Is tracking down illegal gun owners more important to you than knowing where legal gun owners are?
How would you feel if your name and address were published online because you own a gun? While many gun owners' info ends up on lists that can be viewed by the public, do you disagree with making this info as easily accessible as possible by for instance, removing the trip to a courthouse to request the info in many areas or by putting it all online or in a newspaper? Is going this extra step, good, bad or ugly in your opinion?
There should be no listing of legal gun owners. If there is going to be money spent in regard to gun control it should be to track illegal gun network to help reduce guns from being acquired by those not licenced to have them. There should be no restrictions for law abiding citizens to aquire firearms through legal channels without an online database being kept.
Whether home or not, the list could tempt some to burglarize and steal them. Cops were included on the list @ lohud.com. The most helpful list would be names and addresses of illegal gun owners handed to police and ATF.
Advertising legal gun owners is the same lame harassment levied by our government in the same way they advertise those who oppose same sex marriage. Publicizing the names of those who oppose gay marriage and foolish gun control laws is a deterrant.
I'm glad the paper's staff was outed at http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/page/2/
I find it hilarious that the editor's FB & Twitter are suddenly private or unavailable. Being "outed" as she did to others doesn't feel good does it?
Of course! Law-abiding gun owners deserve the privacy as that of any good people. Violent and gun-law-breaking gun owners need to become *ex*-gun-owners.
Advertising legal gun owners is overkill and may allow the criminal element to find out where they can steal a few more guns.
What is more important to me is the eradication of an inane desire in the socities of the world for people to have the right to bear arms. If guns were less available in the world, they would be less easy for criminal elements and lunatics to obtain.
Then why in Washington D.C., where we have some of the strictest gun laws, do we have the highest crime rates including homicide? Making gun's illegal and disarming law abiding citizens would stop guns like it stopped alcohol during Prohibition.
I disagree MickS. If not for a gun my father would not have been able to shoot a burglar, save his family (including me), and hold the POS for the cops who arrived much to late to do anything. Criminals always get guns regardless of laws.
That is nonsensense. There are undesirables in every society, making guns less accesible will stem their use.
Criminals always get their hands on guns because they don't follow or care about laws and harm those who aren't armed.
MickS, as per my previous comment, what are your answers?
There are no answers Mitch. I'm from the UK, we have probably the strictist gun laws around, The chances of getting shot are almost nil. 2011 only 550 murders here, compared with USA, 12664 of them, 8583 shootings. the figures speak for themselves.
It would be nice if the current laws were enforced. There are over 20,000 gun laws in the US that do not keep guns out of criminals' and crazies' hands. Responsible, law abiding citizens shouldn't be harassed or have their rights altered/taken away.
The causes of societal violence have little, statistically nothing, to do with the availability of firearms to private citizens. That's a canard meant to fool the voters into thinking something is being done about the problem, and to manufacture a political attack on conservatives, who today in America are the defenders of the Bill of Rights.
The United States has about as many guns in private hands as there are people in the country. The black market is already alive and well, with dramatic increases in its activity with the rise of a new threat of more regulation. There is no way on this Earth to remove those guns. There is no way to prevent more from getting into the hands of the citizens. The drive for more criminalization of possession or sale is an exercise in political illusion.
The United States also ranks far down in the homicidal rank of nations. Remove its metropolitan areas into which no one in his right mind goes after dark anyway (i.e. those urban areas that reelected Barack Obama), and it hardly shows on the list at all. Furthermore, the gun homicide rate is a misleading stat that fails to show anything about the intentional homicide rate, and the intentional homicide rate fails to measure overall societal violence. By the broadest standard, Britain is a far more violent society than America, which absent those city enclaves of social rot is notable for its relative peacefulness. In addition, it is well established that those places in America where the citizens are freer to shoot back at the criminals have lower rates of violence than those that aggressively restrict that freedom.
This recent publication of the names of licensed gun owners is a transparent attempt by a politicized media to harass Americans exercising their right of self-defense. It should be condemned by all. Building a database of legal gun owners is something in which the government should not be involved at all. Beyond that, it is less important to track down illegal gun owners than it is to prevent the national establishment from exploiting tragedy to roll over yet another of the rights of American citizens. Let's get our priorities straight here.
The only people you can track is people who cooperate. Your question has only one option to choose from as non-cooperative people like illigal gun owners won't leave anything to track. The Idea that gathering information on citizens will result in a data base to find criminals is insaine.
I am happy that a blogger posted the names and addresses of those working at that newspaper. Perhaps they'll get a taste of what it feels like to be exposed for no valid reason.
The data-base is to help the government develop a plan and to save time when they begin kicking in doors of honest citizens and confiscating guns through force. They don't care about the 1% of criminals...they want to control the other 99% of us.
by Marian L 5 years ago
Why do Americans think their right to bear arms is more important than people's lives?
by RealityTalk 5 years ago
Should gun owners be able to bring guns to churchNow some gun owners are upset because Starbucks won't let them bring guns into their stores. I guess it's difficult to drink coffee without a concealed weapon. If the coffee is served too hot, the customer can only yell and not shoot the store...
by MR Black 5 years ago
Don't you think it's abot time America take a serious look at gun control?With the regular stories of young men shooting and killing peope, even in high school our kids are not safe. To keep the gun industry alive many claims gun don't kill people, people do. Well if there was no guns who could...
by flacoinohio 5 years ago
Do you believe modifying the Second Amendment is going to prevent mass acts of violence?This questions is for all of those situational or sunny day anti-gun advocates. Pro-gun advocates spend a lot of time and effort, not mention millions of dollars protecting the Second Amendment. If...
by StricktlyDating 5 years ago
Time for all the moms (And Dads) living in suburbia to hand in their guns?In Ausralia, not so many years ago, certain firearms weapons were banned and required to be handed in. Do you think this would work in the USA? Because of the recent tragic shootings. Could this be an option towards...
by Scott S Bateman 6 months ago
If you want a factual and research-based explanation of how to reduce gun violence, please read the informative article below.https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics … c24213c694
|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|