Guns and Mental Illness

[Reefgazer]

Worth a discussion, IMO:

 

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/guns-congress-and-murphys-law-090049362.html

 

 

 

[TechWife]

I've been aware of this bill for a little while now. For those who would like to read it, here is a link. Here is a summary prepared by Congressman Murphy's office, it isn't detailed, however. Congressman Murphy isn't new to this rodeo and this isn't the first time he has presented this bill to congress. He's a long time mental health care provider (still works in the field) and a long time advocate. 

 

One thing that doesn't come through in the yahoo article is that this is a comprehensive mental health care bill. That is one of the reasons I like it. It's purpose is not to address crime and it doesn't even mention crime or guns. It's purpose is to help people with mental illness. It addresses the need for government leadership by mental health professionals, not politicians; funding to alleviate the shortage of beds and providers; funding for research; services for children; allowing families to access medical information on their family members so that they can be an active part of the treatment team; safeguarding the rights of individuals with mental illness and I'm sure I've left some stuff out - it's a long bill. 

 

I think most people in the mental health fields agree that there is a small segment that should not have access to guns, but mental health isn't about gun control. It's about caring for people so that they can live the healthiest life possible. 

 

It shouldn't be hard to figure out if someone has easy access to a gun - there could be a registry that compiles this information, attaching guns to their owners by serial numbers and tracking the residential location of gun owners. We do it for cars, we can do it for guns. If there were a comprehensive database, then a physician could make one phone call and/or fill out one form in order to notify authorities of a patient that shouldn't have access to guns and the authorities could then determine if there are any guns in that person's home and take steps to secure or remove them.  The biggest stumbling block to this is that currently, the NRA lobbies against both such a database and the ability of authorities to confiscate weapons. So, there you go. 

 

Edited for clarity.

[SKL]

Or known suicide risks, as was the case in Oregon.

 

I think there is opportunity for improvement in this area.

 

Not sure I like calling it "Murphy's Law"....

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

It shouldn't be hard to figure out if someone has easy access to a gun - there could be a registry that compiles this information, attaching guns to their owners by serial numbers and tracking the residential location of gun owners. We do it for cars, we can do it for guns. If there were a comprehensive database, then a physician could make one phone call and/or fill out one form in order to notify authorities of a patient that shouldn't have access to guns and the authorities could then determine if there are any guns in that person's home and take steps to secure or remove them.  The biggest stumbling block to this is that currently, the NRA lobbies against both such a database and the ability of authorities to confiscate weapons. So, there you go. 

 

Edited for clarity.

 

Then again, it's pretty easy to get a gun illegally.  We are saturated with guns.  It is stuff like this that essentially polices law abiding citizens.  I never thought I'd use that wording ever in reference to guns (I am very anti gun), but really this is what these sorts of things actually manage to do.  Kinda like the TSA stuff.  If someone is hell bent on hurting a lot of people or doing something wrong, they won't care about some laws and regulations.

 

Plus it is a slippery slope.  What else will the database be used for? 

[TechWife]

Then again, it's pretty easy to get a gun illegally.  We are saturated with guns.  It is stuff like this that essentially polices law abiding citizens.  I never thought I'd use that wording ever in reference to guns (I am very anti gun), but really this is what these sorts of things actually manage to do.  Kinda like the TSA stuff.  If someone is hell bent on hurting a lot of people or doing something wrong, they won't care about some laws and regulations.

 

Plus it is a slippery slope.  What else will the database be used for? 

 

I'm a firm believer that it doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, though. If the concern  is how to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous mentally ill patients, we need to address legally obtained weapons. The fact that it doesn't address the illegally obtained ones is another gun control issue that applies to a much broader population. 

 

I think it's a reasonable desire of physicians and the general public to protect mental ill people  from themselves and to protect the community as well. Compiling a database is a reasonable way to attempt to do this. There are all kinds of databases maintained by the government. We trust the privacy laws that surround them to protect us as far as they are able. This would be no different. The fact that something has the potential for misuse isn't a legitimate reason not to do it. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm a firm believer that it doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything, though. If the concern  is how to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous mentally ill patients, we need to address legally obtained weapons. The fact that it doesn't address the illegally obtained ones is another gun control issue that applies to a much broader population. 

 

I think it's a reasonable desire of physicians and the general public to protect mental ill people  from themselves and to protect the community as well. Compiling a database is a reasonable way to attempt to do this. There are all kinds of databases maintained by the government. We trust the privacy laws that surround them to protect us as far as they are able. This would be no different. The fact that something has the potential for misuse isn't a legitimate reason not to do it. 

 

Yeah I don't know.  I agree we should try something.  I'm just not entirely sure what that something should be.

[Valley Girl]

 

 There are all kinds of databases maintained by the government. We trust the privacy laws that surround them to protect us as far as they are able. This would be no different. The fact that something has the potential for misuse isn't a legitimate reason not to do it. 

 

But let's also not minimize the very real problems of creating such a database. My family has had personal information compromised from supposedly secure databases multiple times in the last few years. The government itself has had the supposedly secure information of employees hacked at least twice if I'm recalling news reports accurately. At least one newspaper printed the addresses of homes where gun owners lived. That put families at risk as well. I think misuse of information is a given not a mere possibility.

[Aiden]

I am very much pro-gun ownership and am reflexively against gun control (I can be convinced sometimes, but my default position is "no"). I have not read the entire bill, but I'm pretty sure I could get behind the idea of it, as presented in the linked article.

 

I would not so much be in favor of a national registry. I am one of the former government employees whose information was almost certainly compromised, and my former job was in collecting (and safeguarding while in my possession) sensitive personal information. Yeah, I don't trust the government with that. I also am not convinced that such a registry would be needed if the health privacy laws were relaxed enough for families to be filled in on the pertinent details. Families would know whether the individual owned a gun and most would at least attempt to take proper steps to remove the gun from an unsafe individual. The vast majority of gun-owning relatives would keep their own guns away from the individual if they were told by medical personnel that the individual posed a threat to self or society.

 

I only became aware of this proposed law by reading the article linked in this thread, so my opinions are still very much in the formative phase.

[Reefgazer]

I probably should have posted over on your other thread. 

I've been aware of this bill for a little while now. For those who would like to read it, here is a link. Here is a summary prepared by Congressman Murphy's office, it isn't detailed, however. Congressman Murphy isn't new to this rodeo and this isn't the first time he has presented this bill to congress. He's a long time mental health care provider (still works in the field) and a long time advocate. 

