Gun Control - Now Discussing Tucson Shooting

JF- That doesn't make much sense though.

I think the answer relates to how information like this is treated in general. I'm not aware if the Memphis Commercial Appeal automatically makes available other types of records. If they do, then it's up to the TN Department of Safety to clarify privacy rules.

If they don't, then why single out TN gun permit applications? Can I anonimously search for driver's license information on the newspaper's website? Can I sit in another state and look up marriage licenses from the same website without justification or cause?

I can understand if they treated all records like this in the same manner. If I personally have to go to the appropriate courthouse in TN to obtain birth, marriage, etc.. information, it's kind of cheap that the TN newspaper would provide firearm information just to make their own political point.

I personally think it's REALLY shortsighted of the newspaper to engage in behavior like this, no matter what information they made available. I'd hate the be the news agency that provided personal information on the web without cause, and then had something happen based on that information. They might as well turn over ownership of the paper in the resulting lawsuit.

 

I don't live in Tennessee anymore, but as a parent, this information is potentially more useful to me than someone's marriage or driver's license information.

Different communities are different. In Texas, maybe you only send your kid over to someone's house for a play date if you're absolutely sure one or both parents has a loaded gun at home. Where I live, the community liked its handgun ban, now I believe unconstitutional.

As a community, we may not be able to prevent handgun ownership, but it would be helpful if we could stigmatize it.

 

Yeah, and you keep repeating that without realizing the scope of your statement as it relates to the government.

If you changed your statement to "civil union" or "swimming pools" or "those who smoke," or whatever- all of the ideas would still be just as inclusive and based on perception. Again, let me change just a single word without changing anything else in your statement:

"but as a parent, information on who smokes cigarettes is potentially more useful to me than someone's marriage or driver's license information.

or

"but as a parent, information on who is HIV positive is potentially more useful to me than someone's marriage or driver's license information."

You get the point, I'm sure as there are dozens of other examples that could be provided. You hold a specific concern based on a specific perception. But should the government officially provide public databases for every concern that any individual has? Who gets to decide what is a potential concern in relation to any other concern?

It seems to me that if you support the populist rule of law here, it would be difficult to criticize it for other topics.

EDIT:

And see, to me, your final edit is even more puzzling:

"As a community, we may not be able to prevent handgun ownership, but it would be helpful if we could stigmatize it."

Wow...I can think of numerous other examples where your idea could, and has, set a dangerous precedent.

 

Actually the castle doctrine has stoped alot of very bad people. I am all for it. Make no mistake, takeing a life is hard. However I would do it to protect my family and my property. As to stigmatizing hand gun ownership, I think that is so far out of line, as well as unlawful bans. Not all firearm owners are crazy wack jobs. Where I am almost everyone is armed, thats why where I live crime is pretty low.

 

What is the criteria for being granted a concealed weapons permit? What are the reasons for applying for a concealed weapons permit? Just curious.

 

Here is the link to the Dept. of Public Safty.




http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/tchlaws0102.pdf

 

What is the criteria for being granted a concealed weapons permit? What are the reasons for applying for a concealed weapons permit? Just curious.

It depends on the jurisdiction. In the US, there is no "universal federal permit" or whatever concept would be most familiar outside of the US.

At the basic level, all states require a background check, which is usually conducted by the Sheriff or applicable authority.

Some states require training classes where an instructor signs off on ability. Others require a specific amount of liability protection and risk insurance to go with it.

As you asked, some states require a standard of "demonstrated need." For example, jewelry salesman may have to certify that they travel with expensive samples in order to be issued a permit.

It all depends on the specific state law.

 

44, you keep making references to things the state doesn't license or permit, and wouldn't be allowed to permit. We don't require people to get a license for being HIV positive. That doesn't make any sense.

Where I am almost everyone is armed, that's why where I live crime is pretty low.

Where I live, almost no one is armed, and the crime rate is pretty low. As I said, different communities are different. Probably the number one crime in the village is stealing stuff from unlocked garages (typically not attached to the house). It would be unimaginably barbaric where I live to shoot somebody for trying to steal a bicycle out of a garage, for example.

