Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   Newspaper helpfully publishes names and addresses of local houses not to rob while occupied. Hilarity is ensuing   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 535
    More: Stupid, Putnam County  
•       •       •

23243 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 11:11 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



535 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-25 12:58:11 AM  
They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.
 
2012-12-25 01:25:35 AM  
Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.
 
2012-12-25 03:45:48 AM  
"How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.
 
2012-12-25 08:20:01 AM  

doglover: "How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.


The publisher, the publisher's home alarm security code, the publisher's favorite nine-martini-lunch restaurant, the publisher's country club tee times and the dates he tells his family he's going to a men's fellowship meeting but really goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.
 
2012-12-25 08:32:24 AM  

NewportBarGuy: They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.


Do something about the laws that allow the info to be pubic record. The hand-wringing is a bit boring. Noones going to lose their job over this.

Someone's going to publish it eventually. Whether it's a paper or a gun control blogger.
 
2012-12-25 08:37:33 AM  
I could see this backfiring.
 
2012-12-25 08:51:48 AM  

Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.


Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.
 
2012-12-25 08:52:51 AM  
Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.
 
2012-12-25 08:58:02 AM  
I live in a somewhat rural area, where you assume that every house has at least one gun.
 
2012-12-25 08:58:51 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.


Go on...
 
2012-12-25 09:30:09 AM  
mlkshk.com
 
2012-12-25 09:40:09 AM  

catusr: I live in a somewhat rural area, where you assume that every house has at least one gun.


Yah, out in the country pretty much everyone has at least one gun. We don't have to register them either.
 
2012-12-25 10:20:27 AM  
God, but zealots do some thoroughly brain dead stuff. I mean, that's Westboro Baptist crazy.

I hope those assholes lose every gun owners subscription, as well as those who don't own guns but still have common sense. Advertisers should be dropping them right and left too.

Fire the editor and whatever writers were involved with this.
 
2012-12-25 10:36:34 AM  

RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.


sure.
just like you can go to a court house and find the names of everyone on trial and the charges against them - you can publish that too.
 
2012-12-25 10:43:56 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: doglover: "How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.

The publisher, the publisher's home alarm security code, the publisher's favorite nine-martini-lunch restaurant, the publisher's country club tee times and the dates he tells his family he's going to a men's fellowship meeting but really goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.


i.imgur.com '
Dita's Dungeon has it all...
 
2012-12-25 10:48:45 AM  
Oh, my. Judging from the comments, we have a quite a number of revolutionaries on our hands here.
 
2012-12-25 10:55:41 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

sure.
just like you can go to a court house and find the names of everyone on trial and the charges against them - you can publish that too.


I don't get your point. 1) That's false, not all names are released (for instance, minors), and 2) so what? Isn't that what newspapers do?

I am under no delusion that I have an expectation of privacy in my public records.
 
2012-12-25 11:17:33 AM  
I'm familiar with a smal part of the area in question and can emphatically state that this list is incomplete both in not listing all pistol permit holders and in totally omitting unregistered guns. Doesn't excuse the idiocy of the decision to publish this information for general consumption, but anyone who thinks they're guaranteed a selection of easy targets based on unlisted homes might well be on the receiving end of some small-caliber hilarity.
 
2012-12-25 11:17:55 AM  
isn't it generally known when you apply that it will be publically available? pretty sure i knew that when i got my permit in MA.
 
2012-12-25 11:18:34 AM  

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.


That makes no sense, no one's going to shoot anyone when there's no one there.

I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.
 
2012-12-25 11:18:51 AM  

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.


Or, I can pick an address that *is* listed, wait until no one is home, and then walk out with some firearms that will sell very nicely on the black market.

The vast majority of burglars operate when the home is vacant, something your vaunted guns will do nothing to protect against.
 
2012-12-25 11:20:42 AM  
Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.
 
2012-12-25 11:21:59 AM  

RexTalionis: tenpoundsofcheese: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

sure.
just like you can go to a court house and find the names of everyone on trial and the charges against them - you can publish that too.

I don't get your point. 1) That's false, not all names are released (for instance, minors), and 2) so what? Isn't that what newspapers do?

I am under no delusion that I have an expectation of privacy in my public records.


The point is ease of access.
I doubt that newspapers publish the list of every adult who is charged with a crime and the details of that crime.
Much less do they create a nice interactive tool that, I don't know, people who are hiring people could look at in their free time
(although of course they would never make a decision based on what they read)

Are the resumes and job applications of people who apply for federal jobs considered public information?  If so, is there a searchable database for all that info?
 
2012-12-25 11:23:24 AM  

tlchwi02: isn't it generally known when you apply that it will be publically available? pretty sure i knew that when i got my permit in MA.


Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.
 
2012-12-25 11:23:51 AM  

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.


That's not how crime works.
 
2012-12-25 11:24:32 AM  
Put me on the map. But not my pussy ass hippy neighbors.
 
2012-12-25 11:24:36 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: doglover: "How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.

The publisher, the publisher's home alarm security code, the publisher's favorite nine-martini-lunch restaurant, the publisher's country club tee times and the dates he tells his family he's going to a men's fellowship meeting but really goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.


THAT IS A SCURRILOUS LIE!!!!!! The albino was not shaved.
 
2012-12-25 11:25:18 AM  

Spanky McStupid: Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.


seems like semantics at that point. I guess its annoying that a newspaper published it, but if anyone who was interested could obtain the information anyway i don't get the outrage. oh no, public information is available to the public!
 
2012-12-25 11:25:21 AM  
The people that should be pissed are the ones that DON'T own guns. Now everone knows that they have to legal way to defend themselves. This is just plain batshiat crazy.
 
2012-12-25 11:25:33 AM  
How about a list of illegal gun owners.
 
2012-12-25 11:25:36 AM  
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
2012-12-25 11:25:52 AM  

snuff3r: Noones going to lose their job over this.


But Noone didn't have anything to do with this. Noone has been doing a great job since he joined the paper.
 
2012-12-25 11:25:55 AM  
What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.
 
2012-12-25 11:26:13 AM  

snuff3r: NewportBarGuy: They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.

Do something about the laws that allow the info to be pubic record. The hand-wringing is a bit boring. Noones going to lose their job over this.

Someone's going to publish it eventually. Whether it's a paper or a gun control blogger.


No one is two words... Unless of course you are saying nooooneees, which is how I read that.
 
2012-12-25 11:26:56 AM  
FTA: "How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...," wrote commenter George Thompson.

Seems fair to me.
 
2012-12-25 11:27:29 AM  
There's an idea. Treat gun owners like registered pedophiles, and then wonder why they have such a persecution complex.
 
2012-12-25 11:27:46 AM  
So you publish folks who, like myself, have handgun permits. Keep in mind that some states require no such permit for shotguns and rifles.
 
2012-12-25 11:27:58 AM  
The ONLY thing that can stop a bad guy with a newspaper is a good guy with a newspaper.
 
2012-12-25 11:28:08 AM  
Step 1)Have a break in staged Step 2) hide gun Step 3) sue paper

Profit!
 
2012-12-25 11:29:00 AM  
I have been thinking during other recent gun threads that this would be a good idea, for all guns. As things stand, you only need a permit if you're a serious gun nerd, or a SoF rambo. This kind of map is perfect for parents who don't want to buy a house near someone who is likely to send a stray round through the wall.

Why would a pro-gun person be ashamed of their guns?
 
2012-12-25 11:30:16 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.


Real world doesn't work that way, also just because you have a gun permit doesn't mean you have a conceal/carry permit which means they can be stolen once people know you are not home.
 
Pav
2012-12-25 11:30:17 AM  
Public records are public! Oh the horror!
 
2012-12-25 11:30:52 AM  

ParaHandy: This kind of map is perfect for parents who don't want to buy a house near someone who is likely to send a stray round through the wall.


Most parents don't share your paralyzing fear of firearms. Seek help.
 
2012-12-25 11:31:10 AM  

tlchwi02: seems like semantics at that point. I guess its annoying that a newspaper published it, but if anyone who was interested could obtain the information anyway i don't get the outrage. oh no, public information is available to the public!


Not at all. I've never known of a burglar who bothered to go downtown to check public records for information like this. But despite what many probably believe, many see the local section of the newspaper. If for no other reason than to see which of their buddies was recently arrested.
.
I can't speak for others, but I know I don't worry about my house getting broken into when I'm home. I'm worried about my house getting broken into when I'm not home.
 
2012-12-25 11:31:13 AM  

tylerdurden217: snuff3r: NewportBarGuy: They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.

Do something about the laws that allow the info to be pubic record. The hand-wringing is a bit boring. Noones going to lose their job over this.

Someone's going to publish it eventually. Whether it's a paper or a gun control blogger.

No one is two words... Unless of course you are saying nooooneees, which is how I read that.


mjalters.com
 
2012-12-25 11:32:48 AM  

ParaHandy: I have been thinking during other recent gun threads that this would be a good idea, for all guns. As things stand, you only need a permit if you're a serious gun nerd, or a SoF rambo. This kind of map is perfect for parents who don't want to buy a house near someone who is likely to send a stray round through the wall.

Why would a pro-gun person be ashamed of their guns?


Exactly! It's stories like this that made the wife and I decide against moving into a golf course neighborhood.

/Never know when one of those serious golfers will go nuts
 
2012-12-25 11:32:48 AM  

coco ebert: Oh, my. Judging from the comments, we have a quite a number of revolutionaries on our hands here.


What purpose does this serve? I've tried to find a positive aspect and found none. They want to create a visual to get across the point of how many guns are out there? Fine, just stick with the numbers. I honestly see no need to list the names and addresses of every pistol permit holder. I understand that this information is available under FOIA, but what possible purpose does it serve to collate it and put it out like that?

It's just going to piss people off more and that is not going to further the debate, nor will it help convince other gun owners to embrace new legislation or increased enforcement of current legislation.

If they want to collect the data, they should also pull all criminal records of those they are targeting and combine that with the data and find out how many people with pistol permits should a) not have been given them or b) who should have them taken away because of a crime after they got it. That? I'm fine with that.

Just putting it out there like they did? Not cool with that at all.
 
2012-12-25 11:32:53 AM  
Why would you do that? I can see publishing names of child rapers and other sexual deviants, but posting who is armed and who isn't? You know someone is going to try to burgle one of those homes that has guns in it while the people are away.
 
2012-12-25 11:33:24 AM  

Hamanu: doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.

That makes no sense, no one's going to shoot anyone when there's no one there.

I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.


Whether you're a gun owner or not, you probably shouldn't think this is a good idea.
 
2012-12-25 11:34:05 AM  

coco ebert: Oh, my. Judging from the comments, we have a quite a number of revolutionaries on our hands here.


I'd say they're more parlor pinks.  Anyone know why the GOP decided to take the color of the Revolution as its own?
 
2012-12-25 11:35:00 AM  

stealthd: That's not how crime works.


Wolf_Blitzer: Or, I can pick an address that *is* listed, wait until no one is home, and then walk out with some firearms that will sell very nicely on the black market.

The vast majority of burglars operate when the home is vacant, something your vaunted guns will do nothing to protect against.


stealthd - Yes. Yes it does work that way. I spent enough time in the public defender's office to be able to tell you that criminals are always looking out for an easy, quick, safe hit.

Wolf_Blitzer - Which is why responsible firearms owners keep their guns in a secure spot. Something which, unfortunately, does not describe enough firearms owners. We had a rash of gun thefts here a few years ago, to the point that our prosecutor went on the record and told the public to lock their stuff up. Fortunately none of the stolen weapons were used locally that I know of. Most of them were recovered when the thieves tried to swap them for a metric butt load of rave drugs.
 
2012-12-25 11:35:22 AM  

NewportBarGuy: coco ebert: Oh, my. Judging from the comments, we have a quite a number of revolutionaries on our hands here.

What purpose does this serve? I've tried to find a positive aspect and found none.


well, maybe people who want guns will realize that it is better to get one and not register it.
that will result in lower fees for the county
the county can make that up by taxing the rich more.
 
2012-12-25 11:36:00 AM  
What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp
 
2012-12-25 11:36:42 AM  
It's ok. I mean, we know that robbers wouldn't possibly attack a red-blooded American who has a gun at his disposal, right?
 
2012-12-25 11:37:18 AM  
Excellent move!

Now criminals know which houses not to hit. Publishing records gives them a head-start on those who've chosen to be defenseless and victims.

Evolution in Action™
 
2012-12-25 11:37:40 AM  
i1121.photobucket.com

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?
 
2012-12-25 11:37:48 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: doglover: "How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.

The publisher, the publisher's home alarm security code, the publisher's favorite nine-martini-lunch restaurant, the publisher's country club tee times and the dates he tells his family he's going to a men's fellowship meeting but really goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.


** fap **
 
2012-12-25 11:39:08 AM  
I've been toying with putting up a sign along the following lines:

Posted - Any forced entry, including no-knock warrnats by law enforcement, will be repelled with deadly force.

I want to see how my mostly SUV driving upper middle class neigbours might react, and whether it will curb people leaving leaflets.
 
2012-12-25 11:39:22 AM  
Keep reloading because I sure as hell ain't finished honking and you need the target practice, grandmom.
 
2012-12-25 11:39:35 AM  
I live in the south. I go under the assumption that I am the only one in my neighborhood who doesn't own a gun.
 
2012-12-25 11:39:58 AM  
Wait, I thought all you Fark gun nuts were responsible gun owners, that kept their guns locked up and secured. You know, unlike Nancy Lanza. If you are telling the truth, noone will be able to break in and steal your guns.

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, gun-owning citizen.
 
2012-12-25 11:40:34 AM  

shanrick: Mr. Coffee Nerves: doglover: "How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.

The publisher, the publisher's home alarm security code, the publisher's favorite nine-martini-lunch restaurant, the publisher's country club tee times and the dates he tells his family he's going to a men's fellowship meeting but really goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.

[i.imgur.com image 290x290] '
Dita's Dungeon has it all...


"Midget" is not an acceptable term any more. "Fun size" is now the appropriate term according to Stefon.
 
2012-12-25 11:40:36 AM  
I don't see the problem.
 
2012-12-25 11:40:46 AM  
The real outrage is that the GOVERNMENT even has this information in the first place.

You know they can take this map and overlay a map of who has perscriptions for controlled substances or any perscription where medicade covers part of the cost.

What else could they add to make it even more interesting?
 
2012-12-25 11:40:53 AM  

feckingmorons: Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.


So are you suggesting that they retaliate or merely expressing your complete lack of surprise for the retaliation that has yet to occur?
 
2012-12-25 11:41:45 AM  
I'd be lawyering up pretty damn quick. The government of Richmond, VA got its ass handed to them on a silver platter when they released the same information. The government has your SocSec No., that doesn't mean its open to requests from the public.

This is also one of the many reason's its completely unconstitutional for any government to compile such information. And before the typical farktards go off, "shall not infringe" fark you.
 
2012-12-25 11:41:46 AM  
"The Journal News" is obviously gay, and should be sued!
 
2012-12-25 11:42:02 AM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?


Indeed.  Lunatic's aside you'll find that Fairfield County Ct, right next to Westchester is incredibly safe.  Port Chester.... Not so much.   But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.
 
2012-12-25 11:42:10 AM  

BizarreMan: I live in the south. I go under the assumption that I am the only one in my neighborhood who doesn't own a gun.


I live in a Northern city in a neighborhood that is UP AND COMING so this, too.
 
2012-12-25 11:43:43 AM  
While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?
 
