Just cancelled my Rockland Journal Subscription

[Axil]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

The responses here are very interesting. I'm not arguing for or against public registries, but I would think if there is one it should include a list of people who own all forms of firearms. Would it be so difficult to exclude law enforcement personnel - active/retired? Would it be a problem for that list to require a request through an agency rather than a newspaper publication?

I do not believe retired law enforcement officer should be treated differently than any other citizen. As evidenced by the case where the elderly man was targeted because his gun was valuable, there are reasons other than participation in law enforcement activities, that the knowledge you have a firearm can be detrimental to you.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Re the example, the key issue was "stockpiling" of weapons coupled with observed erratic behavior. It seems in your world there are only two options: wildy insane or normal. In my world, the accumulation of risk factors would suggest someone take notice.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

No, i believe there's a gentle curve from sanity to insanity, and that we all fall somewhere along it. My issue with your suggestion is that stockpiling weapons is not a crime. Nor is it an indication of insanity. Thus if the fact that the neighbor had a weapon or weapons factored into the filing of a complaint, you've tainted the complaint before it's even been investigated.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Police would not be required or expected to declare who filed the complaint so I don't get the concern about being retaliated against. MH Crisis Teams are called every day in NYC due to observed MH problems in a family member, neighbor, or stranger. This is not a new service, but one that has been in existence for many years. Just the simple presence of the police to investigate might serve as adequate deterrent to said neighbor acting out some mass attack. Same with an MH evaluation. The neighbor might even get some help. God forbid that we should engage professional intervention to at least check things out... or are we arguing here that the police should not have the right to investigate a complaint because it infringes someone's liberty?

No. Again, I'm arguing that those people who fit the criteria (whatever they may be) for Crisis Team intervention do so irrespective of the amount of firearms they legally own.

Your opinions so far support

(A) checking the mental health history of a person applying to own a firearm
(B) considering the fact you own a firearm or the number of firearms you own a factor related to your mental health.

Yet you don't think that might constitute an infringement on the right to bear arms.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Just to be clear, crazy guy with lots of firearms is definitely much more of a concern than crazy guy without them. Yeah, I would worry if my crazy nieghbor suddenly started purchasing assault weapons. But hey, who am I to question his personal liberty...

Crazy by whose standards? Your infrequent and shallow interactions as neighbors? Your intolerent view of his/her foibles, quirks and idosincracies (totally spelled that wrong). Crazy purely because the own more than one gun (alot of folks hold that view)?

One man's crazy assault-weapon hoarding neighbor, is another man's shooting enthusiast, millitary historical collector, or avid Hunter.

I fully support a list, and personal accountabillity for the guns you buy, including filing paperwork when you sell it on, and all the rest (if the system can be made to work that well).

I do not support that list being available to anyone outside duly appointed law enforcement and used strictly for law enforcement purposes, and with the same limits as we give say, terrorists, i..e proper count findings to look into more than is absolutely neccessary.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Crazy by whose standards? Your infrequent and shallow interactions as neighbors? Your intolerent view of his/her foibles, quirks and idosincracies (totally spelled that wrong). Crazy purely because the own more than one gun (alot of folks hold that view)?

One man's crazy assault-weapon hoarding neighbor, is another man's shooting enthusiast, millitary historical collector, or avid Hunter.

I fully support a list, and personal accountabillity for the guns you buy, including filing paperwork when you sell it on, and all the rest (if the system can be made to work that well).

I do not support that list being available to anyone outside duly appointed law enforcement and used strictly for law enforcement purposes, and with the same limits as we give say, terrorists, i..e proper count findings to look into more than is absolutely neccessary.

Apparently he also would support a public list of people in his area who suffer from mental problems. Just so he knows who is "crazy" and who isn't.

[chiefst2000]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Apparently he also would support a public list of people in his area who suffer from mental problems. Just so he knows who is "crazy" and who isn't.

Here is a thought for anyone that thought this list of gun owners was a good idea.