Shooting someone to protect property from being stolen would be pathetic, unless that person enters your house or threatens you personally to steal it. I hope that isn't really legal anywhere.

Wow...I can think of numerous other examples where your idea could, and has, set a dangerous precedent.

I can think of other examples too. Let's say my neighborhood was zoned for retail and a guy opened up an adult bookstore next door. He has a first amendment right to sell pornography and is breaking no ordinances selling pornography next to my house. Would he be socially stigmatized nevertheless for operating a pornographic bookstore on my block? You bet he would.

 

YES it is!
Please take a look at this.
Wow, I am glad you live where you are. I wish we could ship out thieves to you, I am guessing the North East. I however an in Texas. Most states are doing away with capital punishment, we are putting in express lanes to our death chamber. That being said you mess with my family, you steal you die. After stormes neighbor hoods will put up the old "YOU LOOT,WE SHOOT" signs.

 

Yeah. Because stealing *property* is totally deserving of death.

 

Then we can agree to be glad to live where we live. I could so easily bait my backyard with unlocked bicycles and stay up all night with a rifle in a comfy perch waiting for teenagers. I wouldn't need to say a single prayer.

 

It really depends on the situation. However would I shoot someone over a $10.00 dollar item, that was outside probobly not. Would I over $10,000.00, I would. For me is it worth it? If I woke up and your in my home, you have forfeited your life. Plain and simple.

 

But then why bother with guns at all; I guess the old head-against-sidewalk routine would be alright, as well.

 

I understand where Jabba is coming from. The state issues a permit/licence in relation to gun ownership for the purposes of regulating that activity. There is a criteria for obtaining the permit and a criteria which must be followed to retain that licence. This is because guns can be dangerous and so a minimum level of regulation/intervention is required.

However, no amount of regulation/intervention will prevent accidents, negligence, mental breakdowns, anger, hate, spite, jealosy, insanity, depression or any other human ailment which renders concepts such as responsibility and compliance null and void. From a parental point of view, you want to be able to measure the potential harm in the event of a worst case scenario ocurring - clearly the ownership of a gun increases that potential harm.

edit: the company I work for is headquartered in Texas and so I have met many Taxans over the years. None of the Texans I have met subsribe to this 'shoot first ask questions later in the defence of my lawnmower' philosophy. It's a personal choice.

 

No.
In my High School U.S. Government class we studied a case in which a man rode the New York city subway all night hoping to be mugged, so he could shoot the mugger.
When it happened he was charged with murder.
Although his action was legal his intent was not.
Using a threat to defend life or property is defense.
Carrying out the threat when the perp ignores the threat is sad, but sometimes needed.
setting someone up to be killed maliciously is murder.

They ARE different.

 

Amen.

 

44, you keep making references to things the state doesn't license or permit, and wouldn't be allowed to permit. We don't require people to get a license for being HIV positive. That doesn't make any sense.

No I keep highlighting things that people think 1)represent general harm regardless of the individual, and 2)what could be licensed very easily if those concerns were realized in legislation. My main problem with what you keep posting ie- your idea that "it would be useful to know as a parent" is that that same idea could be extrapolated into all sorts of things depending on the parent.

I would understand your illustration more if you indicated that you wanted to see a database created of those convicted under the category of "unlawful use of weapons" laws.

First off- Such a consequence would become part of the law itself: "Get convicted of armed violence and have your name listed in a database." It's how the sex offender registry is complied. Secondly, the consequence would be tied to individual behavior, and not a blanket concern.

But to put forth your idea that all gun owners somehow represent a threat simply because they own a gun doesn't make sense, and it's the opposite of the position you normally take. The blanket perception is what is no different than the other examples brought up like smoking, pool owning, HIV infection, etc...

You said so yourself that you "might not be able to stop the behavior, but you might stigmatize it." Do you think that there are those people in Oak Park who would picket, harass, or otherwise single out addresses that simply own a firearm? We both know the answer to that.

 

With a gun you can kill a number of people in seconds. It's more dangerous than a kitchen knife or a sex offender. From that POV I can understand Jabba. And to gun owners I would ask: why would you not want to disclose that information? That seems shady.