2012-12-25 11:43:50 AM  

ParaHandy: I've been toying with putting up a sign along the following lines:

Posted - Any forced entry, including no-knock warrnats by law enforcement, will be repelled with deadly force.

I want to see how my mostly SUV driving upper middle class neigbours might react, and whether it will curb people leaving leaflets.


I'm going to put a sign in my yard that says "Future Sex Offender, I will tie an intruder to my radiator and grape them in the mouth"

Might deter more crime that a "Beware
 
2012-12-25 11:43:56 AM  

utharda: But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.


I admit, that's bringing it pretty strong.
 
2012-12-25 11:44:26 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.


Tell that to a 68 year old disabled man.... or a 5'1" 98 pound woman.

Yeah, just fist-fight. Don't be a pussy.
 
2012-12-25 11:44:32 AM  

ParaHandy: I've been toying with putting up a sign along the following lines:

Posted - Any forced entry, including no-knock warrnats by law enforcement, will be repelled with deadly force.

I want to see how my mostly SUV driving upper middle class neigbours might react, and whether it will curb people leaving leaflets.


I'm going to put a sign in my yard that says "Future Sex Offender, I will tie an intruder to my radiator and grape them in the mouth"

Might deter more crime that a "Beware of owner" sign
 
2012-12-25 11:44:55 AM  

tlchwi02: seems like semantics at that point. I guess its annoying that a newspaper published it, but if anyone who was interested could obtain the information anyway i don't get the outrage. oh no, public information is available to the public!


Exactly.

When have government permits (of any kind) NOT been public information? They should be private Because Guns? Puhleeze. If you want to be anonymous, don't get a permit.

/They outed my sekrit gun!
//The gun nuts really posted info on the reporters kids the last time? Anyone OK with that is a douchbag.
 
2012-12-25 11:44:57 AM  
I own a flintlock, unlimited ability to get bent out of shape over everything, a twitter account and I vote!
 
2012-12-25 11:45:00 AM  

feckingmorons: Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.


I remember the last time this was trendy with the local 'journalists' and the shock and appall when their tactic was turned on them. Serves the hypocritical douches right, IMO.
 
2012-12-25 11:45:26 AM  

Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!


.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?
 
2012-12-25 11:45:32 AM  
I completely support the paper's right to publish publically available info.

I completely suppprt the gun owner's right to publish all the publically available info of any/all people who work at the paper.
 
2012-12-25 11:46:00 AM  
As a fan of everything in the bill of rights, I find this hilarious. As strident as some gun owners can be about their rights, they tend to lose sight of free speech and what bits of information should be public knowledge. After all, when you ban lists of gun owners, only outlaws will have lists of gun owners.

/we're getting carried away with privacy rights at the expense of the public good.
//It takes nerve for a newspaper to do this. They will lose more revenue than they will gain.
 
2012-12-25 11:46:35 AM  
Daniel Perleman would still be alive if he was armed. Think about it. Then sign up for the NRA using my referral ID so I can get GunBuxs good for free apparel at the NRA online store. There's a tom Clancy e-book I want to get.
 
2012-12-25 11:46:42 AM  
Oh thank god!

As a fellow Pro-Rights person, I was thinking that guns had been taking a pretty hard rap lately. But this idiotic act should be enough to stop this whole silly debate.
 
2012-12-25 11:46:59 AM  

Ontos: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.

Tell that to a 68 year old disabled man.... or a 5'1" 98 pound woman.

Yeah, just fist-fight. Don't be a pussy.


Do you think either one of those defective citizens will be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their .22 anyways?
 
2012-12-25 11:47:41 AM  

Sleeping Monkey: [mlkshk.com image 330x186]


mlkshk.com
i1121.photobucket.com

What he said!
 
2012-12-25 11:48:46 AM  
Step 1: print a treasure map for burglars, showing where guns are waiting to be stolen??
 
2012-12-25 11:49:32 AM  
The AP tried to do this in Illinois, because we have a BS "FOID" card system. Lisa Madigan tried to force the ISP to release the information of everyone with a FOID. The ISP refused because they didn't want to get sued, and then the General Assembly passed a law protecting FOID information. This was entirely meant to intimidate gun owners.

You hysterical gun-grabbers sound like a lot what people were saying about Muslims after 9/11.
 
2012-12-25 11:49:57 AM  
To everyone involved in either side of the gun control debate, you aren't helping.
 
2012-12-25 11:50:02 AM  

iron_city_ap: I completely support the paper's right to publish publically available info.

I completely suppprt the gun owner's right to publish all the publically available info of any/all people who work at the paper.


Like those sites with lists of family planning clinic doctors that display their successes in strikeout?
 
2012-12-25 11:50:33 AM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?


A certain town in Connecticut between Danbury and Waterbury is missing a rather large, red, angry, recent dot.
 
2012-12-25 11:50:56 AM  
I'm not for banning guns, but I also don't recall anyone having a "right" to secrecy when owning an instrument that has only two uses: threatening and killing. If you have a problem with this, then you are not what anyone would consider a responsible gun owner, so all the more reason for you to be identified in a public forum. Let me make it clear: community safety far exceeds your desire to not give people a reason to pass judgment on you. Don't like it, find a different community. Threatening others over this is just going to prove the point.
 
2012-12-25 11:50:59 AM  
This is such a horrible idea. Now people are not going to want to register their guns. I'd like tighter gun control, not more unregistered guns. Also if anybody there is hiding from a psycho ex .... too bad for them I guess. This doesn't accomplish anything other than bad things for everybody.
 
2012-12-25 11:51:12 AM  
Hold the paper responsible if firearms are stolen from the home and used to murder someone. Count the reporter as being liable under federal law for gun crime....10 year prison term....at least.
 
2012-12-25 11:51:13 AM  

david_gaithersburg: I'd be lawyering up pretty damn quick. The government of Richmond, VA got its ass handed to them on a silver platter when they released the same information. The government has your SocSec No., that doesn't mean its open to requests from the public.

This is also one of the many reason's its completely unconstitutional for any government to compile such information. And before the typical farktards go off, "shall not infringe" fark you.



No Fark you!!... Yes what we all need is not less government in our lives but more lawyers... you sir are a typical big government loving liberal democrat idiot!
 
2012-12-25 11:51:20 AM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ontos: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.

Tell that to a 68 year old disabled man.... or a 5'1" 98 pound woman.

Yeah, just fist-fight. Don't be a pussy.

Do you think either one of those defective citizens will be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their .22 anyways?


Yes. I actually see it on a daily basis.
 
2012-12-25 11:51:46 AM  
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.
 
2012-12-25 11:51:46 AM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?


Or it could correlate with population density. You know, like if you did a crime map of Rock Springs, Wyoming and Manhattan.
 
2012-12-25 11:52:13 AM  

AutumnWind: This is such a horrible idea. Now people are not going to want to register their guns. I'd like tighter gun control, not more unregistered guns. Also if anybody there is hiding from a psycho ex .... too bad for them I guess. This doesn't accomplish anything other than bad things for everybody.


ditch the serial #'s and rasp the inside of the barrels, too.
 
2012-12-25 11:52:41 AM  
This is the kind of thing that makes licensing and registration a bad idea.
The criminals won't attack law abiding gun owners, they'll rob these houses while the owners are out. This paper has willfully aided in the distribution of illegal weapons.
They should be sued for every incident that happens as a result.
The state should also voluntarily comply with federal rules for the FOPA, and destroy those lists immediately.
 
2012-12-25 11:52:50 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?


Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?
 
2012-12-25 11:53:17 AM  

david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?


I don't think you understand the concept of public records.
 
2012-12-25 11:53:46 AM  

clane: david_gaithersburg: I'd be lawyering up pretty damn quick. The government of Richmond, VA got its ass handed to them on a silver platter when they released the same information. The government has your SocSec No., that doesn't mean its open to requests from the public.

This is also one of the many reason's its completely unconstitutional for any government to compile such information. And before the typical farktards go off, "shall not infringe" fark you.


No Fark you!!... Yes what we all need is not less government in our lives but more lawyers... you sir are a typical big government loving liberal democrat idiot!


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.
 
2012-12-25 11:54:21 AM  

RexTalionis: I am under no delusion that I have an expectation of privacy in my public records.


It's not just the expectation of privacy. It's also the ease of access to that information.

I believe one of the arguments in favor of ANPR devices is basically what you say, isn't it? That you have no expectation of privacy in your public records.  So I guess that makes it okay for the police or newspaper to put up ANPR devices all over town and then track and maybe broadcasting every trip you or anyone in town makes?

(Hell, maybe you and I should do that as a private company, and gather information on consumer shopping trips, duration, frequency, destinations per neighborhood -- I bet there's a zillion VC bucks in doing that.)

Or here:

When GPS Tracking Violates Privacy Rights

For the right to personal privacy to survive in America in this digital age, courts must be meticulous in applying longstanding privacy protections to new technology. This did not happen in an unfortunate

The case concerned a drug conviction based on information about the defendant's location that the government acquired from a cellphone he carried on a three-day road trip in a motor home. The data, apparently obtained with a phone company's help, led to a warrantless search of the motor home and the seizure of incriminating evidence.

The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant's rights because he "did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone."
 
2012-12-25 11:55:03 AM  

BizarreMan: I live in the south. I go under the assumption that I am the only one in my neighborhood who doesn't own a gun.


This.

But I live in Utah.

Wait a second.....guns cause crime. I must be dead.
 
2012-12-25 11:55:24 AM  
3.bp.blogspot.com

The question is not whether you can own a gun...because you can.

What you can't do is own ANY gun you want. A gun is a commercial product. It can be regulated, controlled, recalled, restricted...just like any other commercial product.

I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you badMOUTH sensible gun restrictions. Gentlemen!
 
2012-12-25 11:55:47 AM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

I don't think you understand the concept of public records.


.
I don't think I know you fail at reading comprehension.
 
2012-12-25 11:55:58 AM  
Editorial staff meeting beforehand:

"Dammit, Lois, there has to be a way to make another dime off of those dead kids, and I want you ON IT!"
 
2012-12-25 11:56:32 AM  
I think this topic is ripe of a little vigilante stuff too. I'd loveto be rich enough to travel around the country as a sniper and take out gun nuts who threaten people, gang bangers, cops who get off with murder on the job, and other dangerous elements. Live by the gun, die by the gone.

I also believe no-knock warrants should be outlawed, or at minimum, I should have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.
 
2012-12-25 11:57:42 AM  
Wow, the biases here are really on display. Nobody has the right to know who owns what - including cars and guns. This paper hates gun owners so much they thought this would be OK. Enjoy the payback, biatches.
 
2012-12-25 11:57:49 AM  

Hamanu: I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.


Are they going to pick the lock on the gun safe, or carry the whole thing away on their backs??
 
2012-12-25 11:58:19 AM  
Hey mods, can we get some trigger warnings on this article? Was just video skyping with BongBoy69 and he just bit the tip of his own tongue off after reading it. He totally went off half-cocked and started screaming racial epithets about Obama and how kickstarter will be sorry they never allowed his zombie mmporg to succeed.
 
2012-12-25 11:58:40 AM  
Class action lawsuit.
 
2012-12-25 11:59:24 AM  

halB: Oh thank god!

As a fellow Pro-Rights person, I was thinking that guns had been taking a pretty hard rap lately. But this idiotic act should be enough to stop this whole silly debate.


A newspaper doing something many other newspapers have done many times before is going to knock the mass murder of twenty 5 and 6 year olds out of the news? Uh, no.

As others have pointed out, when newspapers have done this previously, sometimes "fellow Pro-Rights persons" have published information on those reporters kids. This sort of thing generally doesn't work out well for the gun rights crowd.

Because your brain may not be wired like the rest of us, I'll explain this clearly. Publishing information already in the public record does not even begin to begin to begin to equate to the mass murder of twenty little kids.
 
2012-12-25 12:00:07 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.


The dots on Manhattan are probably bodyguards for liberal celebrities. You know, the ones like Michael Moore that have armed guards but then go on TV and say poor people should not have guns.
 
2012-12-25 12:00:12 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

I don't think you understand the concept of public records.

.
I don't think I know you fail at reading comprehension.


So what was your point then? Three out of the four things you listed are information held by the government, but are not public records. Your address is a public record if you have registered a deed. What did I miss?
 
2012-12-25 12:03:30 PM  

Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

I don't think you understand the concept of public records.

.
I don't think I know you fail at reading comprehension.

So what was your point then? Three out of the four things you listed are information held by the government, but are not public records. Your address is a public record if you have registered a deed. What did I miss?


.
Oh good lord. My point is based on your logic three of those four things should also be available to the public.
 
2012-12-25 12:04:59 PM  

Dear Jerk: As a fan of everything in the bill of rights, I find this hilarious. As strident as some gun owners can be about their rights, they tend to lose sight of free speech and what bits of information should be public knowledge. After all, when you ban lists of gun owners, only outlaws will have lists of gun owners.

/we're getting carried away with privacy rights at the expense of the public good.
//It takes nerve for a newspaper to do this. They will lose more revenue than they will gain.


Several states require the destruction of all records on gun ownership after 7 days or so of the records being created. They also ban the creation of records in certain circumstances. For a good reason why, watch Red Dawn. Or this, this right here.
 
2012-12-25 12:06:41 PM  
"We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness
 
2012-12-25 12:06:58 PM  
I've lived my life by very few rules, but one of them has always been "Don't piss off crazy people who own guns". I'm betting at least two of the people on that list are certifiable. Possibly more.

//At least they wont have to go far for their next story.
 
2012-12-25 12:07:17 PM  

Anonymocoso: BizarreMan: I live in the south. I go under the assumption that I am the only one in my neighborhood who doesn't own a gun.

This.

But I live in Utah.

Wait a second.....guns cause crime. I must be dead.


You live in Utah. You only wish you were dead.
 
2012-12-25 12:07:32 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?


While we are at it, add income tax records to the list!
 
2012-12-25 12:08:41 PM  

RandomRandom: halB: Oh thank god!

As a fellow Pro-Rights person, I was thinking that guns had been taking a pretty hard rap lately. But this idiotic act should be enough to stop this whole silly debate.

A newspaper doing something many other newspapers have done many times before is going to knock the mass murder of twenty 5 and 6 year olds out of the news? Uh, no.

As others have pointed out, when newspapers have done this previously, sometimes "fellow Pro-Rights persons" have published information on those reporters kids. This sort of thing generally doesn't work out well for the gun rights crowd.

Because your brain may not be wired like the rest of us, I'll explain this clearly. Publishing information already in the public record does not even begin to begin to begin to equate to the mass murder of twenty little kids.


So when the thieves break into 20 houses, and murder 20 children sleeping inside, what about then?

Think very carefully of your answer, for I am setting a trap for your "logic."
 
2012-12-25 12:08:51 PM  

fredklein: Hamanu: I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.

Are they going to pick the lock on the gun safe, or carry the whole thing away on their backs??


No gun safe is impenetrable. At most, a safe deters a thief looking for a quick smash and grab. A thief who has access to my house and knows I am not due home could probably cut his way into my safe in under a half an hour, using the tools in my garage. The safe merely lets him know where all my guns are.
 
2012-12-25 12:08:52 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?


Or perhaps there is high gun ownership in those high crime areas because people want to be able to defend themselves. Which came first, the high crime rate or the high gun ownership rate?
 
2012-12-25 12:08:56 PM  
Ooh. Depending on how the politics flies, this could have some far reaching consequences.

Oh, and if I were a smart thief, I would be doing my homework on which one of those residences aren't paying attention.
 
2012-12-25 12:09:23 PM  
I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.
 
2012-12-25 12:11:41 PM  

robnelle: Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.


