes that. But a lot of human thinking is unconscious, not based on reasons, facts, and observations. Sometimes this unconscious reasoning is based on tribal psychology, Us versus Them, and that's what this article is speaking to. Since the argument's not laid out in plain terms, it may escape the reader's conscious thought process. But if it doesn't escape the unconscious thought process -- if it makes you feel "With all the news about gun violence lately, and all those gun owners around, I don't feel safe...someone should really do something about all those gun owners..." it can sway a person's position without capturing their full attention or being subjected to the scrutiny of the rational mind. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Act_of_1975 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Ac...