Since we already have publicly available sex offender registries maybe we should take that a step further. The offender registries only contain people that have already committed a crime. Maybe people deserve to know if they have any neighbors that may be committing lewd acts that may eventually lead to becoming sex offenders. Maybe Homosexuals should be included on that list since most pedophiles are homosexual men that go after boys. Maybe they should include any people that like to do S & M stuff since that's pretty creepy and may be linked to other creepy behavior? How about a list of any neighbors taking psychotropic drugs? Those pills list violent tendencies as a side effect. Maybe people deserve to know if their neighbors are taking medication that can lead to violent behavior?

**Note - I am being sarcastic here

Of course I find the idea of actually creating that sort of list disgusting and reprehensible but my point is that this type of thing is a slippery slope that can lead to places a lot of panty wearing gun hating libs might not like as much.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Axil

I do not believe retired law enforcement officer should be treated differently than any other citizen. As evidenced by the case where the elderly man was targeted because his gun was valuable, there are reasons other than participation in law enforcement activities, that the knowledge you have a firearm can be detrimental to you.




No. Again, I'm arguing that those people who fit the criteria (whatever they may be) for Crisis Team intervention do so irrespective of the amount of firearms they legally own.

Your opinions so far support

(A) checking the mental health history of a person applying to own a firearm
(B) considering the fact you own a firearm or the number of firearms you own a factor related to your mental health.

Yet you don't think that might constitute an infringement on the right to bear arms.

(A) is correct. (B) is not. I stated that observed disturbed behavior COUPLED with knowledge that the individual was STOCKPILING weapons should allow for a police check and/or MH Crisis team call. Doesn't mean one shouldn't call because of disturbed behavior alone, but it certainly ramps up when you know that same person is arming himself aggressively. And no, I don't think that is an infringement on the right to keep arms. As long as due process is engaged, there are limits on every right we possess. The due process is engaged when we call the police or a city agency to intervene, rather than taking action ourselves.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Apparently he also would support a public list of people in his area who suffer from mental problems. Just so he knows who is "crazy" and who isn't.

No, I wouldn't. Trying to distort the point to make it silly is really not adding to the discussion. So your neighbor is shouting obcenities in his underwear on his front lawn while he waves his Glock 9 mm around. Seems perfectly okay to me... he's just expressing his personal liberty on his own property. Nothing to see here... move on. Of course, I might want to put the dog in the garage and make sure my kids aren't playing anywhere nearby. But hey, free country. Until he starts pulling the trigger it's not my problem. Got it.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Crazy by whose standards? Your infrequent and shallow interactions as neighbors? Your intolerent view of his/her foibles, quirks and idosincracies (totally spelled that wrong). Crazy purely because the own more than one gun (alot of folks hold that view)?

One man's crazy assault-weapon hoarding neighbor, is another man's shooting enthusiast, millitary historical collector, or avid Hunter.

I fully support a list, and personal accountabillity for the guns you buy, including filing paperwork when you sell it on, and all the rest (if the system can be made to work that well).

I do not support that list being available to anyone outside duly appointed law enforcement and used strictly for law enforcement purposes, and with the same limits as we give say, terrorists, i..e proper count findings to look into more than is absolutely neccessary.

That's why you report the issue to the police and/or MH professionals. If your neighbor doesn't meet their criteria for action, so be it. But you seem to be opposed to the idea of reporting the matter at all. I disagree. As to the whole nonsense about MH lists, or lists published in newspapers, I've already addressed that.

[Bonhomme Richard]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

No, I wouldn't. Trying to distort the point to make it silly is really not adding to the discussion. So your neighbor is shouting obcenities in his underwear on his front lawn while he waves his Glock 9 mm around. Seems perfectly okay to me... he's just expressing his personal liberty on his own property. Nothing to see here... move on. Of course, I might want to put the dog in the garage and make sure my kids aren't playing anywhere nearby. But hey, free country. Until he starts pulling the trigger it's not my problem. Got it.