Highly unlikely. More likely- "Several area homes robbed- targeted for weapons and ammunition".

I don't agree with publishing the names contained in public records. There is a lot of information that we are required to provide as a matter of record, but it is not necessary for this information to be made public other than by necessity- such as the transfer of property that may be contested or information that may affect the public's well being-- otherwise, the information need be deemed as need to know.

If i need to know whether my immediate neighbors or my child's friends have guns in the home- that info should be made available out of concern for my child's possible access to a weapon. If I'm just out to expose who possesses guns, I better have a compelling reason to publish specific names and addresses as opposesd to generalized info like gun types and numbers.
 
2012-12-25 12:12:19 PM  
Oh, gawd. I despise the gun worshiping mentality as much as the next gun grabbing libby lib derpty doo but this is bullsh*t.

That's it, America. You've jumped the shark. Perhaps it's time for the US to be annexed by Canada so your country can be run by adults again.

Sickening.
 
2012-12-25 12:12:55 PM  

italie: I've lived my life by very few rules, but one of them has always been "Don't piss off crazy people who own guns". I'm betting at least two of the people on that list are certifiable. Possibly more.

//At least they wont have to go far for their next story.



This is what I think is kind of amusing (in a dark way) about the NRA's "registry of mentally ill" - such a thing, well administered and cautious in defining 'too ill to own a gun', would likely disqualify many of their members.
 
2012-12-25 12:13:06 PM  
Hey, lets next publish the name and address of all the women out there who have had an Abortion.

While there are about 30,000 gun related deaths in America each year. A number that has been decreasing by the way. There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

And while everyone should be outraged and saddened by the killing of the Sandy Hook school children we should also be saddened and outraged by the killing of babies...

www.philipbrocoum.com
 
2012-12-25 12:13:28 PM  

BizarreMan: Anonymocoso: BizarreMan: I live in the south. I go under the assumption that I am the only one in my neighborhood who doesn't own a gun.


You live in Utah. You only wish you were dead.


Usually, yes, but not today.

/Foot of fresh powder, FTW
 
2012-12-25 12:14:19 PM  
Oh yes, I forgot, the people at ABC News are fricken idiots! Just sayin.
 
2012-12-25 12:14:30 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.


Well this is about what is legal to do. It is legal to own a gun, if you go through the proper channels. It is legal to print their names. It is also legal to get an abortion, if you go through the proper channels. Perhaps the names of anyone that has had an abortion should be made public, so men will know which women are less likely to attempt the pregnancy trap?
 
2012-12-25 12:14:37 PM  
I'd be more concerned if I didn't own a gun! When the criminal is checking to see who's naughty or nice, I'm sure they would prefer to hit a house without a gun in it.
 
2012-12-25 12:15:18 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.


Not every gun owner is an irresponsible lunatic and claiming that is the case is not helping the cause.

If you lump in the responsible gun owners who are willing to work on fixing things in with the sh*theads you will only ostracize them.

Why the f*ck can't you people THINK and work TOGETHER to solve your issues?! You're tearing the damned country apart!
 
2012-12-25 12:15:43 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Cuchulane: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

I don't think you understand the concept of public records.

.
I don't think I know you fail at reading comprehension.

So what was your point then? Three out of the four things you listed are information held by the government, but are not public records. Your address is a public record if you have registered a deed. What did I miss?

.
Oh good lord. My point is based on your logic three of those four things should also be available to the public.


Then your point is horribly made and senseless.
Pav made the point that the newspaper published records that are available to the public, so there wasn't much to do or say about it. In applying for a license in that jurisdiction you acknowledge that your license and address information will be made available to the public.
You seem to be stating the fallacy that anyone who agrees that public information can be published must also agree that any information held by the government should be made public. So either you are not able to understand the distinction, or are making an invalid and senseless argument for some silly reason.
 
2012-12-25 12:16:03 PM  

Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.


How much is that saving in welfare costs?
 
2012-12-25 12:16:37 PM  
Offtopic, but relevant to my interests:

Bit'O'Gristle: ...burgle...


Thank you. Not every word needs to be -ized
 
2012-12-25 12:17:04 PM  
Why would anyone register a gun after this?
 
2012-12-25 12:17:24 PM  

Brick-House: And while everyone should be outraged and saddened by the killing of the Sandy Hook school children we should also be saddened and outraged by the killing of babies...


Uh-huh.

Funny, when Herod got jealous that a new King of the Jews had been born, he planned to kill all male children under two years old in Bethlehem to ensure the death of that baby. God sent a vision to Joseph, telling him to flee to Egypt with the newborn Jesus in order to keep Jesus safe, then sat idly by while Herod ordered his soldiers to kill every farkin' baby in the entire city.

Merry Christmas! See you next Passover!
 
2012-12-25 12:17:55 PM  

ParaHandy: Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?

Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?


I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.
 
2012-12-25 12:18:18 PM  
Gun nuts, ready to violently overthrow the government at a moments notice, piss their pants when a local newspaper points at them.. And here I thought they've been claiming to be so brave and prepared for opposition.
 
2012-12-25 12:18:55 PM  

s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?


That's racest
 
2012-12-25 12:19:24 PM  
Second Amendment, meet First Amendment.
 
2012-12-25 12:19:55 PM  

Mentalpatient87: Gun nuts, ready to violently overthrow the government at a moments notice, piss their pants when a local newspaper points at them.. And here I thought they've been claiming to be so brave and prepared for opposition.


So says the mental patient.
 
2012-12-25 12:19:56 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: then sat idly by


That's some good, inadvertent accuracy. I guess you believe one man CAN stop an army.
 
2012-12-25 12:20:18 PM  

halB: So when the thieves break into 20 houses, and murder 20 children sleeping inside, what about then?

Think very carefully of your answer, for I am setting a trap for your "logic."


You believe thieves are A. smart enough or - B. stupid enough to break into homes with known gun ownership?

The answer is C. Home burglars are generally junkies. Junkies don't read the newspaper. The answer is C because this will have no impact.
 
2012-12-25 12:20:36 PM  

amquelbettamin: That's racest


At least it's not racest to the bottom.
 
2012-12-25 12:20:45 PM  
Oh oh oh. I want a list published of where every politician and cop lives.
 
2012-12-25 12:21:21 PM  

tylerdurden217: What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp


England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.
England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of. But they're groomed from birth to accept that the government is there to spoonfeed you everything you need, so they just accept it.
England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours. Yeah, the anti gunners spout the gun stats, but completely leave out that little tidbit.
 
2012-12-25 12:22:36 PM  

s2s2s2: Lenny_da_Hog: then sat idly by

That's some good, inadvertent accuracy. I guess you believe one man CAN stop an army.


Do you remember sentence diagrams?
 
2012-12-25 12:22:48 PM  

Cuchulane: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Or it could correlate with population density. You know, like if you did a crime map of Rock Springs, Wyoming and Manhattan.


I think it is safe to say that the folks of Rock Springs own far more guns per capita, AND that the crime rate in Rock Springs is far lower - per 100,000 population.

But let's ban guns anyhow, mmmmkay?
 
2012-12-25 12:23:50 PM  
I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.

3. Any burglar with any sense (a bit of an oxymoron) would look up their potential victims on the map published by the paper. I cannot imagine they would burglarize a house of a homeowner.

4. I would hope the parents who don't want their kids playing in houses with guns would also see the list. If they don't trust their kids to mind my rules, I don't either.

If I was one not on the list, I would be a bit upset that the paper identified my house as an unprotected house.
 
2012-12-25 12:23:59 PM  

RandomRandom: halB: So when the thieves break into 20 houses, and murder 20 children sleeping inside, what about then?

Think very carefully of your answer, for I am setting a trap for your "logic."

You believe thieves are A. smart enough or - B. stupid enough to break into homes with known gun ownership?

The answer is C. Home burglars are generally junkies. Junkies don't read the newspaper. The answer is C because this will have no impact.



Way to completely sidestep the question I put forth to you. I'm surprised you didn't just scream "NO! MINE" like a toddler. Enjoy your permanent infancy. I look forward to my paycheck supporting your welfare check.
 
2012-12-25 12:24:03 PM  

s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?


Not the point... Publish a interactive map with the name and address of all the women who have had an Abortion and watch the left explode with outrage for invading these poor innocent women's privacy. But it is just fine and dandy to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens for exercising their second amendment right.
 
2012-12-25 12:24:08 PM  

s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?



I know you jest, but Texas, which has recently attempted to prevent Planned Parenthood from getting any money (even the clinics that don't perform abortions), realized that the loss of family planning clinics would result is an extra $273 million a year in taxpayer costs due to unplanned birth care.
 
2012-12-25 12:24:33 PM  
They should make the gun owners in that area wear yellow stars, so the decent folk can easily identify them.
 
2012-12-25 12:25:25 PM  

s2s2s2: amquelbettamin: That's racest

At least it's not racest to the bottom.


Racest to the bottom

www.artrocker.tv
 
2012-12-25 12:27:02 PM  
This is an outrage! The 2nd Amendment clearly states that all American citizens have the right to stockpile a secret arsenal. In fact, it used to be against the law to admit to owning a gun. How are we going to surprise the Russians when they invade if they know who has the guns?

It's common sense, Sheeple!
 
2012-12-25 12:27:14 PM  

computerguyUT: England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They


does that go for culinary knives, too?
 
2012-12-25 12:28:12 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.


We're not talking about a sexual offender's list (although they probably need to redefine what is a sexual crime before ostracising your neighbor for being convicted after peeing off the porch during the Super Bowl).

You'll find entire communities of gunowners that have hunted since childhood and have yet to commit a crime with a rifle. Maybe we need to have a special plate for cars with drivers convicted of speeding and wreckless driving as there are far more auto related deaths than from guns.

Do I need a list of car owners so i know who i should and should not associate with?
 
2012-12-25 12:28:25 PM  
stupid, but after all it is public information
 
2012-12-25 12:28:56 PM  

s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?


i45.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-25 12:31:18 PM  

RandomRandom: tlchwi02: seems like semantics at that point. I guess its annoying that a newspaper published it, but if anyone who was interested could obtain the information anyway i don't get the outrage. oh no, public information is available to the public!

Exactly.

When have government permits (of any kind) NOT been public information? They should be private Because Guns? Puhleeze. If you want to be anonymous, don't get a permit.

/They outed my sekrit gun!
//The gun nuts really posted info on the reporters kids the last time? Anyone OK with that is a douchbag.


Why are they douches? It's public information.
 
2012-12-25 12:31:28 PM  
Public records are public. The freedom to access public information and the right to government transparency are even more important to democracy than the freedom to own a firearm.
 
2012-12-25 12:32:51 PM  

s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?


Seriously...as a conservative I say Fark it...scoop out your womb for 500$ instead of letting us taxpayers support it for the rest of it and its offsprings life....generational welfare and all that.

500 up front or hundreds of thousands over its lifespan.
 
2012-12-25 12:33:17 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Oh oh oh. I want a list published of where every politician and cop lives.


and where all the homosexual party cruises are, too, they always have the nicest things!
 
2012-12-25 12:33:40 PM  
I love all the people with GEDs in law from NRA U who think that they have a right to sue over this, as if the newspaper is strictly liable for anything that happens to anyone they report on. Don't like it? Stick to hunting rifles that don't need to be registered; you can still clutch it in your cold dead hands when you're murdered by a government drone during the great defense of the second amendment.
 
2012-12-25 12:34:07 PM  
Good for the paper. Now people no what local nut jobs to stay away from.
 
2012-12-25 12:34:25 PM  

Amos Quito: Cuchulane: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Or it could correlate with population density. You know, like if you did a crime map of Rock Springs, Wyoming and Manhattan.

I think it is safe to say that the folks of Rock Springs own far more guns per capita, AND that the crime rate in Rock Springs is far lower - per 100,000 population.

But let's ban guns anyhow, mmmmkay?


See, this is the absurdist approach the NRA has pushed as a defense and is being echoed thoughtlessly, that any mention of regulating firearms = complete gun ban. But the NRA is completely on the wrong side of the argument with the general public, and by a big margin. Every product available to the public is regulated for public safety. This all or nothing gambit has not, and will not, continue to fool the public and only cements in the "gun nut" stereotype.
 
2012-12-25 12:35:42 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: ParaHandy: Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?

Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?

I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.


In NJ they wanted to put ahighly visible sticker on cars with first time drivers in it.....the left complained because that would let pedophiles target cars with teens in it.....instead of following that highly visible long bright yellow thing that drops off and picks up kids to and from school.
 
2012-12-25 12:37:08 PM  

MerelyFoolish: I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.

3. Any burglar with any sense (a bit of an oxymoron) would look up their potential victims on the map published by the paper. I cannot imagine they would burglarize a house of a homeowner.

4. I would hope the parents who don't want their kids playing in houses with guns would also see the list. If they don't trust their kids to mind my rules, I don't either.

If I was one not on the list, I would be a bit upset that the paper identified my house as an unprotected house.


I'm right there with you as far as securing my firearms with one notable exception. If someone wants to get at my gun safe while I am not here they are going to have to get by one *very* energetic German Shepherd who takes his roll as "security" very, very seriously.

/the Basset Hound and the Husky are just for show.
 
2012-12-25 12:37:19 PM  
This isn't about guns. This is about taking a volatile situation, wherein people are very upset and angry about something, and these newspeople then "make a list" of the people who are at best obliquely associated with the cause of the anger and upset.

This is instigation to cause trouble. It is as simple as that.


/where's those maps with the bullseyes on it?
 
2012-12-25 12:37:47 PM  

clowncar on fire: robnelle: Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.

Highly unlikely. More likely- "Several area homes robbed- targeted for weapons and ammunition".



A gun owner (or family member of gun owner) mowing down 20 kids for the hell of it is pretty unlikely too.....but it happened.

A gun owner lighting up a theater is unlikely...but it happened.
A gun owner picking off innocent people at a mall is unlikely ...but it happened.
It's not so much that they are gun owners. The vast majority of gun owners would never do something like this- I agree with you on this. But, like in any group, you will have a small percentage of them that are mentally unstable. When dealing with the mentally unsound, it really doesn't matter how likely a given scenario is. It is unlikely to you and I because we are sane. It is impossible to predict the actions of a mentally compromised person- and those actions can be deadly when that person has access to a weapon-gun, knife or whatever at their disposal. I agree that a shooting is generally unlikely but given the sorry state of mental health care in this country and the general high level of emotions on both sides of this argument, it's not as unlikely as it should be.
 
2012-12-25 12:37:52 PM  

muck4doo: They should make the gun owners in that area wear yellow stars, so the decent folk can easily identify them.


Link
 
2012-12-25 12:37:54 PM  
i1121.photobucket.com

NY Murder Map - 2010

i1121.photobucket.com

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?
 
2012-12-25 12:38:09 PM  
gun ownership should be mandatory.
 
2012-12-25 12:38:39 PM  

MNMarkPW: I love all the people with GEDs in law from NRA U who think that they have a right to sue over this, as if the newspaper is strictly liable for anything that happens to anyone they report on. Don't like it? Stick to hunting rifles that don't need to be registered; you can still clutch it in your cold dead hands when you're murdered by a government drone during the great defense of the second amendment.


I guess those neighbors kids in the 1 month to 7 year old range are just collateral damage.

If there is anyone who fantasizes about the death of other humans it is progressices/liberals/democrats.
 
2012-12-25 12:38:47 PM  

MNMarkPW: I love all the people with GEDs in law from NRA U who think that they have a right to sue over this, as if the newspaper is strictly liable for anything that happens to anyone they report on. Don't like it? Stick to hunting rifles that don't need to be registered; you can still clutch it in your cold dead hands when you're murdered by a government drone during the great defense of the second amendment.


