Skip to main content

Why hide gun ownership?

So Glenn Reynold's says this. Andrew Sullivan replies with this. And Glenn responds.

And I have opinions.

First, it's simply privacy. Someone doesn't have to be "in the closet" about something to not want it listed in the newspaper. If nothing else, people want to be in control of their lives and left alone.

Then there's motivation. Why is a concealed carry permit list *interesting*? Why does it rate a published list? Going with the "closet" metaphor, suppose the newspaper published a list of "out" gays? To whom would such a list be interesting?

Then there's the criminal element. Suppose someone published a list of women who kept expensive jewelry in their home. Lots of people do, lots of people don't. Some people routinely carry a wad of cash. Why publish a list of those who do?

Now I suppose I could put a "neighborhood watch" type sticker in my window that said, "This household is armed. The children know how to shoot to your center of mass." and it might well work to warn off criminals. But better for community safety if the bad guys don't know who has guns and who doesn't.

And specifically concealed carry... the point is that it's concealed. I suppose it would be fine with me if people carried openly, a visible holster on their hip, but there are reasons not to do that.

Lastly and most importantly... lists of gun owners shouldn't be kept to begin with. I know why they are. In some respects I don't even mind registration and classes and licensing. It does valuable things to ensure law abiding people know how to handle weapons safely. But it comes with a price, a negative trade-off. A list is a handy way of disarming the population... but only the law abiding ones who own and carry legally, of course.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
The Left cannot be seriously thinking that they can fool me with their promises, can they? I wouldn't trust them with executing Tookie and Zarqawi.

Oh wait, that actually... well nevermind.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...