Or... you call the police and let the authorities handle it.

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

I stated that observed disturbed behavior COUPLED with knowledge that the individual was STOCKPILING weapons

Define "disturbed behavior" please.

Also, define "stockpiling weapons" please.

If we're going to so eagerly infinge upon someones privacy rights, we should at least be able to strictly and easily define our terms.....right?

arming himself aggressively.

Can you give us an example case? What you'd (as a witness) call witnessing someone "arming himself aggressively" that currently isn't covered by existing law (i.e. brandishing firearms is already covered, for example)?

As long as due process is engaged, there are limits on every right we possess.

Should limits, therefore, exist on the rightto an abortion for example? Is it reasonable to read your line here and say "well then, I guess we DO have the societal right to limit abortions if we wish, it's not the unlimited sacrosanct right some claim it is"?

The same could be asked of voter ID laws as well.

The due process is engaged when we call the police or a city agency to intervene, rather than taking action ourselves.

But you did take action yourself. You engaged in a violation of your neighbors privacy, apparently, watching him in enough detail on his property and/or in his home taht you felt rightious in making a clinical diagnosis of his mental state and a judgement on how many guns or what types you think are ok 9regardless of what the law allows) in order to "report him" to the Law, a process that by definition leads to invastion of privacy based on only your reporting as probable cause.

As a counterpoint, if you had a child, would you want your neighbor looking through your windows, maybe going through your trash, seeing what you own or don't own, and deciding you may be abusing your child based on whatever their belief of abuse is, and them reporting you, and then the Law taking your child away (even temporarily) while it's looked into through what we all know is a slow and ponderous system?

[Trades]

This seemed like a fitting article to the discussion here. Long but worth a read.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/1...ndy-hook/print

Barack Obama, Jon Stewart, Sandy Hook, and "Common Sense" Gun Control

Nick Gillespie|Jan. 15, 2013 12:30 pm

Click above to watch Reason TV's "5 Facts about Guns, Schools, and Violence," originally released on January 10, 2013.
Last Monday's episode of The Daily Show (watch it here), Jon Stewart opened with a long, heartfelt, and sardonically witty segment that showcased the stupidity of some well-known gun-rights advocates. In many ways, that segment perfectly captures the desire for what President Obama has called "common-sense" gun control laws that will prevent horrific tragedies like December's Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.


It's worth thinking about where Stewart is coming from, and not simply because he hosts a TV show that has supposedly replaced network news as the main source of information and analysis for most of America. Stewart makes a lot of good points, or at least points worth thinking about. In the end, though, he comes up well short of proposing meaningful reforms. In that failure, too, he's capturing the anti-gun zeitgeist.


In The Daily Show bit, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre was shown namechecking 20-year-old movies such as Natural Born Killers and equally ancient video games such as Mortal Kombat as the proximate cause for the Sandy Hook school shooting. LaPierre even called for a national database of lunatics, though the loud-mouthed hysteric declined the chance to be the first entry.


"Technology has democratized carnage," said a hoarse Stewart (he was getting over a cold), who was put out by Second Amendment defenders who point out the fact that the amendment is part of the Bill of Rights. Riffing on the flesh-shredding capabilities of current weapons, Stewart said, "When that constitution was written, people had muskets."


Showing a clip reel of characters ranging from homeless-man impersonator and former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura to Fox News' amiable Steve Doocy saying not particularly smart things about guns and history, Stewart acknowledged that mass shootings are complex phenomena that almost surely have more than a single or simple cause. Then he asked,

Why is it that there's no other issue in this country with as dire public safety consequences as this that we are unable to take even the most basic steps toward putting together a complex plan of action just to slow this epidemic spread?