Some of us have real law degrees, and therefore we know that the malicious publication of public information is a TORT that CAN be sued for. In many places it is also a crime to maliciously publish information for no reason other than harassment. You know all those kids on 4chan who publish people's addresses, names, and numbers? That is DEFINITELY a tort, and most likely a crime in their state.

The newspaper will get away with it though, because they will pull some justification out of their ass.
 
2012-12-25 12:39:22 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


People north of the Bronx have better aim?
 
2012-12-25 12:40:14 PM  
This version of the article contains the the following:

"Editor's note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

Dwight R. Worley is the reporter who wrote the story. These gun owners were outed by one of their own.
 
2012-12-25 12:41:52 PM  

Rich Cream: This isn't about guns. This is about taking a volatile situation, wherein people are very upset and angry about something, and these newspeople then "make a list" of the people who are at best obliquely associated with the cause of the anger and upset.

This is instigation to cause trouble. It is as simple as that.


Irresponsible use of First Amendment in response to irresponsible use of Second Amendment.
 
2012-12-25 12:42:20 PM  

muck4doo: They should make the gun owners in that area wear yellow stars, so the decent folk can easily identify them.


static.bbc.co.uk

The maps will come in handy when it comes time to round-up the undesirables.
 
2012-12-25 12:42:40 PM  
This is a good thing.

They should all be treated like registered sex offenders.
 
2012-12-25 12:43:00 PM  
Wow, this is amazing. Some people wonder why gun owners are against registration. This is why. These are not criminals. OK, it's public record there. But should it be? I get that people are deeply upset about the horrible tragedy in Connecticut. And rightly so. Publishing a list of legal gun owners that have done nothing illegal at all is sensationalist journalism, pure and simple. It does nothing to lead us to any kind of irrational debate on the issues.
 
2012-12-25 12:43:03 PM  

PopularFront: This version of the article contains the the following:

"Editor's note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

Dwight R. Worley is the reporter who wrote the story. These gun owners were outed by one of their own.


Did he put his home address in the article?
 
2012-12-25 12:43:16 PM  
People need to stop thinking it's 1960. Any information that is publicly available is going to end up categorized in some database somewhere that is easily accessible.

You shouldn't get mad at Zillow for compiling public information.
You shouldn't get mad at Google maps for compiling public information.
You shouldn't get mad at the endless 'Find Anyone' websites for compiling public information.
etc...etc...

If it's public, it's public.
If we have the technology (and we do) public information is, and will continue to be, easily accessible.

If you have a problem with the newspaper publishing this information you should take it up with the laws that make this information a matter of public record.
 
2012-12-25 12:43:38 PM  
utah dude
gun ownership should be mandatory.

Since we don't have a standing army. Oh, wait.
 
2012-12-25 12:43:58 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


correlation does not imply causation


//No real point, just like saying that
 
2012-12-25 12:45:32 PM  

robnelle: clowncar on fire: robnelle: Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.

Highly unlikely. More likely- "Several area homes robbed- targeted for weapons and ammunition".

A gun owner (or family member of gun owner) mowing down 20 kids for the hell of it is pretty unlikely too.....but it happened.

A gun owner lighting up a theater is unlikely...but it happened.
A gun owner picking off innocent people at a mall is unlikely ...but it happened.
It's not so much that they are gun owners. The vast majority of gun owners would never do something like this- I agree with you on this. But, like in any group, you will have a small percentage of them that are mentally unstable. When dealing with the mentally unsound, it really doesn't matter how likely a given scenario is. It is unlikely to you and I because we are sane. It is impossible to predict the actions of a mentally compromised person- and those actions can be deadly when that person has access to a weapon-gun, knife or whatever at their disposal. I agree that a shooting is generally unlikely but given the sorry state of mental health care in this country and the general high level of emotions on both sides of this argument, it's not as unlikely as it should be.



And therein lies the problem. Even a much better mental health care system would not have a perfect record as mental illness can be a hard thing to spot. Such individuals and their families are often in denial about it and keep it under the rug - or simply don't realize how ill their family member might be and thus seek inadequate treatment. The sickest of them all are usually very quiet.

Regulating weapons and ammo is more practical. The 2nd amendment may give you the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say a thing about ammo. Tax $20 a bullet and implement a national buyback program for weapons, ammo and accessories. I bet a lot of families that are unhappy with a certain member's gun collection would gladly start bringing them in. In a generation, the number of usable weapons floating around out there would decline dramatically.
 
2012-12-25 12:46:23 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: Public records are public. The freedom to access public information and the right to government transparency are even more important to democracy than the freedom to own a firearm.


The government and press shouldn't be allowed to rat on people in an attempt to have them tried in the public eye, outside of court, for the crime of following laws.

Information confidentially given to the government should not be up for public scrutiny. Especially if it threatens the security of an individuals home.
 
2012-12-25 12:46:29 PM  

Brick-House: s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?

Not the point... Publish a interactive map with the name and address of all the women who have had an Abortion and watch the left explode with outrage for invading these poor innocent women's privacy. But it is just fine and dandy to invade the privacy of law abiding citizens for exercising their second amendment right.


No can do, Chumlee. HIPA law experessly prohibits publishing medical information about people. No such law exists to prohibit publishing information about gun fetishists,though.

Not that you gun fetishists give a shiat about law, though. Your guns put you above the law, right? Right?
 
2012-12-25 12:48:21 PM  
0x1a4
... It does nothing to lead us to any kind of irrational debate on the issues.

I assume you meant rational - but - sure it does. Evidenced by this thread right here. The first amendment is designed to air out bad ideas.
 
2012-12-25 12:48:36 PM  

MerelyFoolish: I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.


Safes are great when preventing a smash and grab. A determined thief who knows he has time will either:
a) get into the safe (not hard - I did this to a DoD safe in under 15 minutes - and only went that slowly so I didn't catch the documents inside on fire):
s3.amazonaws.com

b) carry off the safe and open it at his leisure - growing up, this happened to a friend's dad, while they were away on vacation. They lived in the sticks, and the robbers clearly came with a truck and the knowledge that they had time to ransack the place.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.

Shotgun under the bed? What happened to always having your guns in safes to keep thieves away from them?

3. Any burglar with any sense (a bit of an oxymoron) would look up their potential victims on the map published by the paper. I cannot imagine they would burglarize a house of a homeowner.

I assume you mean gunowner? And what better way to get a gun, than to rob the unoccupied house of a known gunowner?

4. I would hope the parents who don't want their kids playing in houses with guns would also see the list. If they don't trust their kids to mind my rules, I don't either.

Fair enough - I feel the same way. The parents of my kids' friends know I own (and lock up) my weapons.
 
2012-12-25 12:48:36 PM  
I'm not liking all this gun discussion talk on Fark. I own two guns and shoot them maybe once a year just for farksake. It's for home-defense. I don't jizz in the barrel or plan on taking arms up against the government. They're just there and I'm a responsible owner. I understand the importance and dangers of guns but I don't understand the people who wants to ban all guns? Yeah, they're dangerous. That's the point. No one is denying that a gun isn't dangerous, that's why most gun owners take safety courses. Hell, for some states, safety courses are mandatory for licenses.

I just don't even know. Most gun owners don't even see their guns for months at a time because there's never a use for them. Some hope there won't be. Use your brain America. Can't rely on the police for immediate assistance. Sometimes you have to defend yourself once in a while.
 
2012-12-25 12:48:42 PM  

Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.


LOL. Nice troll. 8/10 minimum.
 
2012-12-25 12:49:21 PM  
Hey, I wanna shoot people, but the government won't let me have guns. But the Smiths on Jefferson have guns and like their Sunday family movie night.

Doesn't the public have the right to know everything?
 
2012-12-25 12:50:37 PM  
Non-story.

Burglars don't read the newspaper, nor does anyone.
 
2012-12-25 12:50:47 PM  

RobDownSouth: Not that you gun fetishists give a shiat about law, though. Your guns put you above the law, right? Right?


The ones on this list registered their firearms. If they didn't give a shiat, they woudn't have done that, huh.
 
2012-12-25 12:52:26 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


overlaid for you:

img405.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-25 12:52:39 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.

Or, I can pick an address that *is* listed, wait until no one is home, and then walk out with some firearms that will sell very nicely on the black market.

The vast majority of burglars operate when the home is vacant, something your vaunted guns will do nothing to protect against.


Vaunted
 
2012-12-25 12:52:59 PM  
TheDirtyNacho: Tax $20 a bullet and implement a national buyback program for weapons, ammo and accessories. I bet a lot of families that are unhappy with a certain member's gun collection would gladly start bringing them in. In a generation, the number of usable weapons floating around out there would decline dramatically.

So, a program of punitive taxation and government sanctioned theft.

Every man a good idea that simply will not work.
 
2012-12-25 12:53:08 PM  

steamingpile: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.

Real world doesn't work that way, also just because you have a gun permit doesn't mean you have a conceal/carry permit which means they can be stolen once people know you are not home.


This is the main issue here, I think. This looks like a shopping list for someone who wants to steal some guns.
 
2012-12-25 12:53:34 PM  

PopularFront: This version of the article contains the the following:

"Editor's note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

Dwight R. Worley is the reporter who wrote the story. These gun owners were outed by one of their own.



Well, I just clicked every dot in NYC, and his name / address isn't there.

Say, you don't suppose he edited his OWN name and address out for some reason, do you?
 
2012-12-25 12:54:33 PM  

computerguyUT: England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of.


Canada has a constitution. We also have a Bill of Rights. Your statement that "the only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems them worthy of" is absolutely ridiculous. Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?
 
2012-12-25 12:56:17 PM  

robnelle: clowncar on fire: robnelle: Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.

Highly unlikely. More likely- "Several area homes robbed- targeted for weapons and ammunition".

A gun owner (or family member of gun owner) mowing down 20 kids for the hell of it is pretty unlikely too.....but it happened.

A gun owner lighting up a theater is unlikely...but it happened.
A gun owner picking off innocent people at a mall is unlikely ...but it happened.
It's not so much that they are gun owners. The vast majority of gun owners would never do something like this- I agree with you on this. But, like in any group, you will have a small percentage of them that are mentally unstable. When dealing with the mentally unsound, it really doesn't matter how likely a given scenario is. It is unlikely to you and I because we are sane. It is impossible to predict the actions of a mentally compromised person- and those actions can be deadly when that person has access to a weapon-gun, knife or whatever at their disposal. I agree that a shooting is generally unlikely but given the sorry state of mental health care in this country and the general high level of emotions on both sides of this argument, it's not as unlikely as it should be.


But now we are far more likely to see homes robbed by people who, by their own actions, would be granted access to guns- or would provide access to others-- and be more likely to use them on another human in the future commission of a crime than a pissed off gun owner who respected and complied with the law by registering his guns in the first place.

The real issue has to do with who is accessing guns, not just ownership. The Newspaper was trying to correlate ownership with future propensity to commit a crime with a firearm. They could have easily published a list of car owners as more people are killed by cars than guns. Again- there is this reasonable expectation for the most part that car owners will take care in Complying with the laws (snert) in the usage of their cars. The reality- like with firearms-- is that some a-hole will be granted an id and an automoble license and will either drive drunk, wreckless or intentionally "rage" someone off the road.

Far more likely than homocide via a firearm. Have any solutions to that problem yet?
 
2012-12-25 12:57:52 PM  

utah dude: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?

overlaid for you:

[img405.imageshack.us image 640x480]


Thanks, utah dude

Here's a link to the murder map source.

/In case you want to enbiggen
 
2012-12-25 12:58:08 PM  

whatshisname: Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?


Our country was founded with these words: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The government does not grant us our basic rights - they are ours as human birthright.
 
2012-12-25 12:58:11 PM  

MerelyFoolish: I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.


Wow.
 
2012-12-25 12:58:50 PM  

Even With A Chainsaw: steamingpile: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.

Real world doesn't work that way, also just because you have a gun permit doesn't mean you have a conceal/carry permit which means they can be stolen once people know you are not home.

This is the main issue here, I think. This looks like a shopping list for someone who wants to steal some guns.


Stupid is as stupid does... on both sides of the fence...

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-25 12:59:55 PM  
so many feral pigs in New York? Gevalt, who knew?
 
2012-12-25 01:00:39 PM  
More proof that

w.tlck9academy.com
www.solving-math-problems.com

upload.wikimedia.org

jus' sayin'

My gun does nothing when I am not at home.

My dogs chewed through a metal screen on the back of the door trying to eat the mailman.
 
2012-12-25 01:00:46 PM  

Amos Quito:

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


More guns and murders in poor areas.

That's a social issue, not a firearms related issue.
 
2012-12-25 01:01:11 PM  

amquelbettamin: s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?

That's racest


Only if you believe there is diversity in 'welfare' recipients. Asshat.
 
2012-12-25 01:01:28 PM  

muck4doo: PopularFront: This version of the article contains the the following:

"Editor's note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

Dwight R. Worley is the reporter who wrote the story. These gun owners were outed by one of their own.

Did he put his home address in the article?


I didn't see an obvious way to determine that without his address. While looking for that I noticed that some of the people who are trying to publish his address in retaliation for the article are posting info for the wrong guy.
 
2012-12-25 01:02:03 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: Second Amendment, meet First Amendment.


This.

Anti-gun people: There should be heavy restrictions on gun ownership.
Pro-gun people: SECOND AMENDMENT! SECOND AMENDMENT!
Anti-gun people: We're going to publish a list of public records as allowed by the First Amendment.
Pro-gun people: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
 
2012-12-25 01:02:49 PM  

Dear Jerk: Since we don't have a standing army. Oh, wait.


because we have a standing army, all or which is off, away, in some foreign country ending with -stan or -ea.
 
2012-12-25 01:02:49 PM  

willfullyobscure: so many feral pigs in New York? Gevalt, who knew?


This map is only for registered handgun owners, because in NY state, you need permission from the government to possess a handgun. Rifles are not registered.
 
2012-12-25 01:03:00 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Rich Cream: This isn't about guns. This is about taking a volatile situation, wherein people are very upset and angry about something, and these newspeople then "make a list" of the people who are at best obliquely associated with the cause of the anger and upset.

This is instigation to cause trouble. It is as simple as that.

Irresponsible use of First Amendment in response to irresponsible use of Second Amendment.


Simply owning a registered firearm is an irresponsible use of the Second Amendment?
 
2012-12-25 01:04:13 PM  
This is an atrocity clearly equal to the mass murder of Kindergarteners and firefighters, to say nothing of the too-frequent senseless (but less newsworthy) murders, therefore both sides are bad.
 
2012-12-25 01:04:15 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


you're telling me only one person owns a legal gun in Brooklyn?
 
2012-12-25 01:04:32 PM  

Dear Jerk: 0x1a4
... It does nothing to lead us to any kind of irrational debate on the issues.

I assume you meant rational - but - sure it does. Evidenced by this thread right here. The first amendment is designed to air out bad ideas.


I did mean rational. Damn new tablet loves to change what I type. Yes, I agree the first lets us talk about this issue. But this type of crap is why I am against registration. Many types of government records are not public. This should not be either.
 
2012-12-25 01:05:09 PM  

Uisce Beatha: The government does not grant us our basic rights - they are ours as human birthright.


That's a nice idea but those statements are so vague as to be useless in actual practice. Your constitution lays out the specifics of some civil rights and federal and state laws further define them. The point is there is no specific civil right that the government doesn't have some say in.
 
