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

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...

Don't Look Down by Crusie and Mayer

Not really a review, just wanted to say that I enjoyed this book, _Don't Look Down_ by Jennifer Crusie and Bob Mayer. I went to Amazon to get the link and noticed that it's getting trashed in the reviews by people who have been fans of Crusie's romance novels. I can see why they were upset but I hope she continues to collaborate with Mayer because all I can say is "your loss is my gain." I'm also going to be looking for Mayer's books written as Robert Doherty to check them out. _Don't Look Down_ is a silly novel that had me laughing or trying not to let the kids see I was crying... The laughs weren't belly laughs and the tears weren't heart wrenching sobs... It was just fun. And it *was* a romance. With guns. And knives. And Wonder Woman action figures with matching "wonder wear" underwear. And the items the international terrorist was shipping to the Russian mob boss? Pre-colombian jade penises. At least two people get e...

How "Representation" In Fiction Becomes Toxic

  Some things sound so obviously good that they don't need to be examined.  One of those things is the idea of Representation in fiction; movies, television or books.  Entertainment where some people are conspicuously absent would seem to be an obvious problem, right?  A person doesn't have to be "woke" or any sort of feminist to occasionally watch an old television show and realize (for example) that all the scientists and astronauts in an old movie are men. It's as glaring an anachronism these days as watching a show where everyone is chain smoking cigarettes. Entertainment should reflect the diverse nature of real life and society because, in the end, fiction has to be even more real than real life.  If nothing else, it makes that entertainment more interesting to introduce characters with a variety of backgrounds and challenges. And so we're told that diverse fiction is BETTER fiction. The way that this rather obvious truth is often framed, often discussed...