Contributors

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Gun Privacy vs. Neighbor's Right to Know

The Journal News, a newspaper in White Plains, New York, published a map of people licensed to own guns in surrounding counties. This has raised a firestorm of protest from conservatives, claiming variously that these people's privacy had been violated (these licenses are a matter of public record), that it would encourage criminals to target gun owners, or alternately to encourage thieves to target homes that are "unprotected" by guns.

The article accompanying the map begins:
In May, Richard V. Wilson approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head, a crime that stunned their quiet Katonah neighborhood.

What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons — including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition — without any neighbors knowing.
On Christmas Eve William Spengler set fire to his house, killed his sister, set fire to the rest of the neighborhood, then ambushed the firemen who came to douse the blaze, killing two and wounding two others. Spengler was an ex-con who killed his grandmother in 1980. He used a Bushmaster rifle to kill the firemen, like the one Adam Lanza used. It's not yet known how he got the weapon: did he get it at a gun show? From a friend? Through a straw buyer? Or by breaking into a nearby house?

I understand why gun owners don't want their names published in the paper. Neither do pedophiles. But guns in the home represent a real risk to society, both from the gun owners themselves or as a form of attractive nuisance for thieves and children

It's not unreasonable for parents to want to know if their children are playing with kids who might have guns at home, or if neighbors like Richard Wilson represent a potential risk to their children.

Hundreds of kids die each year from accidental shootings. Hundreds of kids also die in swimming pool and trampoline accidents. Parents should know if their kids' friends have pools and trampolines. Why not guns?

That newspaper didn't tell potential burglars anything they didn't already know. Thieves casing a neighborhood can read the "gang signs" that mark gun owners: American flags, large dogs of breeds used for hunting, No Trespassing and No Solicitation signs, political bumper stickers and signs for Tea Party and conservative causes, "Protected by Smith & Wesson" bumper stickers and signs (yeah, some people are that dumb), four-door pickup trucks and Hummers, gun racks in the pickups, etc.


Some gun owners envision themselves as defending the Alamo, and think they will be able to fend off the criminals storming their house in a blaze of gunfire. This is misguided: burglars want to break in while you're gone and your cash, jewelry and guns are just waiting there to be stolen.

Therefore, most burglaries are committed when victims are at work, and nearly all occur when the burglars think you're away. Most thieves are unarmed and avoid conflict. More than 50% of burglaries occur within two miles of the burglar's home. Most are smash and grabs, in and out in 12 minutes or less. Many burglars have already been in your house for some other purpose (that may be why Nancy Lanza didn't let people in).

The NRA recommends people use concealed lock boxes or gun safes, as well as trigger locks or cable locks and that guns be stored unloaded. They should demand these recommendations be given the force of law.

Just as importantly, gun owners should have home security systems or a dog. These are better deterrents than a gun. Burglars are much less likely to rob houses without security systems and barking dogs. And even if you do have a gun for "protection," you still need the dog or the alarm to wake you up. The gun is worse than useless if you're asleep when the intruder takes it from your nightstand.

Gun rights advocates should want to be seen as the people who stop crazy old coots from shooting their neighbors in the head, not the wackos who make it possible.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

The NRA recommends people use concealed lock boxes or gun safes, as well as trigger locks or cable locks and that guns be stored unloaded. They should demand these recommendations be given the force of law.

So you would sentence these 4 kids to death? What did they do to deserve that?

Anonymous said...

What would you sentence this 12-year old girl to?

Or this 14-year old boy and his sister?

Juris Imprudent said...

I love it N - you hide behind a pseudonym and then berate gun owners over their legitimate privacy concerns by equating them to pedophiles.

How do you manage to breathe through the stench of your hypocrisy?

Mark Ward said...

Your weasel questions illustrate how your insecurity, paranoia and fear block you from a qualitative analysis. Every situation that involves gun violence is different and to issue imperial edicts about them in such a general way shows how difficult it must be for you guys to come up with new material. It has to be all or nothing with you guys, right?

Anonymous said...

Every situation that involves gun violence is different and to issue imperial edicts about them in such a general way shows how difficult it must be…

So a federal law mandating something and that cannot take "every situation" into account is magically not an imperial edict?

Do you even listen to yourself?

Juris Imprudent said...

It has to be all or nothing with you guys, right?

