>

Now that this has been decided they'll have to go back to their time honored stance that "science is bad, the numbers lie, biased reporting!"
And then you have Texas who wants to register LBGTQ+ people. >

They should let them do it, but officially change it to LGBTQG+ with the G standing for gunowner.
That's what we call 4D chess. >

Hey, armed minorities are harder to oppress - I'm fully onboard. >

Pink Pistols is there for you. >

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 78%. (I'm a bot)


SAN DIEGO - A federal judge has declined a request to temporarily block a California law that allows the state to share personal information about gun owners with gun violence researchers.
Dr. Tent Simmons, a research data supervisor for the California Department of Justice whose responsibilities include the implementation of AB 173 and reviewing requests for information relating to gun and ammunition purchases collected by the department, said in a declaration that researchers who apply for access to data that include personal identifying information of gun owners have to explain how the information will be used for a research project.
Before publishing anything that uses the gun owners' information, researchers must give a pre-publication manuscript to the California Department of Justice at least 10 days before publication to make sure no personal information is published directly or in a way that the identities of the people whose information was used could be identified.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: information^#1 gun^#2 Research^#3 owner^#4 personal^#5 >

So the answer to the fear of police brutality is "if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear", but the answer to the fear of research is being afraid to use the guns? ok. >

A lot of people who aren’t of that ideology get caught up in these issues. I think there’s a lot of people who don’t recognize/acknowledge this. >

You don’t understand, every gun owner is a hard right religious MAGA fascist that hates gay people, women and literally anything to the left of Hitler. /s >

Hitler was a Socialist and farther left than most Democrats today, sorry to break the bad news to you. >

These are the same people who have 2A, Sig Sauer, AR-15 and Glock stickers plastered on the rear window of their pickups while wearing 5.11 tacticool pants with an Outside Waist Band kydex holster. Bro you love showing off STFU >

They literally want to walk around grocery stores with their AR15s on in public. Or near me the fucking idiots fly a great big desecrated US flag with "come and get it" and a picture of a gun scrawled all over it. In public. But oh no now they're suddenly big sad that the public knows they're a gun owner?
Fucking hypocritical losers. >


Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom in 2021, AB 173 allows the state to share gun owners’ personal information with research institutions in the state — including gun owners' names, address’ and ages — which is collected with every firearms sale in California. The information goes into the “Automated Firearms System” database for the purpose of studying and preventing gun violence, shooting accidents, and suicide.
Three of the five plaintiffs also submitted declarations saying the sharing of their personal information with third-party researchers has dissuaded them from exercising their Second Amendment rights." Burns rejected that argument as well.

"How dare they share our information!" one plaintiff said into his Samsung S10 to another plaintiff utilizing their iPhone as they both used Google and Bing to search for legal protections to keep from having their information shared. >

That's a lie. No one uses Bing. >

I use bing. It’s not bad. The app is slow, but the results are less SEO-ed than Google.
Bing: it doesn’t agitate me. >

Funny how these people are literally afraid of fucking everything. >

That's why they want to be ready to kill any of us at a moment's notice >

Irony is dead. >

I do not like this precedent at all. Personal information is just that - and shouldn't be being shared without permission in general. >

It's anonymized and for research purposes. The state has your information anyway, so what's the issue? >

Source? I just rechecked the article and it says the opposite. >


Before publishing anything that uses the gun owners' information, researchers must give a pre-publication manuscript to the California Department of Justice at least 10 days before publication to make sure no personal information is published directly or in a way that the identities of the people whose information was used could be identified.

If the objection is to researchers seeing the raw data, then I don't know what to say. I thought the objection was to the data being made public. >

That is not anonymization, and honestly I object on a lot of levels here. One, I don't like such lists in the first place (they're open to abuse and set bad precedents - see Texas), two non-anonymized data is problematic and risky on its own, three they should not be giving out such data even if they do have it...
This is one of those situations where it just appears to be problems from top to bottom. >

The list already exists, this is just CA giving access to select researchers. I understand disliking the existence of the dataset, but that's not up for negotiation at the moment. I don't see a significant threat being posed by academic researchers having access to the raw data set. >

It's definitely true that the dataset itself is a problem, but so is it being shared. It increases the risks to it, isn't actually helpful for research, and there shouldn't be a precedent of the government giving out such collections. >

They do this all the time for medical research, no? What makes you think the data won't be helpful for research? >

There's actually a couple ways they handle this in medical, the simplest being as mentioned just removing it beforehand since it isn't useful. And honestly unless they're doing something with addresses there's just not a lot of use for it, and even then there are methods used to avoid such issues that should've been done here if so. >

Data scientist here: what are you talking about? Are you saying that the data being provided is somehow not useful? Or am I missing something >

Do these people also not use any website, credit/debit card, phone, tablet or internet connected device? >

2:35 - picture at the gun range with their entire collection on Facebook with the location tagged.
2:36 - long, misspelled rant about privacy and freedom on Facebook with the location tagged. >

Funny, cause a lot of gun owners openly share their personal info with the NRA... who shares their info.