Cue more nutjobs and numbskulls - such as conspiracy-monger Alex Jones - talking about how guns are the last line of defense against tyranny. Stewart concluded that folks who worry about the government taking their guns are the reason we can't talk about common-sense measures to reduce the likelihood of another Sandy Hook shooting. Why not shrink magazine capacities, asked Stewart. Or keep assault weapons only at shooting ranges? We can't even discuss such ideas, he averred, because of freakazoids such as Jones and Ventura and Steve Doocy (!) wetting their pants about the second coming of Stalin or Pol Pot.

Their paranoid fear of a possible dystopic future prevents us from addressing our actual dystopic presence. We can't even begin to address 30,000 gun deaths that are actually in reality happening in this country every year because a few of us must remain vigilant against the rise of imaginary Hitler.

That 30,000 number stood out to me because it seemed very high. According to the FBI, in 2011, there was a total of 8,583 firearm homicides in the U.S. That may well be 8,583 gun murders too many, but it's nowhere near 30,000 (the total number of murders by all methods came to 12,664). The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) uses a different method and found about 11,000 gun-related murders in 2011 and the total number of homicides to be around 16,000 (see table 2). So How did Stewart get to 30,000? By adding the number of gun-related suicides to the number of homicides. When you add those figures in, you get up toward the 30,000 figure.


As with the total number of homicides in a given year, it's easy (and arguably right) to say that any number of suicides is too high. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death among people 10 years and older, according to the CDC, and guns are involved in a majority of male suicides and a smaller percentage of female suicides. More than is commonly thought, suicide is an impulsive act, not the product of long-term, rational deliberation (though it is that sometimes, and is certainly as basic a right as there could possibly be). The impulsivity of many, maybe even most, suicides is an argument for keeping guns away from people. It's harder to kill yourself on the spur of the moment, I assume, with a rope than with a pistol.


But overall trends in suicide are pretty flat over the past 20 years. A basically flat trend (with some upticks depending on the age group) isn't as good as the falling declines in violent crime and gun-related homicide, but it suggests that there's no cause for urgent action. More to the point, very few people seem to be calling for gun control as a way to stem suicide. In fact, Stewart didn't even mention that the majority of gun deaths in his 30,000 number are actually self-inflicted. To do so would undermine his case that the reason to ban guns - or at least limit who can legally possess them - is to prevent school shootings and a more broadly invoked "epidemic" of gun-related violence that shows up everywhere except crime data.


So, should we be pursuing new, "common-sense" restrictions on the buying, selling, owning, and operating of guns? I am not a gun person - I've gone shooting exactly twice in my life and didn't enjoy either experience - and I find many of the arguments of gun-rights advocates unconvincing or uninteresting. The notion that a rag-tag band of regular folks armed with semi-automatic weapons and the odd shotgun are a serious hedge against tyranny strikes me as a stretch (and I even saw the remake of Red Dawn!). Hitler and the Nazis didn't take away everyone's guns, as is commonly argued. They expanded gun rights for many groups (though not the Jews). When the whole mutha starts to come down, if the choice is between Jesse Ventura or Janet Napolitano, I'm not sure where to turn.



And yet the idea of armed self-defense is a totally different matter and I also realize that many people live out in the sticks or even in urban neighborhoods where the police aren't a realistic option when trouble comes a-calling. I know people for whom owning a shotgun is no different than owning a tennis racket and hunting is a family affair more revered than holiday dinners. I don't see any reason why law-abiding people should have to explain to anyone why they want a semi-automatic gun or a magazine that holds 10 bullets instead of seven.



Once you strip away the raw emotionalism of the carnage at Sandy Hook, or the Aurora theater, or Columbine, or Luby's, or whatever, you're left with a series of inconvenient truths for gun-control advocates: Over the past 20 years or so, more guns are in circulation and violent crime is down. So is violent crime that uses guns. Murders are down, too, even as video games and movies and music and everything else are filled with more fantasy violence than ever. For god's sake, even mass shootings are not becoming more common. If ever there was a case to stand pat in terms of public policy, the state of gun control provides it (and that's without even delving into the fact that Supreme Court has recently validated a personal right to own guns in two landmark cases). It's probably always been the case but certainly since the start of 21st century, it seems like we legislate only by crisis-mongering and the results have not been good: The PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, TARP, fiscal cliff deals, you name it. Would that cooler heads prevailed then and now.