You really shouldn't project your own inadequacies onto other people M.

Mark Ward said...

Do you even listen to yourself?

Yes, I do and I'm trying to stay on topic and not redirect away from the points you made. It's a nice straw man you've created with your links above, Noni, but that shouldn't end the discussion before it even starts on restricting usage of some (not all) guns. Are we even allowed to have the discussion or not?

Juris Imprudent said...

Why do we even need to have a discussion about "some" guns? Should we also have a discussion about "some" cars? Or "some" publications?

Short of a ban and confiscation, there is no law that could be passed that would have stopped what happened in Newtown. Even taking the semi-auto rifle out of the equation, he walked into the school with two pistols and left a shotgun in the car. You do realize a shotgun was used in the McDonald's massacre in San Ysidro, CA.

So what exactly do we need to discuss? Your overblown, media fed, irrational fear?

Mark Ward said...

Because guns are part of the problem, juris. How was it that Adam Lanza had such easy access to these weapons when he was clearly mentally ill? His mother was a "responsible" gun owner who was one of you guys, juris, believing in the coming economic collapse and living free or dying. Look what happened. That's why your assurances about law abiding gun owners ring hollow and why we have to, at least, have a discussion on how to prevent this from happening in the future. Crying impotence, by the way, is not a solution.

Juris Imprudent said...

Because guns are part of the problem, juris.

Oh, so now it isn't "some" guns, it is just plain ol' [all] guns? Apparently your conversion was less than skin deep and you have reverted back to your old "you don't need guns" position. Yet you trust someone with a uniform with one (and in fact, even the most "evil" kind).

You don't know if Lanza was mentally ill. Maybe he was just evil. Aren't God-fearing folk such as yourself supposed to know about evil and sinfulness? There seem to be a lot of people that are conflating mental illness and evil intent. No wonder they have no clue what to do.

was one of you guys, juris

Back to us or them, eh? You just can't get out of that rut, can you?

...prevent this from happening in the future.

OK, the one sure way I can see is to rip the Bill of Rights apart (not just the 2nd, but the whole thing) - but even totalitarian regimes have nutters. Maybe you have some idea about how to re-engineer human behavior?

Crying impotence, by the way, is not a solution.

Ah, that's it isn't it. You are terrified that the universe can't be controlled and your pitiful little existence in it made safe.

I am okay with the status quo. Sometimes bad shit happens - and we pick up the pieces and go on. You are not happy with the status quo - so go right ahead and propose how to change it. I'll listen. If you say something stupid I will tell you that it is stupid; just as if you say something thoughtful I will recognize it as such. But I won't pander to or even tolerate infantile insecurity.

Juris Imprudent said...

Interesting, M is posting since I wrote this, so I know he's seen it - but has nothing to say.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I do and I'm trying to stay on topic and not redirect away from the points you made. It's a nice straw man you've created with your links above, Noni

The claim was made that a Federal Law should be passed REQUIRING guns to be kept locked up:

The NRA recommends people use concealed lock boxes or gun safes, as well as trigger locks or cable locks and that guns be stored unloaded. They should demand these recommendations be given the force of law.
— Nikto

The links are to situations where Very Bad Things would have happened to children if that had been law. Therefore, they are precisely on point, specifically, demonstrating that the claim is a horrible idea.

You need to learn what "staying on topic" means, what "straw man" means, what "fallacy" means, what kind of arguments are fallacies (and to stop using them), what "cargo culting" is, what "logic" is, that 22 is greater 15, what actual critical thinking is, heck, you need to learn how to Think.

that shouldn't end the discussion before it even starts on restricting usage of some (not all) guns. Are we even allowed to have the discussion or not?

Clearly you also need to learn what "shall", "not", "be", and "infringed" mean; individually AND when put in that order using rules of standard English. Then you also need to learn what "supreme" and "law" mean.

For the record, you are not "discussing", you are "telling". You are not listening, searching for truth, or at all interesting in gaining knowledge; nevermind understanding different perspectives on accurate facts. Having a "discussion" with you is impossible. Those who do have knowledge and constantly study to learn more from history easily recognize this. We are all thoroughly justified in telling you to take your faux "discussion" and shove it back into where the sun don't shine.

Juris Imprudent said...

Well, well, well M has just completely ignored this thread.