2012-12-25 01:06:52 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: you're telling me only one person owns a legal gun in Brooklyn?


the map was according to readership of the 'newspaper', here, an online publication.
 
2012-12-25 01:07:37 PM  

Ontos: Lenny_da_Hog: Rich Cream: This isn't about guns. This is about taking a volatile situation, wherein people are very upset and angry about something, and these newspeople then "make a list" of the people who are at best obliquely associated with the cause of the anger and upset.

This is instigation to cause trouble. It is as simple as that.

Irresponsible use of First Amendment in response to irresponsible use of Second Amendment.

Simply owning a registered firearm is an irresponsible use of the Second Amendment?


The only reason they thought they could make money from this is the recent shooting sprees.
 
2012-12-25 01:09:24 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Ontos: Lenny_da_Hog: Rich Cream: This isn't about guns. This is about taking a volatile situation, wherein people are very upset and angry about something, and these newspeople then "make a list" of the people who are at best obliquely associated with the cause of the anger and upset.

This is instigation to cause trouble. It is as simple as that.

Irresponsible use of First Amendment in response to irresponsible use of Second Amendment.

Simply owning a registered firearm is an irresponsible use of the Second Amendment?

The only reason they thought they could make money from this is the recent shooting sprees.


OK... I see what you were saying now.
 
2012-12-25 01:10:39 PM  

utah dude: The All-Powerful Atheismo: you're telling me only one person owns a legal gun in Brooklyn?

the map was according to readership of the 'newspaper', here, an online publication.


So the correlation between the two maps is complete bullshiat. Got it.
 
2012-12-25 01:10:41 PM  

Giltric: Satanic_Hamster: ParaHandy: Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?

Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?

I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.

In NJ they wanted to put ahighly visible sticker on cars with first time drivers in it.....the left complained because that would let pedophiles target cars with teens in it.....instead of following that highly visible long bright yellow thing that drops off and picks up kids to and from school.


What a ridiculous fear. Cars have windows.

In Northern Ireland new drivers under 21 have to display an "R" plate (restricted) whem driving alone, and use lower speed limits on major roads. I have never heard of this as an issue.

I am a big believer in advanced driver education schemes like the UK's Pass Plus ... in the long term, this would save thousands of lives a year too. US driving tests are far too easy.
 
2012-12-25 01:11:37 PM  
If a newspaper in Alabama complied the names and addresses of everyone who ever donated to the NAACP in their readership area and put them in an interactive map for anyone to peruse, it might be "legal" too, but would anyone try to deny that it would be a transparent attempt at intimidation?
 
2012-12-25 01:12:14 PM  
No matter your views on gun control this was a stupid, vindictive idea.
 
2012-12-25 01:12:35 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: So the correlation between the two maps is complete bullshiat. Got it.


because sampling error / bias.
you win two Jesuses.
 
2012-12-25 01:12:54 PM  

whatshisname: The point is there is no specific civil right that the government doesn't have some say in.


Some say in, perhaps, but you asked, " Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?" The idea of government here is that the basic rights are ours, and when a government decides it can taken them away, it has to go.

The government can regulate, that is its job, but some things it cannot totally restrict. To keep it on topic, the government can require firearms registration, or background checks, etc, all of which I think are fine, but a total restriction is off the table, as the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted. As other folks can relate better than I, the amendment was written with an eye towards protecting the rights of the people from an overzealous government.
 
2012-12-25 01:13:01 PM  
Oh no, they published public information.

What are you gonna do, shoot them?
 
2012-12-25 01:13:09 PM  

ParaHandy: Giltric: Satanic_Hamster: ParaHandy: Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?

Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?

I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.

In NJ they wanted to put ahighly visible sticker on cars with first time drivers in it.....the left complained because that would let pedophiles target cars with teens in it.....instead of following that highly visible long bright yellow thing that drops off and picks up kids to and from school.

What a ridiculous fear. Cars have windows.

In Northern Ireland new drivers under 21 have to display an "R" plate (restricted) whem driving alone, and use lower speed limits on major roads. I have never heard of this as an issue.

I am a big believer in advanced driver education schemes like the UK's Pass Plus ... in the long term, this would save thousands of lives a year too. US driving tests are far too easy.


So, what you're saying is, you basically want the US to be more like the UK? Why not go live in the UK and let us alone?
 
2012-12-25 01:14:21 PM  

special20: amquelbettamin: s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?

That's racest

Only if you believe there is diversity in 'welfare' recipients. Asshat.


Just the facts, ma'm

www.abort73.com
 
Pav
2012-12-25 01:14:36 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?


Incorrect! Can you go and request my SS never using the freedom of information act? How about my checking account info? No! So that means your stupid.
 
2012-12-25 01:14:58 PM  
StopLurkListen: This is an atrocity clearly equal to the mass murder of Kindergarteners and firefighters, to say nothing of the too-frequent senseless (but less newsworthy) murders, therefore both sides are bad.

The mass murders were committed by someone, who, if they had not killed themselves, would have been found innocent by reason of insanity.

But this publication of addresses has no such justification. All those involved are capable and competent and malicious.

So you are on the right track in seeing the equality of the actions, but this is wrong.

The newspaper is worse.
 
2012-12-25 01:15:29 PM  

utah dude: The All-Powerful Atheismo: So the correlation between the two maps is complete bullshiat. Got it.

because sampling error / bias.
you win two Jesuses.


Can I get a pre-crucifiction model?
 
2012-12-25 01:16:18 PM  

NewportBarGuy: I am a gun owner



This is scary.
 
2012-12-25 01:17:43 PM  

wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.
 
2012-12-25 01:19:06 PM  

letrole: TheDirtyNacho: Tax $20 a bullet and implement a national buyback program for weapons, ammo and accessories. I bet a lot of families that are unhappy with a certain member's gun collection would gladly start bringing them in. In a generation, the number of usable weapons floating around out there would decline dramatically.

So, a program of punitive taxation and government sanctioned theft.

Every man a good idea that simply will not work.


From what i've read- a majority of the guns aquired in a buy backprogram are defective, poor quality, non-operational junk that would have eventually injurred the idiot attempting to use them or end up in a scap heap. Would you really want to pay $25- $50 for scrap that would have generated less a dollar at the recycling plant?

I don't have a problem with the government having a light tax on ammo and firearm sales provided that the money funded firearm training and education, law enforcement, or assistance to families of gun related crimes.
 
2012-12-25 01:19:13 PM  

here to help: Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.

Not every gun owner is an irresponsible lunatic and claiming that is the case is not helping the cause.

If you lump in the responsible gun owners who are willing to work on fixing things in with the sh*theads you will only ostracize them.

Why the f*ck can't you people THINK and work TOGETHER to solve your issues?! You're tearing the damned country apart!


But but VICTORY OR DEATH!!!

/something something darkside
 
2012-12-25 01:19:31 PM  

david_gaithersburg: wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.


Cling to that gun, boyo.
 
2012-12-25 01:21:20 PM  

maniacbastard: More proof that

[w.tlck9academy.com image 500x300]
[www.solving-math-problems.com image 273x208]

[upload.wikimedia.org image 300x228]

jus' sayin'

My gun does nothing when I am not at home.

My dogs chewed through a metal screen on the back of the door trying to eat the mailman.


One of my friends dogs was poisoned when his area was experiencing a streak of burglaries.
If people know the gun must be secured in the house and they think getting your property is worth the trouble, you'd be surprised how far a they'll go to defeat your defenses.
Part of your security is the fact that thieves don't know what you have.
 
2012-12-25 01:21:48 PM  
totally not the thing a liberally biased newspaper would do
 
2012-12-25 01:21:53 PM  

Brick-House: Hey, lets next publish the name and address of all the women out there who have had an Abortion.

While there are about 30,000 gun related deaths in America each year. A number that has been decreasing by the way. There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

And while everyone should be outraged and saddened by the killing of the Sandy Hook school children we should also be saddened and outraged by the killing of babies...


HANDS OFF MY REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS!

thank you.
 
2012-12-25 01:23:39 PM  
In fact, due to this B.S. I am going to find the names and addresses of everyone that was involved in posting this data to the public.

Then I am going to post THEIR ADDRESSES, and if each and every one owns a gun or not. Gotta let the crooks know who is easy right? If they want to post our info, I guess we should post theirs, RIGHT?
 
2012-12-25 01:25:13 PM  

Uisce Beatha: whatshisname: The point is there is no specific civil right that the government doesn't have some say in.

Some say in, perhaps, but you asked, " Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?" The idea of government here is that the basic rights are ours, and when a government decides it can taken them away, it has to go.

The government can regulate, that is its job, but some things it cannot totally restrict. To keep it on topic, the government can require firearms registration, or background checks, etc, all of which I think are fine, but a total restriction is off the table, as the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted. As other folks can relate better than I, the amendment was written with an eye towards protecting the rights of the people from an overzealous government.


The entire Bill of Rights is based around the idea that those rights are the most important to spell out in no uncertain terms. They are not a list of "only these", but a list of "primarily these".

The entire premise of the Constitution, and our government, was that the government served at the pleasure of the people, and the people have the right to remove that government at any time when they do not represent the best interests of the people.

As much as people like to throw around "ZOMG THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANTED!", I submit that our framers never intended for militarized police to roam the streets, and the culture of fear we live in now.
 
2012-12-25 01:25:48 PM  

clowncar on fire: feckingmorons: Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.

So are you suggesting that they retaliate or merely expressing your complete lack of surprise for the retaliation that has yet to occur?


You make it sound like a bad thing. Do unto others as they do unto you.
 
2012-12-25 01:25:56 PM  

computerguyUT: tylerdurden217: What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp

England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.
England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of. But they're groomed from birth to accept that the government is there to spoonfeed you everything you need, so they just accept it.
England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours. Yeah, the anti gunners spout the gun stats, but completely leave out that little tidbit.


England has 1/6 the population of the USA ... did you perhaps mean the UK?

There are bills of rights written into many UK laws and feudal agreements that go back hundreds of years before the USA was founded.

England has LESS violence ... the apparent rise is due to the fact the UK's reporting is now far more comprehensive and the bar for what is considered a countable violent crime is far lower than most countries, notably no-one needs to be charged or convicted for an incident in the UK to be recorded as a violent crime. It says right on the Wikipedia page that the data is neither standardized nor comparable across countries.

Why don't you do a little background research on these kinds of anomalies before presenting the NRAs counter-factual view, and you'll find out the real reason.

And please learn the difference between the UK, Great Britain and England before you go spouting off. It's not complicated.
 
2012-12-25 01:26:20 PM  

Uisce Beatha: fredklein: Hamanu: I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.

Are they going to pick the lock on the gun safe, or carry the whole thing away on their backs??

No gun safe is impenetrable. At most, a safe deters a thief looking for a quick smash and grab. A thief who has access to my house and knows I am not due home could probably cut his way into my safe in under a half an hour, using the tools in my garage. The safe merely lets him know where all my guns are.


No- the article let him know where the guns are.
 
2012-12-25 01:26:49 PM  

Pav: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

Incorrect! Can you go and request my SS never using the freedom of information act? How about my checking account info? No! So that means your stupid.


^^^^^
The stupid in this one is strong.
 
2012-12-25 01:26:53 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?

you're telling me only one person owns a legal gun in Brooklyn?



No, that is what the MAP compiled by the author of the article is telling you.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.

I mean, do all of those rich Wall Street tycoons, etc. run around with unarmed body guards?

/Bloomberg gets police protection, so he's ok
 
2012-12-25 01:27:26 PM  

IamKaiserSoze!!!: God, but zealots do some thoroughly brain dead stuff. I mean, that's Westboro Baptist crazy.

I hope those assholes lose every gun owners subscription, as well as those who don't own guns but still have common sense. Advertisers should be dropping them right and left too.

Fire the editor and whatever writers were involved with this.


I'll go further than that... I say that the paper should be seized, it's license to do business pulled, and the entire enterprise disbanded. This is civic irresponsibility. The Editor and whoever runs the paper should be jailed under the same laws that ban yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is just plain westboro baptist church crazy and irresponsible.

The proceeds of the sale of the newspaper and its entire holding should go to the people whose names were published.

This is flat outright invasion of privacy. I understand that need to publish stories of interest, but these people are not public figures, and as such they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that others will not publish their names for perfectly law abiding behavior.

Oh and gun control advocates... you just lost me right there. You've just shown that your cause is run by crazies that'll do any irresponsible thing that they can to get what they want. That sort of fanaticism need to be curb stomped.
 
2012-12-25 01:29:21 PM  
Yay! Now I know which houses to burglarize while their owners are away! Free guns to hit the black market!
 
2012-12-25 01:30:08 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.

Cling to that gun, boyo.


I'll cling to my guns, my right to privacy, my right to a lawyer, my right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, my right to avoid illegal search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to vote, etc. etc.
 
2012-12-25 01:30:26 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.


You are a moron and you need to shut your farkin mouth when grown folks are talking.
 
2012-12-25 01:31:04 PM  

Wolf_Blitzer: doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.

Or, I can pick an address that *is* listed, wait until no one is home, and then walk out with some firearms that will sell very nicely on the black market.

The vast majority of burglars operate when the home is vacant, something your vaunted guns will do nothing to protect against.


Homeowners insurance protects me when burglars strike and I'm not home. My gun protects me when they strike and I am home. Dumbass.
 
2012-12-25 01:31:18 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Do you remember sentence diagrams?


Yeah, stick with "just bein' a dick". You wear it well.
 
2012-12-25 01:31:53 PM  

Kit Fister: HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.

Cling to that gun, boyo.

I'll cling to my guns, my right to privacy, my right to a lawyer, my right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, my right to avoid illegal search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to vote, etc. etc.


OMG LIBERTIES

You people are farking unhinged, and make your own case for being defanged.
 
2012-12-25 01:32:01 PM  

ParaHandy: computerguyUT: tylerdurden217: What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp

England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.
England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of. But they're groomed from birth to accept that the government is there to spoonfeed you everything you need, so they just accept it.
England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours. Yeah, the anti gunners spout the gun stats, but completely leave out that little tidbit.

England has 1/6 the population of the USA ... did you perhaps mean the UK?

There are bills of rights written into many UK laws and feudal agreements that go back hundreds of years before the USA was founded.

England has LESS violence ... the apparent rise is due to the fact the UK's reporting is now far more comprehensive and the bar for what is considered a countable violent crime is far lower than most countries, notably no-one needs to be charged or convicted for an incident in the UK to be recorded as a violent crime. It says right on the Wikipedia page that the data is neither standardized nor comparable across countries.

Why don't you do a little background research on these kinds of anomalies before presenting the NRAs counter-factual view, and you'll find out the real reason.

And please learn the difference between the UK, Great Britain and England before you go spouting off. It's not complicated.


Why don't you go back to the UK?
 
2012-12-25 01:32:28 PM  
thomasajohnston.files.wordpress.com
OMG! This thing's got my name, address and home phone number!! I feel violated.
 
2012-12-25 01:33:16 PM  
Kit Fister

I agree with everything you posted - and, had I not been up all night assembling presents, might have been able to put together something similarly coherent. Instead, though, I'll just stick with a:

THIS
 
2012-12-25 01:33:36 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Kit Fister: HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.

Cling to that gun, boyo.

I'll cling to my guns, my right to privacy, my right to a lawyer, my right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, my right to avoid illegal search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to vote, etc. etc.

OMG LIBERTIES

You people are farking unhinged, and make your own case for being defanged.


Or, you know, we're completely sane and just disagree with your position, and like winding you up because it's funny to watch you piss your pannies...
 
