If I may say so, it is a fact that you did not state an argument, but only implied it in your first response; it is also a fact that I was reporting what your implicit argument seemed to me to be; that is, that the potential for misuse requires that some activity be given up. I'm glad your explicit argument is more nuanced.
As to medical records vs other kinds of records, I'm not sure that the distinction between centralized and uncentralized records has much meaning at this point.
What I was half-seriously proposing, however, was not a database so much as a set of criteria for denying someone the right to own a gun (half-seriously because I don't have complete confidence in our ability to compile such a "profile"). I'm sorry my weakness for puns caused you to miscontrue what I meant.
We have such criteria for denying someone a driver's license---if your eyes are bad enough or if you've been caught DWI a certain number of times, you aren't allowed to drive, period. Might there not be legitimate criteria that would have kept Zimmerman, for example, from having a gun?
On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>wrote:
> Is this an argument against keeping medical records?
>>
>
> Of course not. But that's not what is being proposed. What is being
> proposed is some central database. Please, by all means, "keep medical
> records" -- just don't keep them centrally. Because we've seen time and
> again that centralized records are easily -- and often -- abused.
>
> But also, it's kind of a stretch from "medical records" to "keeping TABS
> on people like Zimmerman" ... I mean, in some sense, they DO "keep tabs" on
> people like Z: evidence was attempted to be introduced at the trial about
> previous calls he had made to the cops on both the non-emergency and
> emergency (911) phones. A judge decided whether to admit it or not. That
> seems fine to me.
>
> In fact, you seem to be implying ...
>>
>
> Which is it? A fact? Or what seems to be an implication?
>
>
> the same argument that opponents of gun ownership make, the one
>> by which something that can be misused ought to be banned outright.
>>
>
> If you want to switch gears and talk about central gun registration, yes:
> I'm on record here as saying that I'm against it for similar reasons:
> there's no scenario that such a thing would help stop gun crime, and it's
> the kind of thing that on its own is easily abused. If you want to ban gun
> ownership, go work on that; in the mean time, this half-baked "We'll make a
> list!" idea is dumb.
>
> There's an underlying priciple, which I think I'm also on record here as
> saying: law enforcement, in a society like ours, SHOULD be difficult.
> Anything whose sole purpose appears to be "to make law enforcement easier"
> is usually something I'm against. In the case of guns, I think the answer
> is clear: require manufacturers to adequately keep records of who they ship
> them to; require stores to adequately keep records of who they sold to;
> etc. ENFORCE THIS. If you want to track a gun, make a few phone calls.
> Work down "through the tree" instead of having a big pile of leaves to
> sift through any time you want.
>
> This is the same approach I have to the metadata issue: get a court who
> can review cases leading to warrants, then go read their mail or whatever
> it is you think you need to further the case. If it's "too slow" then fix
> the process, don't route around it by saying "just give me everything, I'll
> deal with it" (and I promise not to let it be abused, you'll have to trust
> me).
>
> This is what the 4th ammendment means to me, Charles Brown's earlier
> chiding notwithstanding.
>
> The way to fix the NYPD/FBI problem is also within our grasp, if anyone
> took the time to consider that what they are dfoing is building a database
> that is a "construtive nuissance" -- it nearly begs crooked cops and others
> to abuse it. So: you have to track usage and tie it to need; you have to
> audit the process; and you have to punish those who abuse it: swiftly and
> surely. If you go monkeying around in the database, you are fired or given
> a job that doesn't require access anymore.
>
> The IRS used to have a big problem with stalkers getting tax data on
> celebrities and politicians until they built such a system. Then they
> fired 100 people for abuse. Now they don't have that problem much anymore.
>
> /jordan
> ______________________________**_____
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/**mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk>
>