I decided to Google what was available for mailing lists targeted to gun owners. This is the very first entry. I haven't bothered to go further because this illustrates my point that there is a lot of info already floating about out there. The list contains close to 6 million names.
Re: We're probably going to have better real time monitoring of everyone
Of course, one of the advantages of having private companies tracking everyone is that you don't need to get a law passed to do it. You just do it until someone passes a law that tells you to stop doing it.
So if you wanted to monitor people who potentially could become threats, you could develop your own profiles, identify people who fit those profiles, and then figure out how to profit from that info.
What if, for example, a company ran detailed info on everyone who lived in your neighborhood or a neighborhood where you planned to live, and then, for a fee, gave you a safety number? You could find out which people around you are potential threats. You wouldn't even have to know their names, but you could get bulletins about how to avoid them.
Landlords can already run checks on potential buyers. Insurance companies identify low and high risk people and then quote them prices accordingly.
In other words, private companies are already profiling most of us in some way or another. The problem with the mass shootings may be that while people might be identified as particular risks, we don't yet have systems set in place to protect us from those people. But that might be coming in the future. Maybe the police won't be able to arrest someone who hasn't yet committed a crime, but there might be electronic barriers so that a potential mass murdered can't get anywhere near a school without it tripping an alarm in advance. Shooting criminals on the spot is a crude way to prevent crime, when there might be much more sophisticated technology available in the near future.
We're probably going to have better real time monitoring of everyone
The way the world is going, we'll probably have videos and tracking devices tracking everyone's moves all the time, so that there are fewer surprises.
And no, I don't mean government monitoring/tracking. I mean private company monitoring/tracking which can provide that info to marketers, insurance companies, prison builders, surveillance and security companies, etc. There's money to be made in anticipating everyone's every move.
People will have their guns, but private companies will know where those guns are and how they can be used. The gun companies don't even need cooperate. As tracking becomes more sophisticated, it will become harder to hide what you do. The privacy games will get very interesting as we move into the future. There are so many potential tracking devices on every street now that it becomes a matter of intercepting the data those devices generate and finding ways to use the info.
As I have always maintained, people who complain only about government are, I think, creating a smoke screen so that citizens are diverted from what private companies are doing. Private companies are the ones who can profit from all of that consumer data.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
I think the argument is that it would be best if lots of people had guns, but nobody knew which people have guns and which people don't. I'm not sure I buy it, but it doesn't conflict with complaining about gun ownership disclosure.
Yes, I have wondered if the illusion of having lots of gun owners is sufficient rather than actually arming lots of people. I'm not sure I buy the idea that it would work, but I would rather have lots of people faking that they have guns rather than actually having guns. A fake gun can't hurt anyone, so I am not at risk of someone hitting me with one.
I'd also rather go the other way and have everyone who has a gun be very visible about having them. If you carry a gun, I'd like to keep an eye on it. If people treated guns like cars, maybe we'd have a bit more control over how they are used.
I've lived in western towns where everyone has a rifle rack in the back of their pickups and rifles mounted in them. You know that they view those rifles as tools.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
I know that there are responsible gun owners.
But I have far right friends who toss out the "if everyone had guns thinking" to me all the time. Those of you here who have rational reasons for having and carrying a gun, fine. I'm not trying to change your approach.
But when I have friends telling me how safe guns make them and would make others, I know there are people out there who think like that. So I think, "If more guns make more people safe, how is letting people know you have a gun a problem?"
Again, I am very concerned about how companies like Google and Facebook are collecting and using info about us. So if you want to talk to me about privacy, I'm open to it. But if you want to talk to me about encouraging more citizens to get guns (as some of my friends are doing), I'm skeptical that it would make our country more safe.
I've thought about it quite a bit but haven't gone that far. But I have pulled out lots of personal info, have entered in some fake info, and so on. I have never used outside apps (I refuse them), won't use Facebook to log into other sites, and so on.