 

One thing that doesn't come through in the yahoo article is that this is a comprehensive mental health care bill. That is one of the reasons I like it. It's purpose is not to address crime and it doesn't even mention crime or guns. It's purpose is to help people with mental illness. It addresses the need for government leadership by mental health professionals, not politicians; funding to alleviate the shortage of beds and providers; funding for research; services for children; allowing families to access medical information on their family members so that they can be an active part of the treatment team; safeguarding the rights of individuals with mental illness and I'm sure I've left some stuff out - it's a long bill. 

 

I think most people in the mental health fields agree that there is a small segment that should not have access to guns, but mental health isn't about gun control. It's about caring for people so that they can live the healthiest life possible. 

 

It shouldn't be hard to figure out if someone has easy access to a gun - there could be a registry that compiles this information, attaching guns to their owners by serial numbers and tracking the residential location of gun owners. We do it for cars, we can do it for guns. If there were a comprehensive database, then a physician could make one phone call and/or fill out one form in order to notify authorities of a patient that shouldn't have access to guns and the authorities could then determine if there are any guns in that person's home and take steps to secure or remove them.  The biggest stumbling block to this is that currently, the NRA lobbies against both such a database and the ability of authorities to confiscate weapons. So, there you go. 

 

Edited for clarity.

 

[Reefgazer]

These are my thoughts, as well, as we are Navy and DH had his info hacked.  There is a lot to potentially like in this bill, but the privacy issues and database hacks would need to be addressed a little better.

I am very much pro-gun ownership and am reflexively against gun control (I can be convinced sometimes, but my default position is "no"). I have not read the entire bill, but I'm pretty sure I could get behind the idea of it, as presented in the linked article.

 

I would not so much be in favor of a national registry. I am one of the former government employees whose information was almost certainly compromised, and my former job was in collecting (and safeguarding while in my possession) sensitive personal information. Yeah, I don't trust the government with that. I also am not convinced that such a registry would be needed if the health privacy laws were relaxed enough for families to be filled in on the pertinent details. Families would know whether the individual owned a gun and most would at least attempt to take proper steps to remove the gun from an unsafe individual. The vast majority of gun-owning relatives would keep their own guns away from the individual if they were told by medical personnel that the individual posed a threat to self or society.

 

I only became aware of this proposed law by reading the article linked in this thread, so my opinions are still very much in the formative phase.

 

[Katy]

That article is inflammatory to say the least.   Trying to get past the first page of snarky commentary to real issues when there is so much incorrect fact in the snark is difficult for me, and I'm somewhat moderate politically.  Seriously, if you've ever even considered voting for a Republican in your entire life, or have shot a gun, just skip to page two. It's worth it because the when stripped of the opinions of the writer, the bill the post is supposed to be in reference to sounds like it would be a good one for all mental illness that presents in hospitals.

 

We should probably just find a different article about the bill, to avoid violating the political rules here.

 

 

[goldberry]

Wow.  A bill that is actually reasonable, makes sense, and might accomplish something.  Which is why probably nothing will be done with it.  (Yes, I'm very cynical.)

[TechWife]

 

 

We should probably just find a different article about the bill, to avoid violating the political rules here.

 

Or, we could just read and discuss the bill, but that wouldn't be honoring the thread title. After all, the bill has nothing to do with guns. 

[TechWife]

I probably should have posted over on your other thread. 

 

Actually, I think you did the right thing. The thread I started is for addressing mental health issues, not for addressing guns or crime. The two aren't synonymous. 

[TechWife]

I am very much pro-gun ownership and am reflexively against gun control (I can be convinced sometimes, but my default position is "no"). I have not read the entire bill, but I'm pretty sure I could get behind the idea of it, as presented in the linked article.

 

 

 

The bill is not presented in the article. The bill has nothing to do with guns. It is a mental health care bill. 

[TechWife]

 

I only became aware of this proposed law by reading the article linked in this thread, so my opinions are still very much in the formative phase.

 

You need to read the bill. It has nothing to do with guns. The word "gun" is never used in the bill. 

[TechWife]

 I think misuse of information is a given not a mere possibility.

 

I think in this day and age, you are probably right. However, I don't think that it is a solid reason to not have a registry. By and large, data breeches have not changed the behavior of the American public. People still use credit cards and give needed information to their employers, insurance companies and other entities all the time. I think if this were a solid rationale, past breeches would have changed the behavior of the public. They haven't. 

[goldberry]

You need to read the bill. It has nothing to do with guns. The word "gun" is never used in the bill. 

 

Whenever gun control is mentioned to address violent crime, the answer from anti-gun-control folks is "it's mental illness, not guns". So we are not just making an imagined leap there.  No, it does not mention guns.  But it offers some ideas about how to address mental illness in specific ways that might prevent possible acts of violence.

 

To be honest, this is the first time I've actually seem something useful in an attempt to address that.  The portions of the bill regarding privacy laws as they apply to potential violence could have a very positive impact in preventing violence, gun and otherwise.

[Aiden]

The bill is not presented in the article. The bill has nothing to do with guns. It is a mental health care bill.

 

  

You need to read the bill. It has nothing to do with guns. The word "gun" is never used in the bill.

 

Yet, if the proposed bill really does loosen health privacy laws enough that others could become involved, and it really could prevent suicides or mass shooting events, it is relevant to the gun control debate, even if it isn't specifically about guns. Lots of people have said that what we need instead of, or in addition to, gun control laws is a revamping of our mental health system. A mental health bill can indeed be relevant to guns even if that is not its primary purpose--and that is how it was framed in the OP and in the linked article. Insisting that it's a mental health bill does nothing to change its potential relevance to the gun debate.

[Reefgazer]

I'm seriously not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand what is inflammatory about the article.  Not saying that there are not points for or against it, but I don't see what's so inflammatory that it can't be discussed. 

That article is inflammatory to say the least.   Trying to get past the first page of snarky commentary to real issues when there is so much incorrect fact in the snark is difficult for me, and I'm somewhat moderate politically.  Seriously, if you've ever even considered voting for a Republican in your entire life, or have shot a gun, just skip to page two. It's worth it because the when stripped of the opinions of the writer, the bill the post is supposed to be in reference to sounds like it would be a good one for all mental illness that presents in hospitals.

 

We should probably just find a different article about the bill, to avoid violating the political rules here.

 

[Reefgazer]

Now this is my concern.  If data breeches have not changed American habits, then that's all the more reason to protect that data (because apparently Americans need to do business online despite the data hacks).  I do think data breeches are serious enough that I would not support this bill (despite it's positive ideas that are realistic and common sense) unless those breeches were satisfactorily addressed; I doubt I am alone in this.  So if data breeches are of serious concern to Americans, it would behoove this representative to tackle those concerns to get more Americans onboard with this bill.  We keep asking why Americans can't get behind common sense bills, and this is one example of why.

