NY newspaper runs interactive map with names, addresses of gun permit holders

"I would worry about the neighbor who doesn't show up on the map. I can rob him without worrying about being shot." Considering gun ownership rate of 50% in the u.s. and per capita rate of near 90%.. Most houses have guns independent of registration, and lot have 2. So in general a criminal must assume there is a gun in the house.. Therefor most criminals have 2 main factors when picking a house to rob.. 1. Is anyone home 2. Is there a dog

Let's imagine they published a list of all the African-Americans in their area instead. What's your gut reaction?

It could be claimed to be just a matter-of-fact reporting of data obtained in a routine government census.

But I have a feeling that race, in this country, is such a divisive issue that a lot of readers -- of all positions on the issue of race, and both African-Americans and non-African-Americans -- would read into it an implication of Us versus Them, that we should be Concerned about the distribution of African-Americans. Many readers would see an implication that this piece is supposed to be an eye-opener, deemed worthy of newspaper publication on the angle of "You may think your neighborhood doesn't have any African-Americans, but actually they're everywhere."

Now re-read the previous two paragraphs, but replace the word "race" with "gun control," and "African-Americans" with "gun owners."

I will admit that I'm deliberately making the argument as bald as possible, in a way that makes it as easy as possible to see the fallacy. When you read the way I explain it, you may say "No one believes that!"

And I would agree that almost no one consciously believes that. But a lot of human thinking is unconscious, not based on reasons, facts, and observations. Sometimes this unconscious reasoning is based on tribal psychology, Us versus Them, and that's what this article is speaking to.

Since the argument's not laid out in plain terms, it may escape the reader's conscious thought process. But if it doesn't escape the unconscious thought process -- if it makes you feel "With all the news about gun violence lately, and all those gun owners around, I don't feel safe...someone should really do something about all those gun owners..." it can sway a person's position without capturing their full attention or being subjected to the scrutiny of the rational mind.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_Control_Regulations_Ac...

This statement contains at least two problematic assumptions: 1) Only people who have committed violent crimes in the past will commit them in the future. (see: "background checks") 2) People who are mentally ill are inherently dangerous, or at the very least "could be" (see: "mental checks", "crazy people")

The problem with (1) is that a background check will not reveal very much for most folks. Sure, if you've got a lifetime of criminal mischief, a felony or two, that will show up. But that time you argued with someone and threw a brick through their window, but the judge let you off with a "public disturbance" - not gonna show up. For the vast majority of the country, a background report would not be a useful or helpful qualifier. For the worst of the worst, we can't pretend a black market on guns doesn't exist, so it would not help there, either.

The problem with (2) is that you have now decided to deny what is otherwise a fundamental right, guaranteed in (an amendment to) the Constitution to all citizens of legal age. Your logic for stripping a large number of citizens of this right is that some of them might do bad things with it. There is no clinical diagnosis for "is likely to go apeshit and shoot someone" - in fact even among schizophrenics there's no clear indicator of "violent tendencies", let alone an actual predictor.

Another problem with (2) is that you assume that mental health is constant throughout a lifetime. If I'm 18 and go in for a comprehensive mental status evaluation, I may come out just fine and start buying guns. But what happens if I present as Bipolar at 30? Schizophrenic at 40? Do you get to come and take away all my guns at that point? Should that be the duty of a psychiatrist - to determine who is allowed to own weapons? What if the psychiatrist gets it wrong, are they liable? Even if we assume somehow a psychiatrist was able to make that diagnosis and be right 99% of the time, you've now introduced a fairly major reason NOT to seek mental health care - they may take away your guns (or prevent you from getting one).

Sadly, throwing out "it's only crazy people with guns" is a somewhat disingenuous statement. Most gun homicides in the US are committed criminal-on-criminal, or criminal-on-victim. Very few are acts of "a crazy person", and even in those cases very few have ever been diagnosed with or presented psychotic symptoms prior to the commission of a gun-related homicide.

I therefore reject your guarantee that it would "actually make us safer". I also am pretty sure it would run afoul of ADA, and the 2nd Amendment, though that's a question for expensive lawyers.

That said, at the time, the NRA supported the both the laws that effectively ban machine guns. The NRA's stance on gun control, as well as what the NRA itself stands for has changed throughout its history.