But Jabba, if it's about shaming it's not a good idea. There is no shame in going to the shooting club, and that fact alone would keep your proposal from gaining any feasible ground. And also - if this list existed - what are you going to do? Check all your kids' friends' parents? And then what do you do when you see a gun listed? Stop them from going there? How exactly does it help?

 

Well, that speaks volumes about you.

 

With a gun you can kill a number of people in seconds. It's more dangerous than a kitchen knife or a sex offender. From that POV I can understand Jabba. And to gun owners I would ask: why would you not want to disclose that information? That seems shady.

But that's all just a justification.

How many people can I infect with HIV if I go door to door spitting blood? It doesn't matter-or it matters very little- because most HIV positive people simply live their own lives and get the medical treatment that they can. Reaction based on individual fear toward HIV infection would be the least rational basis to create a central HIV database. As was pointed out, no amount of laws are going to stop the single nutcase who goes around spitting HIV-infected blood. So why treat every example as the worst example?

So why the blanket fear against people who simply own firearms? Remember, we're not debating about private government requirements, but the topic is that this information should be made available to those who want to look it up so they don't send their children to "gun owning homes."

But all of the above are just examples. If we all agreed to change Jabba's point to focusing on gay couples, would you guys still say "I understand Jabba's POV..."

Or if we focused on smokers... or whatever.

 

There are a number of points of disanalogy, 44. I support a registry, but not the stigma argument. Ironically enough, it is the stigma argument that has prevented the U.S. from implementing public disclosure of HIV status (since its vector of transmission is radically different from equally deadly but more communicable diseases like HepC or TB). I know gun owners who are responsible, but I also know that the available data show increases in overall violence, accidental death, and suicide in gun-owning homes. This is not necessarily causative (I'm not making the stronger claim), but it does warrant concern as a protective parent. You may be responsible, you may try to teach your kids responsibility and respect for firearms, but there is still the "Hey, want to see something cool?" factor and natural curiousity that impact child decision-making. Additionally, we know that kids don't think about the consequences of their actions to the same extent that adults do, so the ideas of potentially killing someone (and what death means) are entirely foreign to children. So I favor both gun registries and open communication between parents - it's not an either/or issue.

 

You evoke a vivid image of an HIV vampire at the door there, 44!

But I don't disagree with you. Just saying that, you know, I understand Jabba's POV. But I think it's, in the end, unfeasible.

I wanted to write 'unfeasible and disrespectful' but I'm still not entirely sure about that. So I'll leave that out, for now. Because you know, the difference with the infected neighbor is, he probably can't help it. And a person can help owning a gun.

EDIT: Jabba, to Quix you listen.

 

As I wrote before, marriage licenses are part of the public record, like home ownership. There are other reasons why the state would not be able to require homosexual couples to register. Gun ownership is not a class like gender or religious affiliation or race or sexual orientation. It's like owning a house, only permitting requirements exist because of the inherent dangers.

I also was not referring to all gun ownership but specifically to the handgun concealed carry issue. Handguns pose special dangers for children. They're easier to lift and hold than larger weapons and because they're intended for defense they're often treated differently by their owners. I don't worry about my father in law's small fortune in top of the line hunting weapons because he is meticulous about safety, keeps them locked and has taught my oldest son everything he knows about gun safety, etc., which is an awful lot considering he's been a hunter for 60 years.

My personal experience with urban handgun owners who aren't also hunters is that they're an entirely different breed of gun owners, far less trustworthy. Experienced hunters typically seem to have a much healthier relationship with guns.

Edit: nor do I see harm in various kinds of sport shooting outside hunting. What intrigues and worries me most are the people who see the value of handguns for personal self defense in the home. Granted everyone is different but that would be a starting point for me as a concerned parent. Are there handguns in the home and why?

 

I think you'll find attitudes to guns over this side of the pond a lot different. It's a well known fact the vast majority of people are stupid and putting guns in the hands of said people will only exacerbate the problems. You lament the deaths of police officers (and it is sad when it happens) but also act surprised when someone would do it. There's much more gun crime in the USA, why do you think that is?