And when you get to the specific cause of Jon Stewart's and the nation's ragged voice and broken heart - when you get to non-cynical attempts to use a mass shooting to effect some good in the world - you come up just as emptyhanded. Walk back from the Sandy Hook shooting and try to figure out a way to prevent Adam Lanza from doing what he did. Are you going to start making "strange" kids go to more psychological clinics at earlier ages?



Lock up more psychos (and define that term more broadly) and/or take them away from parents? Institute a house-by-house search for insane people in proximity to guns? Ban or limit video games that generate billions of dollars in sales and essentially zero in copycat crimes?


Stewart is right to be anguished by what happened in December. So is the country. And the urge to do something - even something that will inevitably be put into action by opportunistic politicians - is fully understandable. But that doesn't mean it will accomplish anything. It won't make us safer (current policy seems to already be doing that) and it won't even make us feel better. Because at the end of the day, there's still 26 people - kids mostly, which is just awful - who had no connection to the gunman who shot them down. And taking a couple of bullets out of clip or sending more kids to doctors or turning schools slightly more into prison environments isn't going to bring them back. Or worse yet, prevent the next one from happening.

[Frequent Flyer]

The Stasi infiltrated almost every aspect of GDR life. In the mid-1980s, a network of IMs began growing in both German states; by the time East Germany collapsed in 1989, the Stasi employed 91,015 employees and 173,081 informants.[24] About one of every 63 East Germans collaborated with the Stasi. By at least one estimate, the Stasi maintained greater surveillance over its own people than any secret police force in history.[25] The Stasi employed one full-time agent for every 166 East Germans. The ratios swelled when informers were factored in; counting part-time informers, the Stasi had one informer per 6.5 people. In some cases, spouses even spied on each other. A high-profile example of this was peace activist Vera Lengsfeld, whose husband, Knud Wollenberger, was a Stasi informant.[20]

People were imprisoned for such reasons as trying to leave the country, or telling political jokes. Prisoners were kept isolated and disoriented, knowing nothing of what was going on in the outside world.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi

It's coming.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard

Or... you call the police and let the authorities handle it.

Which is precisely what I've been saying throughout.

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Define "disturbed behavior" please.

Also, define "stockpiling weapons" please.

If we're going to so eagerly infinge upon someones privacy rights, we should at least be able to strictly and easily define our terms.....right?



Can you give us an example case? What you'd (as a witness) call witnessing someone "arming himself aggressively" that currently isn't covered by existing law (i.e. brandishing firearms is already covered, for example)?



Should limits, therefore, exist on the rightto an abortion for example? Is it reasonable to read your line here and say "well then, I guess we DO have the societal right to limit abortions if we wish, it's not the unlimited sacrosanct right some claim it is"?

The same could be asked of voter ID laws as well.



But you did take action yourself. You engaged in a violation of your neighbors privacy, apparently, watching him in enough detail on his property and/or in his home taht you felt rightious in making a clinical diagnosis of his mental state and a judgement on how many guns or what types you think are ok 9regardless of what the law allows) in order to "report him" to the Law, a process that by definition leads to invastion of privacy based on only your reporting as probable cause.

As a counterpoint, if you had a child, would you want your neighbor looking through your windows, maybe going through your trash, seeing what you own or don't own, and deciding you may be abusing your child based on whatever their belief of abuse is, and them reporting you, and then the Law taking your child away (even temporarily) while it's looked into through what we all know is a slow and ponderous system?

Oye gevalt. The point is that I don't have to have a degree in psychology or an advanced weaponry certificate. Calling in the authorities to investigate means that THEY are making the judgment of imminent harm or risk, not me. You misunderstood my hypothetical. The neighbor is acting erratically in plain sight. I was assuming that I could access a public registry to find out the status of his gun possession, not enter his property. That was the crux of the issue... should there be a public registry for all guns... would it have a useful purpose... if there is an invasion of his privacy it would be done by the authorities following up a complaint/call.