2012-12-25 01:33:40 PM  

GoldSpider: utharda: But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.

I admit, that's bringing it pretty strong.


He gets that way sometimes. We're also both from that neck of the woods and we can tell you right now the guns have more to do with protecting yourself from funny colored people.

Oh and they are screamingly insecure. Lady qcross the street leaves hers sitting on the windowsill so she can see 'em coming!
 
2012-12-25 01:34:15 PM  

ParaHandy: Giltric: Satanic_Hamster: ParaHandy: Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?

Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?

I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.

In NJ they wanted to put ahighly visible sticker on cars with first time drivers in it.....the left complained because that would let pedophiles target cars with teens in it.....instead of following that highly visible long bright yellow thing that drops off and picks up kids to and from school.

What a ridiculous fear. Cars have windows.

In Northern Ireland new drivers under 21 have to display an "R" plate (restricted) whem driving alone, and use lower speed limits on major roads. I have never heard of this as an issue.

I am a big believer in advanced driver education schemes like the UK's Pass Plus ... in the long term, this would save thousands of lives a year too. US driving tests are far too easy.


Japan has a sticker for old folks and new drivers. This allows other drivers to be aware that the driver in your vicinity may be inexpirienced (or have a slower reaction time) so extra care may be needed around the drivers who's car bare these stickers.

We currently use a similar sticker identifier system to identify a-hole drivers here in the US:

www.vinyl-decals.com
 
2012-12-25 01:34:25 PM  

TOWG: Homeowners insurance protects me when burglars strike and I'm not home. My gun protects me when they strike and I am home. Dumbass.


Maybe you should just never go home then. You would always be save and never have to worry about anything.
 
2012-12-25 01:34:34 PM  

RobDownSouth: you gun fetishists


RobDownSouth: Your guns


Neither of these phrases apply to me. I know the second was directed at someone else, but...crossfire.
 
2012-12-25 01:35:46 PM  

s2s2s2: Lenny_da_Hog: Do you remember sentence diagrams?

Yeah, stick with "just bein' a dick". You wear it well.


It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand a sentence more complex than you'd find in "Dick & Jane" books. The god was the subject of the sentence. Go ask your sixth-grade neighbor to explain it to you.
 
2012-12-25 01:36:09 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: I know you jest, but Texas, which has recently attempted to prevent Planned Parenthood from getting any money (even the clinics that don't perform abortions), realized that the loss of family planning clinics would result is an extra $273 million a year in taxpayer costs due to unplanned birth care.


I got a kick out of that.
 
2012-12-25 01:38:32 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Kit Fister: HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.

Cling to that gun, boyo.

I'll cling to my guns, my right to privacy, my right to a lawyer, my right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, my right to avoid illegal search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to vote, etc. etc.

OMG LIBERTIES

You people are farking unhinged, and make your own case for being defanged.


Yeah, our Bill of Rights is just crazy talk. (Sigh)
 
2012-12-25 01:39:19 PM  

way south: This is the kind of thing that makes licensing and registration a bad idea.
The criminals won't attack law abiding gun owners, they'll rob these houses while the owners are out. This paper has willfully aided in the distribution of illegal weapons.
They should be sued for every incident that happens as a result.
The state should also voluntarily comply with federal rules for the FOPA, and destroy those lists immediately.


No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)
 
2012-12-25 01:39:31 PM  

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: Giltric: Satanic_Hamster: ParaHandy: Satanic_Hamster: While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?

Why the hell is the list of cars I own available?

I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.

In NJ they wanted to put ahighly visible sticker on cars with first time drivers in it.....the left complained because that would let pedophiles target cars with teens in it.....instead of following that highly visible long bright yellow thing that drops off and picks up kids to and from school.

What a ridiculous fear. Cars have windows.

In Northern Ireland new drivers under 21 have to display an "R" plate (restricted) whem driving alone, and use lower speed limits on major roads. I have never heard of this as an issue.

I am a big believer in advanced driver education schemes like the UK's Pass Plus ... in the long term, this would save thousands of lives a year too. US driving tests are far too easy.

So, what you're saying is, you basically want the US to be more like the UK? Why not go live in the UK and let us alone?


Because I choose to live in the USA. If you consider immigration from more civilized places a threat, then lobby to close the border.

My goal it to take the best of Europe (healthcare, gun control, fairer elections, mutli-party compromise politics, UK road signage, ...) and the best of the USA (entrpreneurial spirit, block based street numbering, right turn on red) and cross-pollinate.
 
2012-12-25 01:39:39 PM  

Kit Fister: Uisce Beatha: whatshisname: The point is there is no specific civil right that the government doesn't have some say in.

Some say in, perhaps, but you asked, " Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?" The idea of government here is that the basic rights are ours, and when a government decides it can taken them away, it has to go.

The government can regulate, that is its job, but some things it cannot totally restrict. To keep it on topic, the government can require firearms registration, or background checks, etc, all of which I think are fine, but a total restriction is off the table, as the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted. As other folks can relate better than I, the amendment was written with an eye towards protecting the rights of the people from an overzealous government.

The entire Bill of Rights is based around the idea that those rights are the most important to spell out in no uncertain terms. They are not a list of "only these", but a list of "primarily these".

The entire premise of the Constitution, and our government, was that the government served at the pleasure of the people, and the people have the right to remove that government at any time when they do not represent the best interests of the people.

As much as people like to throw around "ZOMG THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANTED!", I submit that our framers never intended for militarized police to roam the streets, and the culture of fear we live in now.



That's because, unlike the Gun Grabbers, the Framers weren't big on Authoritarianism.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

ParaHandy: computerguyUT: tylerdurden217: What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp

England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.
England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of. But they're groomed from birth to accept that the government is there to spoonfeed you everything you need, so they just accept it.
England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours. Yeah, the anti gunners spout the gun stats, but completely leave out that little tidbit.

England has 1/6 the population of the USA ... did you perhaps mean the UK?

There are bills of rights written into many UK laws and feudal agreements that go back hundreds of years before the USA was founded.

England has LESS violence ... the apparent rise is due to the fact the UK's reporting is now far more comprehensive and the bar for what is considered a countable violent crime is far lower than most countries, notably no-one needs to be charged or convicted for an incident in the UK to be recorded as a violent crime. It says right on the Wikipedia page that the data is neither standardized nor comparable across countries.

Why don't you do a little background research on these kinds of anomalies before presenting the NRAs counter-factual view, and you'll find out the real reason.



Seems to me that the UK has a pathetically low crime rate, when compared to the US.

It could be the lack of guns. But over 90% WHITE PEOPLE???

If they ever hope to catch up crime-wise, they'll need more DIVERSITY.
 
2012-12-25 01:39:40 PM  
This is more of a list of houses to rob for guns. The newspaper made it easier for cunning criminals who think plan their crimes out intelligently. It's not that hard to stake one of these houses out and wait for it to be completely unoccupied and voila, free guns if they are present and unsecured. Idiot newspaper. The editor moron in chief will accomplish the opposite of what he/she set out to do, and actually might put more stolen guns on the street as a result of this. Isn't it ironic?
 
2012-12-25 01:41:19 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Kit Fister: HotWingConspiracy: david_gaithersburg: wambu: "We are decent, caring people who have an overwhelming hatred of guns. By publishing this information, we put your family at risk of having your home burglarized, maybe your spouse gets killed, maybe your children are raped . . . well dumbass, you should not keep guns in your house! Will your guns protect you now? Tough shiat for you, Mr. Gun-lover. If only you had thought of the children!" -- The No Guns For A Better America Coalition of Non-Violence and Happiness

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.

Cling to that gun, boyo.

I'll cling to my guns, my right to privacy, my right to a lawyer, my right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, my right to avoid illegal search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to vote, etc. etc.

OMG LIBERTIES

You people are farking unhinged, and make your own case for being defanged.


LOL! They like their rights. How funny!

/Go be an authoritarian douche somewhere else
 
2012-12-25 01:43:16 PM  

moonscatter: way south: This is the kind of thing that makes licensing and registration a bad idea.
The criminals won't attack law abiding gun owners, they'll rob these houses while the owners are out. This paper has willfully aided in the distribution of illegal weapons.
They should be sued for every incident that happens as a result.
The state should also voluntarily comply with federal rules for the FOPA, and destroy those lists immediately.

No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)


No safe is completely secure - a deterrent, sure, but not much more.

I agree, a gun owner who does not secure his guns is negligent, and, depending on circumstances, might be criminally so as well.

However, telling anyone who cares to look where guns are kept - that is just stupid.
 
2012-12-25 01:44:41 PM  

moonscatter: GoldSpider: utharda: But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.

I admit, that's bringing it pretty strong.

He gets that way sometimes. We're also both from that neck of the woods and we can tell you right now the guns have more to do with protecting yourself from funny colored people.

Oh and they are screamingly insecure. Lady qcross the street leaves hers sitting on the windowsill so she can see 'em coming!


[I have always loved you]

:-)
 
2012-12-25 01:47:01 PM  
Way to facilitate theft.

Glad I don't have to live with farked up citizens like that.
 
2012-12-25 01:48:19 PM  
England has 1/6 the population of the USA ... did you perhaps mean the UK?

There are bills of rights written into many UK laws and feudal agreements that go back hundreds of years before the USA was founded.

England has LESS violence ... the apparent rise is due to the fact the UK's reporting is now far more comprehensive and the bar for what is considered a countable violent crime is far lower than most countries, notably no-one needs to be charged or convicted for an incident in the UK to be recorded as a violent crime. It says right on the Wikipedia page that the data is neither standardized nor comparable across countries.

Why don't you do a little background research on these kinds of anomalies before presenting the NRAs counter-factual view, and you'll find out the real reason.

And please learn the difference between the UK, Great Britain and England before you go spouting off. It's not complicated.
 
2012-12-25 01:50:18 PM  
I wonder how many of the gun owners moved and didn't update their registrations (or moved out of state), leaving some innocent person's address on the burglary hit list.

Did the newspaper think validate these addresses?
 
2012-12-25 01:53:05 PM  

Hagenhatesyouall: Way to facilitate theft.

Glad I don't have to live with farked up citizens like that.



Actually the map is a handy guide for muggers, robbers, burglars, rapists and the like.

SAFETY FIRST!
 
2012-12-25 01:54:59 PM  
ParaHandy: England has LESS violence ...

And please learn the difference between the UK, Great Britain and England before you go spouting off. It's not complicated.



You sound American.
 
2012-12-25 01:56:51 PM  
FWIW, I clicked about 100 dots on the map and only one female name came up.
 
2012-12-25 01:57:37 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Pav: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

Incorrect! Can you go and request my SS never using the freedom of information act? How about my checking account info? No! So that means your stupid.

^^^^^
The stupid in this one is strong.


Not as stupid as using your real name on Fark, but close.
 
2012-12-25 01:58:03 PM  

Brick-House: Hey, lets next publish the name and address of all the women out there who have had an Abortion.

While there are about 30,000 gun related deaths in America each year. A number that has been decreasing by the way. There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

And while everyone should be outraged and saddened by the killing of the Sandy Hook school children we should also be saddened and outraged by the killing of babies...

[www.philipbrocoum.com image 409x410]


Better watch it! You'll get banned for abortion trolling.

/I did.
 
2012-12-25 01:59:32 PM  
BOO HOO!!!

Poor little gun owners are going to have to come up with new ways to stop thieves.
 
2012-12-25 02:00:03 PM  

TonyDanza: snuff3r: Noones going to lose their job over this.

But Noone didn't have anything to do with this. Noone has been doing a great job since he joined the paper.


Thank you.
 
2012-12-25 02:00:47 PM  

fisker: This is a good thing.

They should all be treated like registered sex offenders.


Define "sexually offender". You'd be surprised how few of the offenders actually committed "crimes" other than exposure while drunk, being 18 and shagging their not yet 18 year old girl friends.

Sex offenders have broken the law and because of their recidivism, may be a threat to family members- although depends on the nature of their conviction.
Gun owners, on the other hand, are people who own guns as a hobby, for sport, or for protection- all of which are legal activities. Had the paper have published a list of gunowners who had been convicted of using firearms during the commission of a crime, I would possibly recognize some sort of twisted public health advocacy story here. It should be noted that if convicted of a gun related crime, one would have probably met sentencing terms. Probably not a great idea- nor legally condoned-- to continue "punishing" a con who has done their time.
 
2012-12-25 02:01:59 PM  
This house protected by abatis.
 
2012-12-25 02:02:33 PM  
NannyStatePark: Not as stupid as using your real name on Fark, but close.

That's not really a big deal. I use mine.

My surname is Le Trôle.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:28 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: way south: This is the kind of thing that makes licensing and registration a bad idea.
The criminals won't attack law abiding gun owners, they'll rob these houses while the owners are out. This paper has willfully aided in the distribution of illegal weapons.
They should be sued for every incident that happens as a result.
The state should also voluntarily comply with federal rules for the FOPA, and destroy those lists immediately.

No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)

No safe is completely secure - a deterrent, sure, but not much more.

I agree, a gun owner who does not secure his guns is negligent, and, depending on circumstances, might be criminally so as well.

However, telling anyone who cares to look where guns are kept - that is just stupid.


See, when your house is broken into, you call the cops. And tell them what was stolen. And if the guns werent in the safe you are now personally responsible for guns being in the hands of criminals.

I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one. I currently live in an apartment and dont own a gun. Two if my friends are chl instructirs so I have a small 'courtesy' safe for when they are visiting and would like to safe their guns.
 
2012-12-25 02:04:28 PM  

Amos Quito: Kit Fister: Uisce Beatha: whatshisname: The point is there is no specific civil right that the government doesn't have some say in.

Some say in, perhaps, but you asked, " Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?" The idea of government here is that the basic rights are ours, and when a government decides it can taken them away, it has to go.

The government can regulate, that is its job, but some things it cannot totally restrict. To keep it on topic, the government can require firearms registration, or background checks, etc, all of which I think are fine, but a total restriction is off the table, as the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted. As other folks can relate better than I, the amendment was written with an eye towards protecting the rights of the people from an overzealous government.

The entire Bill of Rights is based around the idea that those rights are the most important to spell out in no uncertain terms. They are not a list of "only these", but a list of "primarily these".

The entire premise of the Constitution, and our government, was that the government served at the pleasure of the people, and the people have the right to remove that government at any time when they do not represent the best interests of the people.

As much as people like to throw around "ZOMG THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANTED!", I submit that our framers never intended for militarized police to roam the streets, and the culture of fear we live in now.


That's because, unlike the Gun Grabbers, the Framers weren't big on Authoritarianism.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

ParaHandy: computerguyUT: tylerdurden217: What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp

England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.
England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of. But they're groomed from birth to accept that the government is there to spoonfeed you everything you need, so they just accept it.
England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours. Yeah, the anti gunners spout the gun stats, but completely leave out that little tidbit.

England has 1/6 the population of the USA ... did you perhaps mean the UK?

There are bills of rights written into many UK laws and feudal agreements that go back hundreds of years before the USA was founded.

England has LESS violence ... the apparent rise is due to the fact the UK's reporting is now far more comprehensive and the bar for what is considered a countable violent crime is far lower than most countries, notably no-one needs to be charged or convicted for an incident in the UK to be recorded as a violent crime. It says right on the Wikipedia page that the data is neither standardized nor comparable across countries.

Why don't you do a little background research on these kinds of anomalies before presenting the NRAs counter-factual view, and you'll find out the real reason.


Seems to me that the UK has a pathetically low crime rate, when compared to the US.