I think in this day and age, you are probably right. However, I don't think that it is a solid reason to not have a registry. By and large, data breeches have not changed the behavior of the American public. People still use credit cards and give needed information to their employers, insurance companies and other entities all the time. I think if this were a solid rationale, past breeches would have changed the behavior of the public. They haven't. 

 

[Catherine]

Then again, it's pretty easy to get a gun illegally.  We are saturated with guns.  It is stuff like this that essentially polices law abiding citizens.  I never thought I'd use that wording ever in reference to guns (I am very anti gun), but really this is what these sorts of things actually manage to do.  Kinda like the TSA stuff.  If someone is hell bent on hurting a lot of people or doing something wrong, they won't care about some laws and regulations.

 

Yes, if someone is hell bent.  But there is scientific evidence that many suicides in fact are impulsive acts that might not happen if easy availability of a means (read: gun) was not there.  Making guns less available to the population at large would reduce this risk.  

[TechWife]

Now this is my concern.  If data breeches have not changed American habits, then that's all the more reason to protect that data (because apparently Americans need to do business online despite the data hacks).  I do think data breeches are serious enough that I would not support this bill (despite it's positive ideas that are realistic and common sense) unless those breeches were satisfactorily addressed; I doubt I am alone in this.  So if data breeches are of serious concern to Americans, it would behoove this representative to tackle those concerns to get more Americans onboard with this bill.  We keep asking why Americans can't get behind common sense bills, and this is one example of why.

 

I agree that there is much work to do and probably legislation to pass that might offer greater protections of data. However, this bill isn't the place to do it. Provisions like this are the things that unnecessarily slow down the process of passing a bill. People need mental health care inspire of the data hacks, even more than they need to do business online. 

[Katy]

I'm seriously not trying to be obtuse, but I don't understand what is inflammatory about the article.  Not saying that there are not points for or against it, but I don't see what's so inflammatory that it can't be discussed. 

 

You didn't notice the multiple pro-democrat, pro-gun control, anti-republican comments, comments comparing republican leadership to Lord of the Flies and all that implies, flat out misrepresenting what Ben Carson said as well as the context in which he said it, trying to tie in fear mongering opinions about Islam and terrorism (is it really so hard to add the "ist" and make it Islamist to differentiate between terrorists and perfectly innocent Muslims?), and the implication that Republicans who advocate for improved mental health care don't have a nuanced or informed opinion because all they want to do is waive a magic wand?  Because every single paragraph of the first page seems extremely inflammatory to me. 

 

I've worked for both parties and I got out of both of them because I will never understand the need to demonize people just because they're in another political party.  People are not stupid. Most issues are not black and white.  Most issues are complex and nuanced and I get so tired of people demonizing others just to feel superior and neglect the principle of pragmatically pursuing the best solution for the country as a whole.  Both parties do ridiculous things to manipulate voters and demonize the other party.

 

A database full of gun owners is an invasion of privacy, just the same way a database full of mental illnesses would be. It's a constitutional right and it's not the government's business because we also have a right to privacy.

 

The concept of seizing weapons in this country is not going to happen.  There is not the political will to change the constitution, and trying to circumvent the constitution will not result in anything but a loosing battle because most police and most military are very pro-gun. The anti-gun crowd isn't exactly going to fight them, even if they did change their minds about weapons.  The entire idea is unrealistic.

 

I heard today that since 1952 only two mass shootings weren't in "gun free" zones. I didn't verify that statistic, but if true, perhaps banning gun free zones without metal detectors and armed guards would solve all of these problems without excessive intervention.  And perhaps we wouldn't even need to arm teachers or guards, perhaps we put actual armed police officers at every school.

[TechWife]

 

 

A database full of gun owners is an invasion of privacy, just the same way a database full of mental illnesses would be. It's a constitutional right and it's not the government's business because we also have a right to privacy.

 

The concept of seizing weapons in this country is not going to happen.  There is not the political will to change the constitution, and trying to circumvent the constitution will not result in anything but a loosing battle because most police and most military are very pro-gun. The anti-gun crowd isn't exactly going to fight them, even if they did change their minds about weapons.  The entire idea is unrealistic.

 

I heard today that since 1952 only two mass shootings weren't in "gun free" zones. I didn't verify that statistic, but if true, perhaps banning gun free zones without metal detectors and armed guards would solve all of these problems without excessive intervention.  And perhaps we wouldn't even need to arm teachers or guards, perhaps we put actual armed police officers at every school.

 

I think your statements here are very sad. I don't see a database of gun owners as an invasion of privacy anymore than a database of car owners. That they do very different things is irrelevant. That one is a right and the other is a privilege is irrelevant. You are arguing that the database itself is an invasion of privacy, so it is the database that is relevant. By the way, there is already a database of people and their various medical diagnoses - it has been in play for a few years now. If you have been to the doctor, it's in the database, along with the diagnosis that was given at the time. This includes all diagnoses: mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, sinus infections and broken bones.  There are privacy regulations surrounding it, but like some have said, databases can be breached. 

 

I find it hard to believe that you are really looking for a solution though. Putting an armed police officer in the schools would guarantee nothing. Do you really think someone who goes to a school with the intent to do harm isn't going to render the officer ineffective? 

[Katy]

I think your statements here are very sad. I don't see a database of gun owners as an invasion of privacy anymore than a database of car owners. That they do very different things is irrelevant. That one is a right and the other is a privilege is irrelevant. You are arguing that the database itself is an invasion of privacy, so it is the database that is relevant. By the way, there is already a database of people and their various medical diagnoses - it has been in play for a few years now. If you have been to the doctor, it's in the database, along with the diagnosis that was given at the time. This includes all diagnoses: mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, sinus infections and broken bones.  There are privacy regulations surrounding it, but like some have said, databases can be breached. 

 

I find it hard to believe that you are really looking for a solution though. Putting an armed police officer in the schools would guarantee nothing. Do you really think someone who goes to a school with the intent to do harm isn't going to render the officer ineffective? 

 

Yes, I actually do think trained police officers would and could incapacitate a mentally unstable teen who is attacking them.

 

Not to mention guards and metal detectors are fairly effective at keeping guns out of secure areas, and certainly more effective than a sign.  Hence the way we protect most hospitals and court rooms, all airports, and every single public event where dignitaries are present.

[TechWife]

Yes, I actually do think trained police officers would and could incapacitate a mentally unstable teen who is attacking them.