That's it. No house to house searches for insane people, no house to house searches for weapons, no secret police... my goodness, the weird turns this subject takes are really incredible.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Axil

(A) checking the mental health history of a person applying to own a firearm
(B) considering the fact you own a firearm or the number of firearms you own a factor related to your mental health.

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

(A) is correct. (B) is not. I stated that observed disturbed behavior COUPLED with knowledge that the individual was STOCKPILING weapons should allow for a police check and/or MH Crisis team call. Doesn't mean one shouldn't call because of disturbed behavior alone, but it certainly ramps up when you know that same person is arming himself aggressively. And no, I don't think that is an infringement on the right to keep arms. As long as due process is engaged, there are limits on every right we possess. The due process is engaged when we call the police or a city agency to intervene, rather than taking action ourselves.

I'm starting to think i'm the crazy one. I'm trying to understand your thought process here, i really am.

How can you say you're not considering the number of weapons a factor. When you're saying that observed disturbed behavior coupled with the knowledge an individual is stockpiling weapons is cause for a police check

If the weapons weren't a factor then your Crisis Team could come into play regardless of the registry, and the registry is therefore worthless in the deployment of a Crisis Team.

OR

The weapons are a factor, and your legal behavior concerning your weapons is being used to some degree in order to label you mentally unstable.

Keep in mind that up until this point all your examples have involved illegal behavior. If you see your neighbor waving a gun around in his front yard, you can call the police right then and there, you don't need to look him up in a registry!

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

The point is that I don't have to have a degree in psychology or an advanced weaponry certificate.

Yet you feel qualified to make both a mental health evaluation from afar AND a judgement regarding "weapon stockpiling" AND the purpose of said stockpiling.

Calling in the authorities to investigate means that THEY are making the judgment of imminent harm or risk, not me.

You make it sound like having the police bust down your door en masse on the assumption that you are A. insane and B. in posession of a "stockpile" of firearms is no big deal.

You misunderstood my hypothetical. The neighbor is acting erratically in plain sight.

Define "erraticly" in this circumstance.

Maybe he has Parkinsons? and now you have sent the Police barging through his door. Nice job.

You, in your paranoia, have just sent the SWAT team barging in on a PArkinsons patient who also happens to be a WWII Weapon collector.

I was assuming that I could access a public registry to find out the status of his gun possession, not enter his property.

So you feel you have the right, without any other cause, to break his constitutional right to privacy to feed your own paranoia and noseyness?

That was the crux of the issue... should there be a public registry for all guns... would it have a useful purpose

Yes, it would identify who owns guns, and thus make them a target for those who comit crimes with guns as locations where additional guns can be aquired.

That's it. No house to house searches for insane people, no house to house searches for weapons, no secret police... my goodness, the weird turns this subject takes are really incredible.

Respectfully, I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of the policies you're seemingly in support of, or tha massive number fo presumptions and assumptions you're making in order to placate what is, frankly, just yoru own FEAR of what migth be, not actual cause.

The laws that exist today already cover the vast majority of what you intend, without requiring making every gun owner in America a target for political attack, criminal invasion, or more.

[AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Respectfully, I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of the policies you're seemingly in support of, or tha massive number fo presumptions and assumptions you're making in order to placate what is, frankly, just yoru own FEAR of what migth be, not actual cause.

The laws that exist today already cover the vast majority of what you intend, without requiring making every gun owner in America a target for political attack, criminal invasion, or more.

Pretty much sums it up...

You're talking to a dude that probably takes issue with a stop and frisk policy... But has no issue when he's the one assuming a party is guilty upfront...

Just hilarious when you really think about it...

[long island leprechaun]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Yet you feel qualified to make both a mental health evaluation from afar AND a judgement regarding "weapon stockpiling" AND the purpose of said stockpiling.