It has been handy to stay in touch with people I never see, but I am getting increasingly bored with the overall Facebook experience. That could be enough to get me to drop it altogether.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
What I have been responding to have been the suggestions by some gun advocates after Sandy Hook that teachers in classrooms have loaded guns and that if more citizens in general carry guns, we'd all be safer. I have Facebook friends who are maintaining that.
So when people complain that they are now at more risk because it has been published that they have guns, that doesn't mesh with the above arguments.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
I don't necessarily think that's true. A large percentage of sales are likely gun enthusiasts, people who like to go out and shoot guns for the sake of shooting guns.
True, but I was thinking of those who buy handguns to carry as concealed weapons.
It's always been inevitable. The very fact that a company can become dominant within a few years means another company can come along and do the same thing. Internet companies that have long-term staying power are rare. And companies that depend on advertising for revenue are especially vulnerable.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
I can't disagree though that certain groups on both sides of the debate, not just the gun industry, often get hyperbolic when discussing gun ownership and gun control. I'm against gun control, but describing gun ownership as making you 'safer' without any qualifications on that statement is wrong.
I think a big problem is that the gun industry's traditional market, hunters, has been declining, and other countries restrict gun ownership, so to keep up demand, they now try to sell more guns to US citizens for protection. That attracts a different gun owner than the ones who used to own guns primarily for hunting.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
A criminal looking for a handgun, and who knows X person has a handgun permit, and thus a handgun, is something very different from random criminals performing random crimes. Advertising this specific information is like advertising which homes have thousands of dollars in jewelry or electronics: it attracts criminals looking for guaranteed returns on their efforts.
You can also find out who owns expensive cars. And you can gauge neighborhoods to guess what residents might have which is worth robbing. You can even look up how much people have paid for their homes, so you get a general idea of their incomes.
I'm open to discussions about privacy (starting with putting significant limits on what companies can collect), but the idea that people with guns are now at greater risk of being robbed goes against what the gun industry has been telling people, which is that owning a gun increases your safety. Let's just say the portrayal of gun owners as victims goes totally against the image the gun industry has been trying to sell.
This is also going to result in an increased crime wave in new York City as criminals start targeting these gun owners and breaking into their homes while they are not there. It will also result in an increased murder rate.
But this goes against one of the reasons people are encouraged to get guns -- that they are safer with them.
The gun industry has not been telling people to get guns and keep them a secret so they won't get stolen.
If your house is at risk of being broken into because you own a gun, what does that say about the risks of owning guns?
I give Facebook as little info as possible, so I refuse to use it on my phone. I don't need to look at it when I am away from my computer anyway, so it isn't as if I need mobile access to it. I haven't yet gotten to the point of not using it at all, but I am increasingly bored with it.
Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
It is an open invitation to thieves. Want a gun? Just wait for everyone to leave at 12345 easy stolen handguns way,somewhere USA. Then break in and take all the guns and ammo you can carry.
Publishing the information puts my family and my property at risk!
I'm actually in favor of protecting people's privacy, which is why I want more limits on what private companies can collect about people.
What I wanted to point out in this thread that if having a gun is a deterrent to crime, then letting people know you have a gun is supposed to be a deterrent as well. Therefore, you shouldn't be at risk.
But I don't really buy the idea that having a gun makes you safer and I don't really believe everyone should have guns, so I can see why people who own guns are afraid that they are at risk if people know they have guns. Guns can attract risk rather than deter it.
Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
And if they're not cowards, absent a threat (which the paper has got) then why do they feel the need to own a gun, as if they were about to be under seige?
That's why the "everyone needs to be armed" talk makes me nervous. If everyone feels they need to be armed either (1) they feel unduly threatened or (2) the country really is that dangerous and it's time we either stay inside to avoid all the threats or move to another country.
If my safety depends on carrying a gun, it's not a place I want to be out and about in. I don't plan to move to another country, but I will avoid going to places where everyone is armed because that implies you can't trust anyone around you and you need to be on guard constantly. That takes too much energy. If there are potential threats everywhere, I'll lessen my exposure to them. It's easier than feeling like I might need to pull out a gun at any minute.
Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
Also, if the thinking is that guns keep criminals away, isn't it better for the gun owners to have everyone know they have guns? Aren't the gun-free houses (according to this logic) who are at risk? So publishing who has a gun is actually harming the non-gun owners, right?
But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
Something like this has been popular with the gun industry. So letting people know who has guns doesn't seem to go against what they want anyway. Of course, any place where people are required to have guns, or a place where everyone carries a gun, is probably somewhere I don't plan to visit.
You MUST own a gun - it's the law!: "KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition."
I don't know if anyone else has already commented on this (I haven't read the comments because the stuff about Hollywood usually just covers the same ground over and over again).
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Here's some info for you
Firearm & Gun Mailing Lists & Leads | AccurateLeads: Selects
City, Date Of Birth, Gender/Sex, Home Owner, Hotline, Household Income, Phone Number, Presence Of Child, Renter, State, Zip
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: We're probably going to have better real time monitoring of everyone
How about this? The advantage of something like this is that there is monitoring, but you don't have to clear it with voters or politicians.
Oh God, Here Come the Private Security Drones
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: We're probably going to have better real time monitoring of everyone
So if you wanted to monitor people who potentially could become threats, you could develop your own profiles, identify people who fit those profiles, and then figure out how to profit from that info.
What if, for example, a company ran detailed info on everyone who lived in your neighborhood or a neighborhood where you planned to live, and then, for a fee, gave you a safety number? You could find out which people around you are potential threats. You wouldn't even have to know their names, but you could get bulletins about how to avoid them.
Landlords can already run checks on potential buyers. Insurance companies identify low and high risk people and then quote them prices accordingly.
In other words, private companies are already profiling most of us in some way or another. The problem with the mass shootings may be that while people might be identified as particular risks, we don't yet have systems set in place to protect us from those people. But that might be coming in the future. Maybe the police won't be able to arrest someone who hasn't yet committed a crime, but there might be electronic barriers so that a potential mass murdered can't get anywhere near a school without it tripping an alarm in advance. Shooting criminals on the spot is a crude way to prevent crime, when there might be much more sophisticated technology available in the near future.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
We're probably going to have better real time monitoring of everyone
And no, I don't mean government monitoring/tracking. I mean private company monitoring/tracking which can provide that info to marketers, insurance companies, prison builders, surveillance and security companies, etc. There's money to be made in anticipating everyone's every move.
People will have their guns, but private companies will know where those guns are and how they can be used. The gun companies don't even need cooperate. As tracking becomes more sophisticated, it will become harder to hide what you do. The privacy games will get very interesting as we move into the future. There are so many potential tracking devices on every street now that it becomes a matter of intercepting the data those devices generate and finding ways to use the info.
As I have always maintained, people who complain only about government are, I think, creating a smoke screen so that citizens are diverted from what private companies are doing. Private companies are the ones who can profit from all of that consumer data.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
Yes, I have wondered if the illusion of having lots of gun owners is sufficient rather than actually arming lots of people. I'm not sure I buy the idea that it would work, but I would rather have lots of people faking that they have guns rather than actually having guns. A fake gun can't hurt anyone, so I am not at risk of someone hitting me with one.
I'd also rather go the other way and have everyone who has a gun be very visible about having them. If you carry a gun, I'd like to keep an eye on it. If people treated guns like cars, maybe we'd have a bit more control over how they are used.
I've lived in western towns where everyone has a rifle rack in the back of their pickups and rifles mounted in them. You know that they view those rifles as tools.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
But I have far right friends who toss out the "if everyone had guns thinking" to me all the time. Those of you here who have rational reasons for having and carrying a gun, fine. I'm not trying to change your approach.
But when I have friends telling me how safe guns make them and would make others, I know there are people out there who think like that. So I think, "If more guns make more people safe, how is letting people know you have a gun a problem?"
Again, I am very concerned about how companies like Google and Facebook are collecting and using info about us. So if you want to talk to me about privacy, I'm open to it. But if you want to talk to me about encouraging more citizens to get guns (as some of my friends are doing), I'm skeptical that it would make our country more safe.