It could be the lack of guns. But over 90% WHITE PEOPLE???

If they ever hope to catch up crime-wise, they'll need more DIVERSITY.


Authoritarianism is a goal of the right. They like to be told what to do by people in funny hats, invisible sky wizards, and a militarized police force.

They apply authoritarianism against things they fear, mostly women and plants. They favour deadly firearms, overseas wars and pollution, as long as some rich fark is making money.
 
2012-12-25 02:07:35 PM  

Amos Quito: moonscatter: GoldSpider: utharda: But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.

I admit, that's bringing it pretty strong.

He gets that way sometimes. We're also both from that neck of the woods and we can tell you right now the guns have more to do with protecting yourself from funny colored people.

Oh and they are screamingly insecure. Lady qcross the street leaves hers sitting on the windowsill so she can see 'em coming!

[I have always loved you]

:-)


Awww, shucks *hugs*
 
2012-12-25 02:07:35 PM  
When only criminals have wall of text quotes then only wall of text quotes will have criminals. ICE TO MEET YOU.
 
Pav
2012-12-25 02:07:56 PM  

david_gaithersburg: Pav: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

.
The government has your, address, DOB, SocSec number, and Checking account information. Public information, correct?

Incorrect! Can you go and request my SS never using the freedom of information act? How about my checking account info? No! So that means your stupid.

^^^^^
The stupid in this one is strong.


Orly? How so? By pointing out that you have no idea what information is public and what is not makes me stupid? I think your a little mixed up. Perhaps it's because your from Florida, mouth breather capital of the USA.
 
2012-12-25 02:09:10 PM  

Senseless_drivel: FWIW, I clicked about 100 dots on the map and only one female name came up.



So, all the females are unarmed???

t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-25 02:10:08 PM  

ParaHandy: Because I choose to live in the USA. If you consider immigration from more civilized places a threat, then lobby to close the border.

My goal it to take the best of Europe (healthcare, gun control, fairer elections, mutli-party compromise politics, UK road signage, ...) and the best of the USA (entrpreneurial spirit, block based street numbering, right turn on red) and cross-pollinate.


What if we don't WANT what you're doing? The point here is, you cannot force us to accept things that go against both our culture and the very basic precepts the constitution lays out.

You want to live in the US? Accept the way we do things here. Don't like how we do things here? Don't live here. I don't move to the UK because I like the UK and bring my ideas of how things should be there, do I?
 
2012-12-25 02:10:30 PM  

Bell-fan: IamKaiserSoze!!!: God, but zealots do some thoroughly brain dead stuff. I mean, that's Westboro Baptist crazy.

I hope those assholes lose every gun owners subscription, as well as those who don't own guns but still have common sense. Advertisers should be dropping them right and left too.

Fire the editor and whatever writers were involved with this.

I'll go further than that... I say that the paper should be seized, it's license to do business pulled, and the entire enterprise disbanded. This is civic irresponsibility. The Editor and whoever runs the paper should be jailed under the same laws that ban yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is just plain westboro baptist church crazy and irresponsible.

The proceeds of the sale of the newspaper and its entire holding should go to the people whose names were published.

This is flat outright invasion of privacy. I understand that need to publish stories of interest, but these people are not public figures, and as such they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that others will not publish their names for perfectly law abiding behavior.

Oh and gun control advocates... you just lost me right there. You've just shown that your cause is run by crazies that'll do any irresponsible thing that they can to get what they want. That sort of fanaticism need to be curb stomped.


I'm not saying I agree with what the paper did but there is no law against it. If the information is available thru an FOIA request then it is in the public domain already. All the paper did was display information available to anyone in a highly public manner. Was it the right thing to do? Not in my opinion. Was it illegal? Nope.

People need to stop all the "ban all guns" and "from my cold dead hand" crap. There is a place of balance where we can put safety first and still respect the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment. If you go into a discussion with the hate and fear at max levels, nothing productive can come from it. I have ideas on how that can move forward but it has been my experience that most logical progressive ideas that are put forward get shouted down by either side if it not complete freedom to own whatever gun they want or not a complete ban of all things that go boom.

Hopefully cooler heads prevail and some sensible regulation can happen. Regulation does not mean confiscation. It could be something like mandatory training in safety and legal responsibilities of gun ownership WRT storage and use. There are too many people that are irresponsible with their firearms and they are the ones giving good gun owners a bad name.

I like guns. They are fun on the range. I shoot with friends. I am also in the Army full time and am no stranger to weapons. I have no vendetta against guns, just the irresponsible owners that ruin things for good guys. Finding ways to weed out the morans that treat their guns with no respect as a deadly weapon and more like a toy is the way forward. Not a total ban.

my two cents.
 
2012-12-25 02:10:32 PM  
ParaHandy: Authoritarianism is a goal of the right. They like to be told what to do by people in funny hats, invisible sky wizards, and a militarized police force.
They apply authoritarianism against things they fear, mostly women and plants. They favour deadly firearms, overseas wars and pollution, as long as some rich fark is making money.


This sounds like something you'd read on a bumper sticker.

Actually, it sounds like something you'd read on a bumper sticker in a cartoon.
 
2012-12-25 02:11:07 PM  

Amos Quito: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?

you're telling me only one person owns a legal gun in Brooklyn?


No, that is what the MAP compiled by the author of the article is telling you.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.

I mean, do all of those rich Wall Street tycoons, etc. run around with unarmed body guards?

/Bloomberg gets police protection, so he's ok


C'mon, you are smarter than that. Those guys dont live on Wall Street, they live in Greeeeeenwich, darling. And oh, I found the cuuuuutest little boutique you must go try outt! Francois has this divine way with finding the perfect hostess gifts fir those unfortunate times you just must go to one of her dinners....
 
2012-12-25 02:14:52 PM  

moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.


Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.
 
2012-12-25 02:16:12 PM  
Wow, this is 1 hell of a train wreck troll thread.

/ejecting!
 
2012-12-25 02:17:14 PM  

ParaHandy: Authoritarianism is a goal of the right

political class / rich / people already in power.

It generally applies across the board, regardless of professed ideology.
 
2012-12-25 02:20:44 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.


I can fist-fight just fine, but I won't if I can help it.

I'll avoid any fight I possibly can. I happily walk away (or run), swallow my pride, whatever it takes if I can get away without violence.

If I absolutely can't avoid it though, if they give me absolutely no choice about fighting, I don't owe them a "fair" fight. There's no rules and no ref to enforce them. People get killed even in ordinary fist fights and that's not a risk I'm willing to take.
 
2012-12-25 02:23:07 PM  
papundits.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-25 02:23:21 PM  

chumboobler: Bell-fan: IamKaiserSoze!!!: God, but zealots do some thoroughly brain dead stuff. I mean, that's Westboro Baptist crazy.

I hope those assholes lose every gun owners subscription, as well as those who don't own guns but still have common sense. Advertisers should be dropping them right and left too.

Fire the editor and whatever writers were involved with this.

I'll go further than that... I say that the paper should be seized, it's license to do business pulled, and the entire enterprise disbanded. This is civic irresponsibility. The Editor and whoever runs the paper should be jailed under the same laws that ban yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

This is just plain westboro baptist church crazy and irresponsible.

The proceeds of the sale of the newspaper and its entire holding should go to the people whose names were published.

This is flat outright invasion of privacy. I understand that need to publish stories of interest, but these people are not public figures, and as such they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that others will not publish their names for perfectly law abiding behavior.

Oh and gun control advocates... you just lost me right there. You've just shown that your cause is run by crazies that'll do any irresponsible thing that they can to get what they want. That sort of fanaticism need to be curb stomped.

I'm not saying I agree with what the paper did but there is no law against it. If the information is available thru an FOIA request then it is in the public domain already. All the paper did was display information available to anyone in a highly public manner. Was it the right thing to do? Not in my opinion. Was it illegal? Nope.

People need to stop all the "ban all guns" and "from my cold dead hand" crap. There is a place of balance where we can put safety first and still respect the rights afforded by the 2nd Amendment. If you go into a discussion with the hate and fear at max levels, nothing productive can come from it. ...


If more people were like you, we might actually come up with something worth talking about, not something so divisive that it kills any chance of success.
 
2012-12-25 02:23:55 PM  

s2s2s2: TheDirtyNacho: I know you jest, but Texas, which has recently attempted to prevent Planned Parenthood from getting any money (even the clinics that don't perform abortions), realized that the loss of family planning clinics would result is an extra $273 million a year in taxpayer costs due to unplanned birth care.

I got a kick out of that.



The legislative focus on PP is baffling. Only 3% of their services performed are abortion related. The rest are providing affordable birth control, STD testing, gynecological care and other reproductive health services. In Texas especially, in many rural and immigrant heavy areas Planned Parenthood is the only clinic for gynecology services for women without health insurance. In those same areas, the majority of women do not have health insurance.
 
2012-12-25 02:24:06 PM  
Publishing public information? Like they do for people who have been arrested but not convicted? Or any other of a million embarrassing things it's legal to publish?
 
2012-12-25 02:25:08 PM  
The people that should be pissed are the ones that DON'T own guns. Now everone knows that they have to legal way to defend themselves. This is just plain batshiat crazy.Well, legal gun owners. Those houses may illegally own homes.
 
2012-12-25 02:26:22 PM  

computerguyUT: England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours


Wow, do you really believe this? Amazing. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or be impressed by your trolling.

computerguyUT: They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.


LOL. You really are a retard. No, I take it back, you're right - we have to smuggle them around in paper bags, really, we do. It's made matches on the village green very tricky for us.

And, just for the record, I have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives - it's just common sense; something America seems to have lost since Clinton.

Seriously, people like you give Americans such a bad image abroad, it's such a shame. But you wouldn't care... I'll bet you don't even own a passport.

\Happy Festivus
 
2012-12-25 02:26:42 PM  

gunsmack: So you publish folks who, like myself, have handgun permits. Keep in mind that some states require no such permit for shotguns and rifles.


No one is worried about shotguns and rifles. Of course shotguns and rifles and revolvers do not work for home defense.
 
2012-12-25 02:30:49 PM  
Without reading through the litany of Fark comments, I hope someone has pointed out that this little stunt effectively points out to potential home invaders which houses in the area are unarmed (at least concerning legal registry) and therefore shows which houses would be safest to rob.
 
2012-12-25 02:31:00 PM  
This introduction of abortion into a gun control thread is most puzzling. It's not that relevant.

Actually, it may just be. If you have a hankering to make a big fuss over a couple dozen murdered kids, just have a poke in the big bucket behind the clinic.
 
2012-12-25 02:33:24 PM  
This is why all of my guns are unregistered.
Just like my sex offenses.
Any my nurses.
And my securities.
And my apps.
And my cohabitants.
And my OLE objects.
And my easements

/But not my annoyance at the quasi-political attention-whore-outrage nonsense which always fills threads like this. That sort of thing is outrageous.
 
2012-12-25 02:35:17 PM  

mwfark: Without reading through the litany of Fark comments, I hope someone has pointed out that this little stunt effectively points out to potential home invaders which houses in the area are unarmed (at least concerning legal registry) and therefore shows which houses would be safest to rob.


As has been pointed out, my shotguns and rifles are not listed. And, if you just wait for those listed to leave their house, you know you can break in and steal guns.
 
2012-12-25 02:35:40 PM  
These are the same people that saw no problem with hard-right anti-abortionist sites posting abortion doctors names, addresses, and photos online and outright calling them murderers.

fark em.

You want to own a gun it's going into public records where people can aggregate the information and post it online. Don't like it? Don't own a gun. Your right to bear arms has not been infringed, only your right to bear arms secretly.
 
2012-12-25 02:36:05 PM  

mwfark: Without reading through the litany of Fark comments, I hope someone has pointed out that this little stunt effectively points out to potential home invaders which houses in the area are unarmed (at least concerning legal registry) and therefore shows which houses would be safest to rob.


I do not own a gun.

But I can promise you that it would not be safe or wise to try and rob me.
 
2012-12-25 02:37:00 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.


Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.
 
2012-12-25 02:38:48 PM  
This sounds a lot like the local Nazi Party newspaper publishing the names and addresses of all the local Jews.
 
2012-12-25 02:40:35 PM  

Amos Quito: PopularFront: This version of the article contains the the following:

"Editor's note: Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011."

Dwight R. Worley is the reporter who wrote the story. These gun owners were outed by one of their own.


Well, I just clicked every dot in NYC, and his name / address isn't there.

Say, you don't suppose he edited his OWN name and address out for some reason, do you?


A 2 minute glance over teh Google yielded this. 2nd post on the page.

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum/news-good-bad-ugly/154729-gun-own e rs-names-addresses-published-new-york-s-journal-news-2.html
 
2012-12-25 02:42:35 PM  

theotherles: This sounds a lot like the local Nazi Party newspaper publishing the names and addresses of all the local Jews.


Did you really just equate this stupid act with the setup of the largest systematic genocide ever conducted in history? This is nowhere even close to the same thing. It was a poorly thought out political stunt. The Nazi's were setting up the EXTERMINATION of an entire race. The phone book publishes names and addresses too, they are just like Hitler.
 
2012-12-25 02:44:17 PM  
If I was one of the gun owners lited, I wouldn't be upset. Can be sure anyone in the area that burglarizes homes will consult that map to determine which houses not hit.

I would be upset if I didn't have a gun and this farking paper broadcast that information to every criminal in the area.
 
2012-12-25 02:47:51 PM  

RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.


I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:01 PM  

skodabunny: computerguyUT: England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours

Wow, do you really believe this? Amazing. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you or be impressed by your trolling.

computerguyUT: They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.

LOL. You really are a retard. No, I take it back, you're right - we have to smuggle them around in paper bags, really, we do. It's made matches on the village green very tricky for us.

And, just for the record, I have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives - it's just common sense; something America seems to have lost since Clinton.

Seriously, people like you give Americans such a bad image abroad, it's such a shame. But you wouldn't care... I'll bet you don't even own a passport.

\Happy Festivus


I dunno about him, but I personally cherish that image we have abroad. We find positions like "[you] have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives"...as silly and asinine as you find our enjoyment of firearms. You seriously have no problems controlling *knives* to the point where cooking utensils and other tools like this are micromanaged? Would you freak out if a 15-year-old had a pocket knife, too?

Anyway, the rest of the world can suck an egg.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:06 PM  

mwfark: Without reading through the litany of Fark comments, I hope someone has pointed out that this little stunt effectively points out to potential home invaders which houses in the area are unarmed (at least concerning legal registry) and therefore shows which houses would be safest to rob.


Or even better, which places could be burgled to obtain a firearm. You just have to stake the place out until you're sure the occupants aren't home.
 
2012-12-25 02:48:59 PM  

Madame Ovary: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.


Let's say the answer is 'yes'. What then?
 
2012-12-25 02:50:43 PM  

Dear Jerk: As a fan of everything in the bill of rights, I find this hilarious. As strident as some gun owners can be about their rights, they tend to lose sight of free speech and what bits of information should be public knowledge. After all, when you ban lists of gun owners, only outlaws will have lists of gun owners.

/we're getting carried away with privacy rights at the expense of the public good.
//It takes nerve for a newspaper to do this. They will lose more revenue than they will gain.


This isn't a problem with the First Amendment. Gun owners are pissed because they are forced to disclose this information.

Their 4th Amendment rights are being violated.
 
2012-12-25 02:53:01 PM  
Madame: I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.


Perhaps you need to worry less about guns and judgmental labels and more about how you might be able to help your neighbour.
 