You make it sound like having the police bust down your door en masse on the assumption that you are A. insane and B. in posession of a "stockpile" of firearms is no big deal.



Define "erraticly" in this circumstance.

Maybe he has Parkinsons? and now you have sent the Police barging through his door. Nice job.

You, in your paranoia, have just sent the SWAT team barging in on a PArkinsons patient who also happens to be a WWII Weapon collector.



So you feel you have the right, without any other cause, to break his constitutional right to privacy to feed your own paranoia and noseyness?



Yes, it would identify who owns guns, and thus make them a target for those who comit crimes with guns as locations where additional guns can be aquired.



Respectfully, I don't think you've thought through the ramifications of the policies you're seemingly in support of, or tha massive number fo presumptions and assumptions you're making in order to placate what is, frankly, just yoru own FEAR of what migth be, not actual cause.

The laws that exist today already cover the vast majority of what you intend, without requiring making every gun owner in America a target for political attack, criminal invasion, or more.

So your answer is no to the public gun registry?

Actually, that part I do think is a good idea. But I also think there should be some protocol for accessing the record as well... i.e., if you want to know, you need to register your request with ID. And I agree that most of this is already covered, which was why I was so surprised that it set up a wail of horror from the peanut gallery. And I don't consider a police check to be a "criminal invasion" or a swat team, etc. That's your excessive attempt at distorting to serve your stance. And yeah, if my neighbor is making very nervous by his actions and I know through public means that he's arming himself, I'd certainly consider giving the police a call.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

I don't think there's much doubt that some media are using their pulpits to assert a political position on this issue. The step to publish the names of gun owners was knee jerk and rash. I doubt very strongly that the publishers gave serious thought to the consequences of their actions for law abiding gun owners.

On the other hand, suppose that a public list reveals to you as a private citizen that your neighbor, who behaves irratically and you know has a psychiatric problem, is stockpiling assault weapons. Is there anything that should be done in this instance? Or should it simply be ignored because of his right to keep arms?

==============================================

I disagree, it went beyond knee jerk and rash, it was done punitively, with a political ax to grind, also no doubt meant to be controversial cause controversy sales papers. Two birds with one stone.

I also believe The publishers and writer were well aware that there could be a negative effect on legal gun owners. Why else did they leave there own names off the list/map, as the writer and at least one of the publishers have been reported to have hand gun permits and we assume are also legal gun owners?

If I believe my neighbor is acting erratic enough that I fear they may harm themselves or some one else I would report them to 911 and I have done so. I consider that action to have been in self defense, and for a genuine concern for my neighbors (who I care about) well being.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by 32green

This would reveal a problem in the supply system that has to be addressed, no doubt, but throwing the baby out with the bathwater (giving perps the addresses of law enforcement/corrections they have dealt with..they know the cops names from court paperwork etc.) is ridiculous.

You dont think there are any bitter prisoners that would love to settle a score with LE? Alot of cops on that list put away monsters....who have nothing better to do than read the paper and use the prison library. Whoa...there's my arresting officers address. Niiiiiice.


The bad guys out there will not abide by any new laws and the weapons are already out there, so we will merely be impacting good guys.

-

================================================== =

Preach on brother! I couldn't agree more.

[gunnails]

Originally Posted by long island leprechaun

Given that we call authorities to report our neighbor making too much noise, or beating his dog, I would guess that this too is reportable. Police may have knowledge of the stockpiling issue (probably not) but may not put that together with your knowledge of erratic/unstable behavior. I'd like to know the neighbor is at least on someone's radar. They could also initiate a MH Crisis team visit, which is pretty common. Again, I would want the neighbor at least assessed and noted by those that might be able to avert a catastrophe.

================================================

I agree erratic/unstable behavior should be reported when encountered, if for no other reason then to put the poor soul on someone in a position to help them or in a position to prevent them from causing harm radars.

Of course I am sure you know by now I do not agree with gun registraition.