 

 

 

Yes, and the person attacking could easily incapacitate the officer. It seems it would be best to try to keep either from happening. 

[Reefgazer]

But if you are trying to get people on board with common sense legislation (and I agree some common sense legislation is a good idea), then you must address their concerns first, or they simply will fight you on it and then you will be left asking "Why can't people get on board with common sense legislation?"  Well, if that's the question and you get the answer and choose not to address the concerns, then you have your answer to that perpetual question and the discussion can end and nothing happens (which is what we see over and over).

 

I absolutely disagree that the hack/security concerns can be addressed "later".  Because "later" might never come, and once data is out of the bag you can't put it back in.  In addition, addressing security concerns about hacks would be beneficial to many different aspects of our lives and would save banks, credit card companies, ordinary citizens, and our government wads of money.  I don't see a disadvantage to tackling that problem first because it addresses one of the objections to the legislation and removes one barrier to common sense legislation.  Where's the downside, considering the legislation won't happen until that objection is removed?

I agree that there is much work to do and probably legislation to pass that might offer greater protections of data. However, this bill isn't the place to do it. Provisions like this are the things that unnecessarily slow down the process of passing a bill. People need mental health care inspire of the data hacks, even more than they need to do business online. 

 

[Bluegoat]

All your health information is already in the hands of insurance companies, and your financials in the hands of banks, and your spending habits and everything you look at online, and your political views, and your family photos if they are on Facebook or stored online, are all pretty much out there already.

 

A government database that is actually doing something useful would be the last of my worries.

[Reefgazer]

I think most people on here know me well enough to know that I am pretty right-wing myself, so I agree with most of your comments (in fact, I bolded the ones I agree with just for fun and games).  But...while I do think that all citizens are entitled to privacy, I also think that that right ends where my well-being begins.  It's very similar to your right to do what you please until it negatively and concretely impacts me.  If someone is a danger to others (not themselves - they should be able to damn well do what they please to themselves), then that someone needs to be reined in.  That is not the same thing as keeping a database of all mental illnesses, but I have zero problem with keeping a database of violent offenders and those who plan or are prone to mayhem.  This is *not* policing thought because it doesn't address opinions but instead addresses the propensity to commit violence (those two things are not the same thing at all).  We do have precedents for citizens forfeiting their rights that we currently accept, such as when you join the military, you forfeit some civil rights and when you are in jail, you also forfeit some civil rights.  If you are in danger of harming someone, that's a fair reason for forfeiting rights, IMO.  That said, I agree that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and we can probably achieve a big reduction in gun deaths with some of the more common sense suggestions you made (armed guards at school, metal detectors, stricter enforcement of current laws, banning the useless and ridiculous gun free zones).

 

As far as the article goes:  I don't give a hoot what that columnist thinks about guns and gun control - he's got an opinion and so does everyone else of every stripe; who cares what it is?  I did see his opinions on the first page and passed right over them as another gun control freak because I wanted to see what the congressman's bill was about; after all, that is the heart of the discussion, not some random shmo's opinion on the internet.  So why is it so hard to pass over that columnist's rantings and address the meat of the matter?

 

 

You didn't notice the multiple pro-democrat, pro-gun control, anti-republican comments, comments comparing republican leadership to Lord of the Flies and all that implies, flat out misrepresenting what Ben Carson said as well as the context in which he said it, trying to tie in fear mongering opinions about Islam and terrorism (is it really so hard to add the "ist" and make it Islamist to differentiate between terrorists and perfectly innocent Muslims?), and the implication that Republicans who advocate for improved mental health care don't have a nuanced or informed opinion because all they want to do is waive a magic wand?  Because every single paragraph of the first page seems extremely inflammatory to me. 

 

I've worked for both parties and I got out of both of them because I will never understand the need to demonize people just because they're in another political party.  People are not stupid. Most issues are not black and white.  Most issues are complex and nuanced and I get so tired of people demonizing others just to feel superior and neglect the principle of pragmatically pursuing the best solution for the country as a whole.  Both parties do ridiculous things to manipulate voters and demonize the other party.

 

A database full of gun owners is an invasion of privacy, just the same way a database full of mental illnesses would be. It's a constitutional right and it's not the government's business because we also have a right to privacy.

 

The concept of seizing weapons in this country is not going to happen.  There is not the political will to change the constitution, and trying to circumvent the constitution will not result in anything but a loosing battle because most police and most military are very pro-gun. The anti-gun crowd isn't exactly going to fight them, even if they did change their minds about weapons.  The entire idea is unrealistic.

 

I heard today that since 1952 only two mass shootings weren't in "gun free" zones. I didn't verify that statistic, but if true, perhaps banning gun free zones without metal detectors and armed guards would solve all of these problems without excessive intervention.  And perhaps we wouldn't even need to arm teachers or guards, perhaps we put actual armed police officers at every school.

 

[swimmermom3]

I agree that there is much work to do and probably legislation to pass that might offer greater protections of data. However, this bill isn't the place to do it. Provisions like this are the things that unnecessarily slow down the process of passing a bill. People need mental health care inspire of the data hacks, even more than they need to do business online. 

 

I am in the middle of something else and am too lazy to research. This bill doesn't include the usual conservative proposal of creating a national registry of the mentally ill, does it?

 

[Reefgazer]

We can probably find a lot of common ground in order to solve the gun violence in this country, but I don't see how the difference between rights and privileges is irrelevant.  Like Katy said, one is enshrined in the constitution and the other is not, and it's likely a complete waste of time to try and remove a right, which will not stand before the SC (which is where it will wind up).

I think your statements here are very sad. I don't see a database of gun owners as an invasion of privacy anymore than a database of car owners. That they do very different things is irrelevant. That one is a right and the other is a privilege is irrelevant. You are arguing that the database itself is an invasion of privacy, so it is the database that is relevant. By the way, there is already a database of people and their various medical diagnoses - it has been in play for a few years now. If you have been to the doctor, it's in the database, along with the diagnosis that was given at the time. This includes all diagnoses: mental illnesses, sexually transmitted diseases, sinus infections and broken bones.  There are privacy regulations surrounding it, but like some have said, databases can be breached. 

 

I find it hard to believe that you are really looking for a solution though. Putting an armed police officer in the schools would guarantee nothing. Do you really think someone who goes to a school with the intent to do harm isn't going to render the officer ineffective? 

 

[Bluegoat]

The idea that armed police in school would be a common sense precaution is a little mind-boggling to me.  I think if that seems like common sense, there is something so deeply wrong that it needs to be addressed on the spot.  Like - I live in a country being decimated by marauding warlords and their gangs, so we needed armed police in the schools - what are we going to do about this serious social breakdown.

