Original story Making gun permit applications public seems unreasonable to me. I mean, you can't get a list of licensed drivers or people who hold a library card and put it on the web, so why should a concealed weapons permit be any different? It seems reasonable that the information should be protected unless it is in the public interest in a specific case that it be disclosed (ie after a crime, etc).
That is the most outrageous thing I have ever read. Do they think a convicted felon is going to get a freaking permit to carry a concealed? Also, what is going to stop anyone from carrying a weapon on them? I could walk outside right now with my 9mm in my pocket and no one would be the wiser. I really think disclosing this info is not wise, its a private record and should not be disclosed to anyone. Unless it was needed for some crime or something. Stupid left wing antigun fruit cakes need to learn the way of the gun. Cause nearly all of them have never even held a gun!
Good stuff. Every time I'm close to giving up on the US, some states do stuff like this and remind me that in some ways the US is a country that cherishes freedom more than any other. These people recognise that it's a necessary evil to have a firearms register, but that at least the register need not be public and available to all. Good on 'em.
Because owning a library card or driving licence does not pose a potential danger to the public. I know, I know, privacy and freedom and all that. Then again, why wouldn't you want people to know? The main argument for private gun ownership has always been that of deterrence. If crooks know that you have a gun in the home, or carry a gun, they may think twice about targetting you. But what good is a deterrent if people don't know about it? Why shouldn't they know? Look at it another way. If I want to marry, I have to request a licence which is made known to the public, who can raise an objection (after all, I may already have a wife tucked away somewhere). If I want to sell alcohol, provide 'regulated entertainment' or late-night refreshments, I must apply for a licence which is made known to the public, because the public is potentially affected and can raise an objection (based on prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance, protection of children from harm). If I want to own a firearm or carry it, why should that be any different?
Owning a knife poses a potential danger to public security. You can not hold potentiality against people. Why wouldn't you want people to see you poop? Why don't you want people looking into your living room? Privacy is something humans value, it shouldn't be eroded simply because it can be, and pulling out the "what reason do you have for not wanting your privacy violated" card doesn't fly. That may be the common modern argument against anti-gun lobbyists, but the main argument for private gun ownership is simply that no-one has any god damn business telling private citizens what they can and can not do, so long as they aren't impinging upon other people's freedom. And gun ownership alone doesn't impinge upon anyone else's freedom (don't bother going into the "but what possible use could you have for it" argument - that's totaly irrelevent.)
Most knives have many different purposes aside from stabbing humans. A gun has a single purpose only. Nobody is at potential risk by one's pooping (well, there's the smell I suppose... ). Nobody is at risk from how I decorate the living room (chintz curtains excepted). But a few things we do can pose a potential risk to other people's lives, and that is where the boundaries of privacy end. What I do in my living room may be my private business, but if I plan to store drums of toxic waste in my cellar, or industrial mining explosives, wouldn't you, as my neighbour, want to be informed about it (in order to possibly raise an objection)? Another example: my clients can count on absolute confidentiality. But if I judge that others are at risk of harm by their actions (abuse/neglect of minors, delusional urge to stab their neighbour) that privacy goes out the window. Fair point. But nobody is telling private citizens they can't have a gun. I'm just saying that they can't keep it private. Guns are not like sex toys*. They're not used in the context of privacy and consensuality. Guns are designed for a purpose that is by its nature neither private nor consensual (unless you shoot yourself). They are dangerous goods, specifically designed to be dangerous goods. As such people should apply for a licence for them, and the public should be informed and be able to raise an objection to the licence application. That's how it works for building in a residential area, for getting married, for selling alcohol or for storing hazardous substances on the premises. That's how it should work for guns. * Just in case any pervs are reading; no, they are really, really not. And no, we are not going to discuss it.
That whole argument doesn't hold water. If I own a 500 acre ranch, and I find someone in my home on my ranch one day attacking my family, me shooting them dead is a private matter. They have entered my own domain, and within my private domain I have killed them. Totaly private, the state and the citizenry has nothing to do with it.
And if I think, on the evidence, you're mentally abnormal? If I were your neighbour, I'd want to know if you had access to firearms.
Right, and once a shooting has taken place in a public location it will be investigated by the police force who have jurisdiction of that public place. And all details will be held by the police force. If anything, there's a valid argument for making all police records public. That's it though.
its a concealed weapon permit, what makes you think your "spec does chuck norris fantasy" in anyway involves a concealed weapon permit?.
That wasn't a fantasy, it was an example - so please don't lets annoy each other yeah? And yeah, that's a good point. But my point about there being no right to know untill an act has taken place stands.
In a country which allows access to firearms, providing public access to your license would not stop you from shooting an attacker on your property. Unless I've misunderstood your argument, I don't see how a public registration would prevent you from defending your property. -monkey
All you Europeans need to actually shoot a gun before making wild claims of licenses and laws. Hence why I live in the US. Nothing stops a burglar in their tracks faster then a gun, and it dosnt even have to be fired for that to happen. Intimidation is a great power. And a skilled marksmen is its wielder. Those two things, used properly in defense, are why I own and practice often with one.
You have I'm afraid. My argument was that who owns and even uses firearms isn't always public business. I can understand why the state uses CCW lisences to stop kids or crazies getting 'em, but those records need not be public - since ownership and use of a CCW alone isn't a public act. Please don't tar us all with the same brush - otherwise I'm gonna start with the "you gun loving yank" generalisations
I have to say that I totally agree with specofdust this far, who owns and uses a firearm is *not* in public business. Absolutely correct, common sense and logics right there. Yes, the way things are going, *that*, would be an excellent idea. Another one would be them not masking their faces, remember; they work for *us*, not the other way around, but as of late that seems to have slipped their minds. (sorry, minor rant albeit a valid observation) Forgive me, but who are you to determine who is mentally abnormal? furthermore, those few fellow humans who might be feeling bad or that are mentally abnormal (still in a minority they are) are they then to dictate to the majority? that is ridicules IMHO. You sure about that? ask the govement why they are tracking what people are lending from the libraries, after all; that card gives them the ability to lend a book which shows them how to make a bomb (oh my, them "terrorists" you see) which as a result (according to some peoples logics) would dictate that that little library card could be used as a “weapon”. Where to draw the line?, chipping people tracking them 24/7 just so some fellow humans can feel safe? mental profiling on those getting a library card next? Cheers
i am very confused, how is making your ownership of a gun public preventing you from defending yourself? IMHO it would only help you defend yourself, criminals would or will avoid you or your house if they know you have a gun. lets scale this up: considering that in scale guns are to people what nukes are to countries then.... is it your country business to know what countries have nukes? edit: i am European and i have fired a gun, and i have a compressed air gun i use time to time to enter the zener zone and relax a little while shooting corks of a barrel. edit2: what bad effects does it cause you, gun holder/user, if people know you have/use a gun?
It's nothing to do with public gun ownership and CCW records making it harder to defend oneself. It's everything to do with the general citizenry having no right to access that data. It's none of anyone random individuals business who has and who doesn't have a CCW. No. Irrelevent. What bad effects does it cause you if I watch you go to the toilet, or have sex? Or if I stand besides you every minute of every day? Privacy is an end in it's own right, not just a means. Exactly, that applies to all of us equally, so get the hell out of my life and I'll stay out of yours.