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
Re: Re: I won't even use Facebook on my phone
I've thought about it quite a bit but haven't gone that far. But I have pulled out lots of personal info, have entered in some fake info, and so on. I have never used outside apps (I refuse them), won't use Facebook to log into other sites, and so on.
It has been handy to stay in touch with people I never see, but I am getting increasingly bored with the overall Facebook experience. That could be enough to get me to drop it altogether.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
So when people complain that they are now at more risk because it has been published that they have guns, that doesn't mesh with the above arguments.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
True, but I was thinking of those who buy handguns to carry as concealed weapons.
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
Re: Re: Peaked
It's always been inevitable. The very fact that a company can become dominant within a few years means another company can come along and do the same thing. Internet companies that have long-term staying power are rare. And companies that depend on advertising for revenue are especially vulnerable.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
I think a big problem is that the gun industry's traditional market, hunters, has been declining, and other countries restrict gun ownership, so to keep up demand, they now try to sell more guns to US citizens for protection. That attracts a different gun owner than the ones who used to own guns primarily for hunting.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
You can also find out who owns expensive cars. And you can gauge neighborhoods to guess what residents might have which is worth robbing. You can even look up how much people have paid for their homes, so you get a general idea of their incomes.
I'm open to discussions about privacy (starting with putting significant limits on what companies can collect), but the idea that people with guns are now at greater risk of being robbed goes against what the gun industry has been telling people, which is that owning a gun increases your safety. Let's just say the portrayal of gun owners as victims goes totally against the image the gun industry has been trying to sell.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re:
But this goes against one of the reasons people are encouraged to get guns -- that they are safer with them.
The gun industry has not been telling people to get guns and keep them a secret so they won't get stolen.
If your house is at risk of being broken into because you own a gun, what does that say about the risks of owning guns?
On the post: As Expected, FTC Announces Close Of Google Investigation With No Antitrust Charges, But Minor Tweaks To Biz Practices
Google and its Washington strategy.
On the post: Facedeals: Will Anyone Trust It Enough To Use It?
I won't even use Facebook on my phone
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
Publishing the information puts my family and my property at risk!
I'm actually in favor of protecting people's privacy, which is why I want more limits on what private companies can collect about people.
What I wanted to point out in this thread that if having a gun is a deterrent to crime, then letting people know you have a gun is supposed to be a deterrent as well. Therefore, you shouldn't be at risk.
But I don't really buy the idea that having a gun makes you safer and I don't really believe everyone should have guns, so I can see why people who own guns are afraid that they are at risk if people know they have guns. Guns can attract risk rather than deter it.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: Re: Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
That's why the "everyone needs to be armed" talk makes me nervous. If everyone feels they need to be armed either (1) they feel unduly threatened or (2) the country really is that dangerous and it's time we either stay inside to avoid all the threats or move to another country.
If my safety depends on carrying a gun, it's not a place I want to be out and about in. I don't plan to move to another country, but I will avoid going to places where everyone is armed because that implies you can't trust anyone around you and you need to be on guard constantly. That takes too much energy. If there are potential threats everywhere, I'll lessen my exposure to them. It's easier than feeling like I might need to pull out a gun at any minute.
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
Re: But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
On the post: Blowback From Publication Of Gun Owner Data Continues -- Threats, Lawsuits And Rejected FOIA Requests
But I thought the push was for everyone to have a gun
You MUST own a gun - it's the law!: "KENNESAW, Ga - Several Kennesaw officials attribute a drop in crime in the city over the past two decades to a law that requires residents to have a gun in the house.
In 1982, the Kennesaw City Council unanimously passed a law requiring heads of households to own at least one firearm with ammunition."
On the post: Embedded In The Fiscal Cliff Deal: Hollywood Gets A Big Tax Break
Tech also benefitted
Tech Companies Are The Winners In The Fiscal Cliff Fight Because Their Favorite Tax Avoidance Policy Got Extended - Business Insider
Next >>