[Reefgazer]

Private citizens have the choice to pay cash for services, not shop online, use a browser that encrypts data to make it harder to hack, not post of Facebook at all, etc.... I use some of these options myself to limit data and reduce my exposure to hacks (no FB, no online bill pay/banking, pay cash for most things).  The difference here is that I have a *choice* on if/when to expose most of my data (although I understand some is out of my control). 

 

I can tell you that someone close to me recently chose to forego mental health care for fear that the treatment /sessions would come back and haunt her in case she ever applied for a job that required an in-depth background/security check.  How much good is some fear like that doing for a person's mental health?  Kind of defeats the purpose of an all-encompassing database, doesn't it?  Like I said in a previous post, I am not against a database of those who are very likely to commit a violent crime, but only if there are other safeguards in place to prevent abuse and data hacking.

All your health information is already in the hands of insurance companies, and your financials in the hands of banks, and your spending habits and everything you look at online, and your political views, and your family photos if they are on Facebook or stored online, are all pretty much out there already.

 

A government database that is actually doing something useful would be the last of my worries.

 

[Murphy101]

I've yet to see a database provide healthcare. Usually it's a way for one party to make a bloody fortune off another without their say in the matter, and often little to no benefit.

 

The mentally ill need the same things pregnant women need, the same things heart patients need, and so on.

 

They need access to quality medical care in a timely and affordable manner that respects their human dignity and privacy.

 

Given the state of health care in general in the states, it's no surprise that mental healthcare also sucks.

 

I am against policies that are not thought out as to making them actually practical and helpful and legally doable. I completely disagree that should just be worried about later. That's nothing more than a recipe for screwing things up even more and costing the state a fortune that could have helped provide health services.

 

You don't have to agree with me.

 

Feel free to say how awful I am for not just okaying whatever is put in front of me to appease your need to make it seem like something is being done even if it isn't actually.

 

I don't see much hope for compromise or positive change with that stance, but you are free to have it anyways. Though it does rather remove any legs from the argument that the other side of the discussion is the one being stubborn.

[Bluegoat]

Private citizens have the choice to pay cash for services, not shop online, use a browser that encrypts data to make it harder to hack, not post of Facebook at all, etc.... I use some of these options myself to limit data and reduce my exposure to hacks (no FB, no online bill pay/banking, pay cash for most things).  The difference here is that I have a *choice* on if/when to expose most of my data (although I understand some is out of my control). 

 

I can tell you that someone close to me recently chose to forego mental health care for fear that the treatment /sessions would come back and haunt her in case she ever applied for a job that required an in-depth background/security check.  How much good is some fear like that doing for a person's mental health?  Kind of defeats the purpose of an all-encompassing database, doesn't it?  Like I said in a previous post, I am not against a database of those who are very likely to commit a violent crime, but only if there are other safeguards in place to prevent abuse and data hacking.

 

We live in a society that requires data be kept.  There is essentially no other way for a large government to function, it has been the case in every sophisticated civilization which is why they develop these large civil services.  With the powers we now have to store data, the amount kept has become incredible.

 

But you know, government doesn't keep most of that, it's often fairly transparent, and it is directed toward the public good.   Yes, there can be some risk, but it isn't massive.

 

The vast majority of people have far more data held in private hands than government ones, and it is not particularly simple to avoid it - you have to opt out of significant socially normal activities and in many cases necessities to live without almost dropping out.  It isn't that much easier than dropping out altogether to totally avoid banks or health insurance, or carrying a cell phone, or getting cable, or having a job.  Those things are not typically transparent and they are directed toward making money, not the public good.

 

And the vast majority of people, 99%, make those compromises, even if they are reticent they have as much information in private hands as in public ones.

 

I think the idea that a government database that will actually be helpful to society as a whole is something to avoid because we are worried about our security is rather difficult to credit.  People who want to be out of the public eye are already taking extraordinary measures in daily life, and will presumably take them in this department as well - and since they probably live in the woods and have no id, it isn't like they could easily buy a gun anyway.

 

If someone really want to know who is mentally ill or has a history of violence, that information is available in other places anyway, at least as readily and sometimes publicly.

 

[Reefgazer]

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly that we have a serious social breakdown that needs to be addressed.  It is positively F-ed up that things have gotten so bad that we even have to have a conversation like this.  But mental illness and the preponderance of guns isn't the real core of the issue - it's what our society has become that is the real core of the issue (because guns and mental illness have always been with us, but this absolute disregard for human life has not).  The breakdown of families and the loss of guidance those intact families provide, the social isolation that human evolution has not provided for, the loss of communities and personal integration into communities that provide anchors for and checks on troubled people, the obscene violence on TV/video games, the anything-goes attitude that is everywhere, etc...  But those things are not being talked about or addressed and will not be talked about or addressed, because it is socially and politically unacceptable to point those obvious factors out.  In the meantime, until humanity regains it's collective conscience and is willing to address the real issues (hint:  those issues aren't mental health or guns everywhere), I'll take armed protection for $500 Alex, thanks.  Because really, until the real issues are addressed, this killing problem isn't going to disappear.  Certain actions, like armed guards, reporting those who are violently mentally ill, closing loopholes at gun shows, holding parents responsible for guns their minor children use, etc...may nibble at the margins of the problem, but they aren't going to do anything to really and truly decrease gun violence to (some small number).

The idea that armed police in school would be a common sense precaution is a little mind-boggling to me.  I think if that seems like common sense, there is something so deeply wrong that it needs to be addressed on the spot.  Like - I live in a country being decimated by marauding warlords and their gangs, so we needed armed police in the schools - what are we going to do about this serious social breakdown.

 

[Reefgazer]

To the bolded:  Oh, yes, I know.  But you would be surprised at the amount of data you *can* keep private just by shutting up (i.e., not going to a mental health care provider when you need it, not posting on FB, not using a smartphone, and paying cash), doing without a few non-necessary conveniences, and living simply.  The one hack our family has suffered has been the recent large government hack because DH is Navy and his info is all over hell's half acre. 

 

As for me (and I suspect a boatload of others), I will not be getting behind anything that requires a non-secure database taking more information from private citizens who are no threat to anyone.  So if gun control advocates want support from people like me, they'll have to start there.  And that, in a nutshell, is the reason common sense legislation doesn't go foreward - because concerns of everyday people aren't being addressed. 

We live in a society that requires data be kept.  There is essentially no other way for a large government to function, it has been the case in every sophisticated civilization which is why they develop these large civil services.  With the powers we now have to store data, the amount kept has become incredible.

