> It makes the gun owner a lucrative target.
I mean, on one side they're saying that owning guns is necessary to protect their property. But now they're saying that owning guns makes them a target for crime? To me it seems like they're trying to have it both ways on this.
> Criminals get guns through burgling and robbery.
Private transactions are still legal. The gun show loophole is still around. Buying a gun and gifting it is legal.
The "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. It is still a crime for a prohibited person to possess a firearm no matter how they get it. In many states including California, it is illegal for a private sale to occur without a background check. Somehow, many prohibited persons still acquire them, and their info wasn't just leaked by the California AG.
They're saying that the government leaking their personal information makes them a target for crime. Is this comment a joke? I'm having trouble believing that anyone could seriously view this as somehow indicating that gun owners are hypocritical. I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to track and subsequently leak their personal details. If you're being serious, this is some of the (unintentionally) funniest sophistry I've seen in a while.
> Private transactions are still legal.
If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally buy a gun privately.
Almost without exception, every discussion with anti-gun advocates is predicated on this kind of attitude, in concert with an astonishing ignorance of the subject they wish to further regulate.
Kind of like conservative men and their beliefs on women's reproductive rights.
The reason is because it allows improved matchmaking of criminals and victims, and allows criminals to improve the efficiency of their crimes. A criminal that's looking for guns could go outside your house, wait until you leave, then rob you looking for the guns and getting out quickly (with a fence ready to buy them). A criminal looking for something else could see that you're not on the list, break in with their gun while you are home, and do who-knows-what to you.
Sure, there are exceptions. Maybe you want a "beware of dog" sign or a "closed-circuit camera" notice that might push the criminals to keep looking for their next victim. These notices are best to prevent crimes of opportunity, and probably better posted on the house than in a leaked database online.
Why is this? Are we talking about burglars who want the valuable guns? That does seem odd as the number two deterrent to burglary is knowledge that the home-owner has a gun (the number on apparently are large dogs).
If the above is the case, the idea is that a burglar will scan this list for nearby homes and target them? On the basis that they have a gun alone (which again, is the number two deterrent to burglary). Plus, there is a lot of precedent that it takes almost nothing to use deadly force against an intruder and have zero consequences.
> I guarantee you that no gun owners wanted California to track and subsequently leak their personal details.
I'm guessing that California gun owners are perhaps amongst those who particularly do not want their personal details leaked. There are all sorts of reasons to not want that for anyone. This argument though of "we're now bigger targets for crime", when they have guns to "prevent" that crime, I can't reconcile that. So is the gun a deterrent, or not?
I can think of a lot of other things that would make someone the target for burglary, like having a 4 car garage and gated fence.
> If you can't legally buy a gun at a store, you can't legally buy a gun privately.
While that is the case, if there is no obligation to run a background check (gun-show loophole) - then how do you prevent these people from purchasing guns?
The loophole is not that it's legal or illegal, the loophole is that someone is obtaining a gun that shouldn't.
Given this context, the fear that those looking for guns would use this information to target a relative minority that have them becomes much more plausible.
So, the fear is that burglars would actively mine this data, go to the physical location, wait and ensure nobody is home, then break in? All that compared to say doing the same for someone that has an expensive car in their drive way?
How would the burglars feel about travelling to that neighborhood to first case it? Would you go a few dozen miles to first just find out if there are security cameras, neighborhood watch, etc..?
I think this speaks to a sufficiently motivated burglar. Would this list be the different for that motivated burglar to target someone on that list, compared to any other target? For that motivated burglar, was this leak really the difference in who they target?
Thinking through this scenario concretely, it seems like there are plenty of other actual dangers to worry about.
It makes me think that this side of the coin is just high-pitched whining (my opinion),vs a very legitimate complaint regarding data breaches.
And they will need an FFL if they make a business of selling privately.
I think you inadvertently hit on why people are opposed to further gun regulation. The people committing the crimes aren't gonna follow the law and it stands to only further burden regular citizens.
Can you give me an example of how this would work?
Anyways, it's kind of a moot point in California because that's a felony here.