 

But you know, government doesn't keep most of that, it's often fairly transparent, and it is directed toward the public good.   Yes, there can be some risk, but it isn't massive.

 

The vast majority of people have far more data held in private hands than government ones, and it is not particularly simple to avoid it - you have to opt out of significant socially normal activities and in many cases necessities to live without almost dropping out.  It isn't that much easier than dropping out altogether to totally avoid banks or health insurance, or carrying a cell phone, or getting cable, or having a job.  Those things are not typically transparent and they are directed toward making money, not the public good.

 

And the vast majority of people, 99%, make those compromises, even if they are reticent they have as much information in private hands as in public ones.

 

I think the idea that a government database that will actually be helpful to society as a whole is something to avoid because we are worried about our security is rather difficult to credit.  People who want to be out of the public eye are already taking extraordinary measures in daily life, and will presumably take them in this department as well - and since they probably live in the woods and have no id, it isn't like they could easily buy a gun anyway.

 

If someone really want to know who is mentally ill or has a history of violence, that information is available in other places anyway, at least as readily and sometimes publicly.

 

[Pam in CT]

reefgazer and techwife, thanks for sponsoring this and the other thread -- these are important subjects.

 

 

 

Specifically on the issue of privacy and databases... I am quite concerned about privacy and the potential for the keepers of databases for abuse; as well as about the potential for hacking and other types of abuse.  We start where we actually are, though.

 

 

Voting is a right, and we already have public databases of people to choose to avail of that right (and pressure in some areas to make the access to that right more restricted).

 

Free and appropriate public education is a right, and we already have public databases of families who choose to avail of that right.

 

Taxes are an obligation, and we already have federal public databases of income tax payers, as well as state and local public databases of state income and property tax payers.

 

Driving is a privilege, and we already have public databases of people who avail of that privilege.  Relatedly, possessing a vehicle is a privilege which is recorded into public databases, and using EasyPass/similar toll payment systems is a convenience which is managed through a public database.

 

International travel / passports are a privilege, and we already have a federal public database of people who utilize that privilege.

 

Library utilization is a privilege, and we already have public databases of people who utilize that privilege.

 

 

And those are just the tips of a few of the public icebergs.... and there are (imperfect, for sure) legislative limits on governments' ability to reveal or share across agencies the information in them.

 

 

 

The private databases that track us include our employer payroll, our phone carriers, our credit card providers, our data providers, our various insurance providers, our medication prescription refills.  It's quite hard in today's economy to avoid those, however much we care about privacy.  Not to mention more discretionary but still widely availed of services like our email providers, our google searches, our Amazon and NetFlix accounts, our clicks and searches on FaceBook and TripAdvisor etc.  

 

Private companies have pretty wide scope to aggregate and sell only moderately-scrubbed information from their databases, and it is not hard for data-mining companies to take two or three aggregated data sets and put them back together "complete" with our physical addresses and credit card numbers and IP addresses.  Private lists can be sold to whomever negotiates a good deal: another company, a market research firm... or, presumably, government agencies, be they law enforcement or otherwise.

 

 

And those concerns exist even before the hacking demons start swirling.

 

 

But it sure seems to me that we're already there.

 

 

 

(And, as noted upthread: it was a big scary deal when Target's credit card records got hacked.  Didn't much change purchasing patters or even make a dent in Target's own prospects in even the medium term, though.  A couple of news cycles then back to business as usual.)

 

[TechWife]

I am in the middle of something else and am too lazy to research. This bill doesn't include the usual conservative proposal of creating a national registry of the mentally ill, does it?

 

 

No it does not.

 

There is a provision that extends financial assistance to some clinicians in order for them to access the Health Information Technology, which is the system that is used for sharing of medical records across providers. I think it was funded by Obamacare, but that is a fuzzy recollection. It is system that all doctors and hospitals that accept Medicare and/or Medicaid patients must use. The law surrounding this contains restrictions on how the information collected can be used and it also sets forth security parameters. You can go here to read more about HIT. This system is already in place nationwide. It is very controversial, with many voicing privacy concerns and concerns about how the data collected will be used,  but it has already been passed into law. 

[TechWife]

I don't see a disadvantage to tackling that problem first because it addresses one of the objections to the legislation and removes one barrier to common sense legislation.  Where's the downside, considering the legislation won't happen until that objection is removed?

 

Can we not tackle these problems at the same time? A comprehensive data security bill deserves more attention than being buried in a mental health care bill. A mental health care bill deserves more attention than being buried by data security issues. 

[mom31257]

Speaking from experience, I am for stricter gun control laws when it comes to mental illness and people on medications for such. My brother-in-law committed suicide last year while being treated for depression and anxiety. He took Tamiflu the week it happened and actually wrote in a journal showing signs of hallucinations. By paying a simple $10 fee for a background check, he was able to walk out with a gun and commit suicide within 2 hours. If there had been a waiting period of several days, he would have been off the medication. Maybe he wouldn't have followed through. In the journal he considered taking my sister and their special needs child, but thankfully he didn't follow through with that thought. It has been a nightmare for my sister and our family. God has seen us through in many ways, but the heartache it left behind has been difficult. 

 

He had a 10 year long journey in trying to get help for his mental illness. He tried many avenues, including counseling, special diets, exercise, prayer, and medications. No where did he find reliable sources of help in the medical community. A psychologist refused to listen to his suicidal thoughts and drove a car with a license plate, "R U Nuts". A weekend in a mental health facility resulted in him being released early with none of the planned counseling sessions. Medications were the only option most doctors wanted to give. None every really helped him.

 

I feel that you should have to get a license for gun ownership, requiring classes, tests, etc., and that there should always be extensive background checks, including mental health. I also feel there should always be waiting periods no matter where you buy. It's not a popular opinion here in the south, so I don't voice it too much in too many places, but I think anyone would understand why I feel that way given the situation. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reefgazer]

Yes, the two are equally important and both deserve their own time in the spotlight.  Regarding privacy of databases, I suspect that too much money is at stake and/or being made to seriously address that issue and perhaps that is why it has not gotten the attention it deserves, even though it is a serious concern for most citizens.

Can we not tackle these problems at the same time? A comprehensive data security bill deserves more attention than being buried in a mental health care bill. A mental health care bill deserves more attention than being buried by data security issues. 

 

[TechWife]

Speaking from experience, I am for stricter gun control laws when it comes to mental illness and people on medications for such. My brother-in-law committed suicide last year while being treated for depression and anxiety. 

 

I am so very sorry for your loss. 

[Katy]

The idea that armed police in school would be a common sense precaution is a little mind-boggling to me.  I think if that seems like common sense, there is something so deeply wrong that it needs to be addressed on the spot.  Like - I live in a country being decimated by marauding warlords and their gangs, so we needed armed police in the schools - what are we going to do about this serious social breakdown.

 

I agree that gangs need to be addressed.

 

You do not live in a country being decimated in any way, shape, or form.  Despite the terrifying media coverage and hype over mass shootings, gun violence has been lowering every year.

 

My point was that if you absolutely want to end mass shootings, the statistically best way to do so is to end gun free zones that aren't being guarded by guns. Why?  Because apparently since 1952 all but two mass shootings have taken place in "gun free" zones.  Gun free zones are the most dangerous place you can go in the United States if there isn't a metal detector and armed guards protecting it. Does it seem like overkill?  Yes, possibly.  Would it stop those who want to go down in a stream of notoriety and bullets?  Yes!  Would it be simpler to just avoid gun free zones that aren't patrolled?  Well it is for my family, but then we have options many families don't.

 

Ending the notoriety by refusing to put the names and photos of these men on TV and instead referring to them only as terrorists would help.  Legally journalism couldn't be restricted, but consumers could certainly start a social media campaign to limit the names to online articles you must opt-in to find out the identity of the perpetrators. 

 

...

 

Voting is a right, and we already have public databases of people to choose to avail of that right (and pressure in some areas to make the access to that right more restricted).

 

Free and appropriate public education is a right, and we already have public databases of families who choose to avail of that right.

 

Taxes are an obligation, and we already have federal public databases of income tax payers, as well as state and local public databases of state income and property tax payers.

 

Driving is a privilege, and we already have public databases of people who avail of that privilege.  Relatedly, possessing a vehicle is a privilege which is recorded into public databases, and using EasyPass/similar toll payment systems is a convenience which is managed through a public database.

 

International travel / passports are a privilege, and we already have a federal public database of people who utilize that privilege.

 

Library utilization is a privilege, and we already have public databases of people who utilize that privilege.

 

 

And those are just the tips of a few of the public icebergs.... and there are (imperfect, for sure) legislative limits on governments' ability to reveal or share across agencies the information in them.

 

 

 

The private databases that track us include our employer payroll, our phone carriers, our credit card providers, our data providers, our various insurance providers, our medication prescription refills.  It's quite hard in today's economy to avoid those, however much we care about privacy.  Not to mention more discretionary but still widely availed of services like our email providers, our google searches, our Amazon and NetFlix accounts, our clicks and searches on FaceBook and TripAdvisor etc.  

 

Private companies have pretty wide scope to aggregate and sell only moderately-scrubbed information from their databases, and it is not hard for data-mining companies to take two or three aggregated data sets and put them back together "complete" with our physical addresses and credit card numbers and IP addresses.  Private lists can be sold to whomever negotiates a good deal: another company, a market research firm... or, presumably, government agencies, be they law enforcement or otherwise.

 

 

And those concerns exist even before the hacking demons start swirling.

 

 

But it sure seems to me that we're already there.

 

 

 

(And, as noted upthread: it was a big scary deal when Target's credit card records got hacked.  Didn't much change purchasing patters or even make a dent in Target's own prospects in even the medium term, though.  A couple of news cycles then back to business as usual.)

 

 

There is a huge difference.  Yes, you must register to vote, but your vote is private, so if you vote for someone controversial, it is not known.

 

Yes, you must be licensed to drive, but it is not necessary to drive. Many people who live in cities don't have a need to. Driving is neither controversial or particularly valuable, though if you die in a car crash it is certainly helpful to police to know who you are and how to notify your family.

 

Private databases and data mining can be avoided.  You can opt out of them.  You can pay for things with cash or with anonymous Visa gift cards. You can even have cell phones that are prepaid and are not connected to your name.

 

Owning a gun is both controversial and expensive.  Having a registry of every gun would not only be difficult and expensive to maintain, it would open up gun owners as targets for thieves just the same as a database of every valuable thing you have in your home would.  What?  You don't think having a list of your jewelry, silver dinnerware, and savings bonds are in the interest of national security?  While I agree with you, I could make an argument that it is in the interest of national security to know what resources are in this country so that they may be seized in the event of another great depression. It has been done here before.

 

Also, it would accomplish nothing except making it easier to enforce a gun confiscation plan.  You can bet illegal guns are not going on that registry.  It would not make you safer in any way because it would not be addressing any issues that actually lead someone to be likely to shoot strangers.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I agree that gangs need to be addressed.

 

You do not live in a country being decimated in any way, shape, or form.  Despite the terrifying media coverage and hype over mass shootings, gun violence has been lowering every year.

 

My point was that if you absolutely want to end mass shootings, the statistically best way to do so is to end gun free zones that aren't being guarded by guns. Why?  Because apparently since 1952 all but two mass shootings have taken place in "gun free" zones.  Gun free zones are the most dangerous place you can go in the United States if there isn't a metal detector and armed guards protecting it. Does it seem like overkill?  Yes, possibly.  Would it stop those who want to go down in a stream of notoriety and bullets?  Yes!  Would it be simpler to just avoid gun free zones that aren't patrolled?  Well it is for my family, but then we have options many families don't.

 

Ending the notoriety by refusing to put the names and photos of these men on TV and instead referring to them only as terrorists would help.  Legally journalism couldn't be restricted, but consumers could certainly start a social media campaign to limit the names to online articles you must opt-in to find out the identity of the perpetrators. 

 

 

 

There is a huge difference.  Yes, you must register to vote, but your vote is private, so if you vote for someone controversial, it is not known.

 

Yes, you must be licensed to drive, but it is not necessary to drive. Many people who live in cities don't have a need to. Driving is neither controversial or particularly valuable, though if you die in a car crash it is certainly helpful to police to know who you are and how to notify your family.

 

Private databases and data mining can be avoided.  You can opt out of them.  You can pay for things with cash or with anonymous Visa gift cards. You can even have cell phones that are prepaid and are not connected to your name.

 

Owning a gun is both controversial and expensive.  Having a registry of every gun would not only be difficult and expensive to maintain, it would open up gun owners as targets for thieves just the same as a database of every valuable thing you have in your home would.  What?  You don't think having a list of your jewelry, silver dinnerware, and savings bonds are in the interest of national security?  While I agree with you, I could make an argument that it is in the interest of national security to know what resources are in this country so that they may be seized in the event of another great depression. It has been done here before.

 

Also, it would accomplish nothing except making it easier to enforce a gun confiscation plan.  You can bet illegal guns are not going on that registry.  It would not make you safer in any way because it would not be addressing any issues that actually lead someone to be likely to shoot strangers.

 

The likelihood of a burglar getting information via a national database to plan a heist seems a bit silly when most homes have items more valuable than firearms in them.

Owning a gun is not particularly controversial or expensive as a rule.

 

 

[Pam in CT]

re: existing public and private databases, vs. new ones for medical information and/or gun ownership:

...

 

There is a huge difference.  Yes, you must register to vote, but your vote is private, so if you vote for someone controversial, it is not known.

 

Yes, you must be licensed to drive, but it is not necessary to drive. Many people who live in cities don't have a need to. Driving is neither controversial or particularly valuable, though if you die in a car crash it is certainly helpful to police to know who you are and how to notify your family.

 

Private databases and data mining can be avoided.  You can opt out of them.  You can pay for things with cash or with anonymous Visa gift cards. You can even have cell phones that are prepaid and are not connected to your name.

 

Owning a gun is both controversial and expensive.  Having a registry of every gun would not only be difficult and expensive to maintain, it would open up gun owners as targets for thieves just the same as a database of every valuable thing you have in your home would.  What?  You don't think having a list of your jewelry, silver dinnerware, and savings bonds are in the interest of national security?  While I agree with you, I could make an argument that it is in the interest of national security to know what resources are in this country so that they may be seized in the event of another great depression. It has been done here before.

 

Also, it would accomplish nothing except making it easier to enforce a gun confiscation plan.  You can bet illegal guns are not going on that registry.  It would not make you safer in any way because it would not be addressing any issues that actually lead someone to be likely to shoot strangers.

The sale price of houses is already a matter of public record -- potential thieves (or charities looking to gauge capacity, or simply prurient people) can look them up freely with a few clicks.  Or Google Map it, and get an excellent sense of the property, including where all the doors are.

 

For most people, their car is the most valuable piece of property, and car registrations are already a matter on a database (though not one which is publicly searchable).

 

Our incomes, including investment income if we have it, are already on the public database of our tax records (though again not publicly searchable).  

 

Our payroll information is already on private databases (or public if we work for the government in any capacity, including military).

 

 

I don't mean to be alarmist here.  Other than information about the value of our housing (if we own rather than rent) this information is not widely available.   But it is already on "databases."  

 

 

 

 

The likelihood of a burglar getting information via a national database to plan a heist seems a bit silly when most homes have items more valuable than firearms in them.

Owning a gun is not particularly controversial or expensive as a rule.

 

 

:iagree:

[Katy]

Oh goodness gracious, of course it would make them targets! MANY, possibly even most gun collectors don't live in expensive suburbs.  They are likely to live in rural areas or smaller towns with inexpensive housing.  I have relatives who live in places where their truck cost as much or than their home, so the home values there certainly don't make them targets, but they have thousands of dollars of value in their gun collections.

 

Some of these are some of the same people that have multimillion dollar net worths by the time they retire and no debt.  They just don't prefer to spend money in ostentatious ways that might otherwise make them targets. I'm not even talking about rich people here.  I mean couples who married young, got decent paying jobs, live in low cost of living areas, and the only ostentatious thing they might spend money on is a new truck every 5 years. They do go hunting.  They have inherited a few expensive antique guns. The might go target shooting.  By the time they are 40 it's easy in that environment to accumulate a locked gun cabinet that is full. And the contents of that locked gun cabinet might be worth much more than the cash value of the jewelry hidden in the walk in closet of the nearest ritzy mansion.

 

The values in rural areas are different than spending money on mansions.  Where I was raised it is tacky to be ostentatious because what you have doesn't much reflect on who you are unless you worked hard to get it. Even my relatives from the north, though they could afford to live in mansions, choose to live in modest houses.  Probably because they were raised by farmers, where you might have a family farm worth millions of dollars but all money earned goes back into education, land and million dollar tractors, not into ways to show off.

[Katy]

Yes, I can picture it perfectly. There's a national database of gun owners. It gets hacked, and hordes of criminals descend upon rural America, breaking into all the very humble, a bit run down with non-new vehicles out front homes because they contain an ungodly amount of precious, expensive guns So, "possibly even most gun collectors" live as/where you describe?

Give me a break. It sounds like something Glenn Beck or that Alex guy who has the conspiracy filled talk radio show.

 

No, no hordes.  Just one meth head who wants a few grand worth of guns to trade for drugs at a time.  And no, I didn't hear that on Glenn Beck. My father was a chief of police, and I heard plenty of stories of smart addicts figuring out who had the most to steal.

[Pam in CT]

re: potential risks of a weapon registry/database:

Oh goodness gracious, of course it would make them targets! MANY, possibly even most gun collectors don't live in expensive suburbs.  They are likely to live in rural areas or smaller towns with inexpensive housing.  I have relatives who live in places where their truck cost as much or than their home, so the home values there certainly don't make them targets, but they have thousands of dollars of value in their gun collections.

 

Some of these are some of the same people that have multimillion dollar net worths by the time they retire and no debt.  They just don't prefer to spend money in ostentatious ways that might otherwise make them targets. I'm not even talking about rich people here.  I mean couples who married young, got decent paying jobs, live in low cost of living areas, and the only ostentatious thing they might spend money on is a new truck every 5 years. They do go hunting.  They have inherited a few expensive antique guns. The might go target shooting.  By the time they are 40 it's easy in that environment to accumulate a locked gun cabinet that is full. And the contents of that locked gun cabinet might be worth much more than the cash value of the jewelry hidden in the walk in closet of the nearest ritzy mansion.

 

The values in rural areas are different than spending money on mansions.  Where I was raised it is tacky to be ostentatious because what you have doesn't much reflect on who you are unless you worked hard to get it. Even my relatives from the north, though they could afford to live in mansions, choose to live in modest houses.  Probably because they were raised by farmers, where you might have a family farm worth millions of dollars but all money earned goes back into education, land and million dollar tractors, not into ways to show off.

 

In my area, I agree that gun ownership is not correlated (either way) with income or wealth -- interest in hunting and sport shooting, for instance, which people talk about candidly, spans socioeconomic and cultural groups; I assume private handgun ownership does as well.

 

I'm struggling to understand what you're saying about becoming a target, though.  Other posters have argued that potential thieves are deterred if they think the homeowner is likely to have a gun.  Are you arguing that thieves are more likely to target a homeowner if they think there are guns in the house?

 

(I'm not pushing back on you Katy -- just trying to understand where you're coming from.)

 

 

 

In any event, a gun registry would not be designed to be openly accessible to thieves, any more than the databases of our income tax returns currently are openly accessible to thieves, right?