2012-12-25 02:53:04 PM  

jjorsett: Madame Ovary: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.

Let's say the answer is 'yes'. What then?


Madame Ovary would then have the chance to talk to her neighbor regarding concerns and get assurances that the gun is out of the sons reach. Or she could choose to move out of that location. It gives her choices where she had none before.
 
2012-12-25 02:53:53 PM  

ParaHandy: Authoritarianism is a goal of the right. They like to be told what to do by people in funny hats, invisible sky wizards, and a militarized police force.

They apply authoritarianism against things they fear, mostly women and plants. They favour deadly firearms, overseas wars and pollution, as long as some rich fark is making money.



Bullshiat.

Authoritarianism is the goal of those who wish to concentrate power in the hands of a few, and they will happily use whatever method is politically convenient  - be it "left" or "right", to accomplish that goal.
 
2012-12-25 02:55:42 PM  

kim jong-un: Dear Jerk: As a fan of everything in the bill of rights, I find this hilarious. As strident as some gun owners can be about their rights, they tend to lose sight of free speech and what bits of information should be public knowledge. After all, when you ban lists of gun owners, only outlaws will have lists of gun owners.

/we're getting carried away with privacy rights at the expense of the public good.
//It takes nerve for a newspaper to do this. They will lose more revenue than they will gain.

This isn't a problem with the First Amendment. Gun owners are pissed because they are forced to disclose this information.

Their 4th Amendment rights are being violated.


If the information is already in the public domain as it must be for an FOIA request to be granted then this is not a 4th Amendment issue. It is a dick move by the paper but it is not illegal.
 
2012-12-25 02:55:44 PM  

moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.

Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.


I'm a gun owner, I live in a state with mandatory registration of handguns, and I'm OK with the cops knowing I have them. As long as registration is not used inappropriately, I have no problems with it. I also have no problem with the fact that having a CCW means that the state knows I carry, either. I'm required to tell the cops if I get pulled over by law, regardless.

I don't fear police knowing I'm armed, I don't fear anyone else knowing I own guns. They're just a thing, like a wrench, a chainsaw, or a backhoe, and are treated no differently.

I also believe that many gun owners have said they're okay with firearms ownership being akin to getting a driver's license. As long as the state is not using this to actively infringe on the right to obtain such a license and exercise it at will, it's fine.

It's already on the books in most states that possession of a firearm by a felon adds special circumstances to the conviction, and bring a whole new world of hurt, though, so I'm not sure it would accomplish much more than another expenditure by the state to set up a system to issue and so on.

Closing the so-called "gun show loophole", with mandatory jail time for anyone selling a firearm without a license, might cut down some of the trafficking, though, provided that police were given enough extra cash to cover a special unit, like the drug enforcement units, to police these new laws.
 
2012-12-25 02:56:05 PM  

Madame Ovary: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.


Feel free to mosey on down to city hall and ask. Don't whine about privacy should your kid be caught in a drug sting and his name makes the police blotter in your local rag.
 
2012-12-25 02:57:33 PM  

letrole: Madame: I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.


Perhaps you need to worry less about guns and judgmental labels and more about how you might be able to help your neighbour.


Like they helped Nancy Lanza?
 
2012-12-25 02:59:49 PM  
Madame Ovary: Like they helped Nancy Lanza?

Exactly.
 
2012-12-25 03:00:00 PM  
Well perhaps a handy list of the home addresses of the reporters and editorial staff along with photos of their cars and children would be ok? Maybe go online and get as much info as you can get on one of those pay background check websites? That would be ok right?

Of course it wouldn't. Even if it's public domain information, it doesn't make it right any more than it is to advertise who has guns. It's just creepy and passive aggressive.
 
2012-12-25 03:05:32 PM  

moonscatter: Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook.


First off - equating idiots self-promoting on myfacetwitspace to a paper publishing the info for its entire circulation it is a false equivalence. Especially since one can, if smart, restrict access to their social media exposure. And there are plenty of responsible folk who don't do any of the retarded things you just broad-brushed all gun owners with.

And again - how is letting any half-clever thief know where to get weapons when a house is unoccupied a good idea?
 
2012-12-25 03:08:52 PM  
Looks like the cleanup and banhammer crew needs to show up
 
2012-12-25 03:13:20 PM  
Lol. People are STILL raging over this topic?

Meanwhile 300+ people will die from drunk drivers over the holiday. And I remember when MADD was a favorite target of mockery for braindead liberals. Lol.

/idiots
 
2012-12-25 03:15:34 PM  
Let me get this strait:

The gun control people say that most illegal guns are stolen guns from law-abiding owners.
They also defend a newspaper publishing records where the registered guns are, ensuring that someone wanting stolen guns knows where to go.

Now doesn't that sound vindictive and counterproductive to you?

In b4 "WHY DO U HAET FIRST AMENDMENT". I'm criticizing the paper's actions and the availability of records that should be given to law enforcement only.
 
2012-12-25 03:16:23 PM  

Spanky McStupid: tlchwi02: isn't it generally known when you apply that it will be publically available? pretty sure i knew that when i got my permit in MA.

Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.


But publishing the names and addresses of sex offenders or those arrested for DWI is okay, amirite?
 
2012-12-25 03:20:24 PM  

Kit Fister: You seriously have no problems controlling *knives* to the point where cooking utensils and other tools like this are micromanaged? Would you freak out if a 15-year-old had a pocket knife, too?


skodabunny: just for the record, I have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives


I dunno though, maybe your pockets are really huge. You do have that obesity thing over there so maybe it's changing the definition of pocket knife.

I'm sure there may be one or two under 18 year olds in need of a large knife for cooking. But I don't see why, in all reality, their parents can't supply the knife in that case. I don't think this is something that is ruining many aspiring teenage chef's lives. It's something that improves life for the majority of people though - people who'd rather not be stabbed by an immature neighbours kid over some bullshiat non-issue.
 
2012-12-25 03:22:59 PM  

skodabunny: Kit Fister: You seriously have no problems controlling *knives* to the point where cooking utensils and other tools like this are micromanaged? Would you freak out if a 15-year-old had a pocket knife, too?

skodabunny: just for the record, I have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives

I dunno though, maybe your pockets are really huge. You do have that obesity thing over there so maybe it's changing the definition of pocket knife.

I'm sure there may be one or two under 18 year olds in need of a large knife for cooking. But I don't see why, in all reality, their parents can't supply the knife in that case. I don't think this is something that is ruining many aspiring teenage chef's lives. It's something that improves life for the majority of people though - people who'd rather not be stabbed by an immature neighbours kid over some bullshiat non-issue.


It's Assault Knives - c'mon you guys, help me get this going.
 
2012-12-25 03:25:05 PM  
Next up, a map of the home addresses of abortion doctors.
I'm sure the same "public records" defenders of this will also be all for that.
 
2012-12-25 03:25:40 PM  

NewportBarGuy: coco ebert: Oh, my. Judging from the comments, we have a quite a number of revolutionaries on our hands here.

What purpose does this serve? I've tried to find a positive aspect and found none. They want to create a visual to get across the point of how many guns are out there? Fine, just stick with the numbers. I honestly see no need to list the names and addresses of every pistol permit holder. I understand that this information is available under FOIA, but what possible purpose does it serve to collate it and put it out like that?

It's just going to piss people off more and that is not going to further the debate, nor will it help convince other gun owners to embrace new legislation or increased enforcement of current legislation.

If they want to collect the data, they should also pull all criminal records of those they are targeting and combine that with the data and find out how many people with pistol permits should a) not have been given them or b) who should have them taken away because of a crime after they got it. That? I'm fine with that.

Just putting it out there like they did? Not cool with that at all.




I'm also not sure what the journalistic purpose of this was.
 
2012-12-25 03:27:29 PM  

noitsnot: skodabunny: Kit Fister: You seriously have no problems controlling *knives* to the point where cooking utensils and other tools like this are micromanaged? Would you freak out if a 15-year-old had a pocket knife, too?

skodabunny: just for the record, I have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives

I dunno though, maybe your pockets are really huge. You do have that obesity thing over there so maybe it's changing the definition of pocket knife.

I'm sure there may be one or two under 18 year olds in need of a large knife for cooking. But I don't see why, in all reality, their parents can't supply the knife in that case. I don't think this is something that is ruining many aspiring teenage chef's lives. It's something that improves life for the majority of people though - people who'd rather not be stabbed by an immature neighbours kid over some bullshiat non-issue.

It's Assault Knives - c'mon you guys, help me get this going.


I'm going to start calling any object I am against beginning with the term 'assault'. For example, My sister in-law made a salad with assault broccoli.

Any who oppose my opinions will be labeled as being racist.
 
2012-12-25 03:28:34 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand a sentence more complex than you'd find in "Dick & Jane" books. The god was the subject of the sentence. Go ask your sixth-grade neighbor to explain it to you.


You are right. I skimmed and made a mistake. I went back and re-read it. Now I understand the point you were trying to make. I've corrected my mistake, you are still a dick.
 
2012-12-25 03:30:12 PM  

jjorsett: Madame Ovary: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

I would want to know if my neighbor with the crazy, drug-addicted son has a gun.

Let's say the answer is 'yes'. What then?


Get a bigger gun.
 
2012-12-25 03:30:52 PM  
Didn't read all the comments, but names and addresses of the newspaper staff are already available to anyone with access to the White Pages. Likewise, detailed driving records can easily be obtained from the DMV by whoever wants to pay for them. When law dictates that legal guns be registered and the fine print allows such information into public domain, don't be so surprised when others exercise their own rights to know this. Sharing such knowledge can prove beneficial when utilized by a civilized society yet detrimental when exploited by criminal minds, thus the *real* threat in this situation is those who could harbor ill intent and these bad guys are the ones that we need to pay attention to. If people showed more interest in the general safety and potential hazards within their communities by mutual communication, wouldn't this extreme measure be unnecessary in the first place?
 
2012-12-25 03:30:54 PM  

Kit Fister: moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.

Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.

I'm a gun owner, I live in a state with mandatory registration of handguns, and I'm OK with the cops knowing I have them. As long as registration is not used inappropriately, I have no problems with it. I also have no problem with the fact that having a CCW means that the state knows I carry, either. I'm required to tell the cops if I get pulled over by law, regardless.

I don't fear police knowing I'm armed, I don't fear anyone else knowing I own guns. They're just a thing, like a wrench, a chainsaw, or a backhoe, and are treated no differently.

I also believe that many gun owners have said they're okay with firearms ownership being akin to getting a driver's license. As long as the state is not using this to actively infringe on the right to obtain such a license and exercise it at will, it's fine.

It's already on the books in most states that possession of a firearm by a felon adds special circumstances to the conviction, and bring a whole new world of hurt, though, so I'm not sure it would accomplish much more than another expenditure by the state to set up a system to issue and so on.

Closing the so-called "gun show loophole", with mandatory jail time for anyone selling a firearm without a license, might cut down some of the trafficking, though, provided that police were given enough extra cash to cover a special unit, like the drug enforcement units, to police these new laws.


My proposal is to shift the burden a bit on the whole private sale issue. You want to buy, private or at a dealer? You apply for a gun buyer's permit with background checks and the like. Sell to seo e without one? Felony. Sell to one with one? Indemnification civil and criminal against bd acts by the purchaser.

Or, require all guns be painted hot pink. Interest in gun ownership will drop dramatically.
 
2012-12-25 03:32:29 PM  

enry: But publishing the names and addresses of sex offenders or those arrested for DWI is okay, amirite?


Next:

Here are the houses of those registered at a local rally which have legal medical marijuana caregivers living in them!
Here are the houses who answered our survey saying they have an open homosexual!
Here are the houses our mall interviews found have recently purchased expensive jewelry!

What was wrong with "In the NY area, there are X people permitted for firearms"? Pretty much anyone but the die-hard gun grabbers realize this isn't helping bring even-minded people to the conversation, it only has the chance to alienate people if they believe this is what will occur.
 
2012-12-25 03:34:53 PM  

utharda: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Indeed.  Lunatic's aside you'll find that Fairfield County Ct, right next to Westchester is incredibly safe.  Port Chester.... Not so much.   But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.


now that would be a great band name
 
2012-12-25 03:36:00 PM  
 
2012-12-25 03:36:22 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook.

First off - equating idiots self-promoting on myfacetwitspace to a paper publishing the info for its entire circulation it is a false equivalence. Especially since one can, if smart, restrict access to their social media exposure. And there are plenty of responsible folk who don't do any of the retarded things you just broad-brushed all gun owners with.

And again - how is letting any half-clever thief know where to get weapons when a house is unoccupied a good idea?


The proble with your statement is 'if smart.' The majority of people who own guns tend to be rather..., thoughtless. That is how most social engineering hacks happen.

Don't underestimate the power of gullibility.
 
2012-12-25 03:37:56 PM  

enry: Spanky McStupid: tlchwi02: isn't it generally known when you apply that it will be publically available? pretty sure i knew that when i got my permit in MA.

Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.

But publishing the names and addresses of sex offenders or those arrested for DWI is okay, amirite?


Personally, I don't think it's right to publish anyone's home address even when they are convcited criminals. It only encourages vigilantism. If a criminal like a sex offender is still dangerous, let's work on laws to keep them off the streets. This would be the more rational approach. Yet you support stigmstizing people who have broken no law, you just don't like that they own guns. Yes, it may be legal to do so, I think that it shouldn't be, and that it is legal weakens the argument for mandatory gun registration.
 
2012-12-25 03:39:12 PM  

theotherles: This sounds a lot like the local Nazi Party newspaper publishing the names and addresses of all the local Jews.


Remember a little while back when someone in the midwest published a list of names and addresses of illegal resident aliens in the area, as culled from public arrest records. The left went absolutely over the top supremo-batshiat insane about how awful and horrible wong and immoral it was to do that.

It was public record. And it was people who had broken the law, as opposed to followed it like in this case.

/idiots
 
2012-12-25 03:40:19 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Remember a little while back when someone in the midwest published a list of names and addresses of illegal resident aliens in the area, as culled from public arrest records. The left went absolutely over the top supremo-batshiat insane about how awful and horrible wong and immoral it was to do that.

It was public record. And it was people who had broken the law, as opposed to followed it like in this case.

/idiots


It's only immoral and wrong if it doesn't advance the agenda. I thought this was common knowledge?
 
2012-12-25 03:41:07 PM  

moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook.

First off - equating idiots self-promoting on myfacetwitspace to a paper publishing the info for its entire circulation it is a false equivalence. Especially since one can, if smart, restrict access to their social media exposure. And there are plenty of responsible folk who don't do any of the retarded things you just broad-brushed all gun owners with.

And again - how is letting any half-clever thief know where to get weapons when a house is unoccupied a good idea?

The proble with your statement is 'if smart.' The majority of people who own guns tend to be rather..., thoughtless. That is how most social engineering hacks happen.

Don't underestimate the power of gullibility.


You say that about gun owners, but it's the journalist who published all the information.

Do I detect a hint of bias?
 
2012-12-25 03:43:24 PM  

moonscatter: Kit Fister: moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.

Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.

I'm a gun owner, I live in a state with mandatory registration of handguns, and I'm OK with the cops knowing I have them. As long as registration is not used inappropriately, I have no problems with it. I also have no problem with the fact that having a CCW means that the state knows I carry, either. I'm required to tell the cops if I get pulled over by law, regardless.

I don't fear police knowing I'm armed, I don't fear anyone else knowing I own guns. They're just a thing, like a wrench, a chainsaw, or a backhoe, and are treated no differently.

I also believe that many gun owners have said they're okay with firearms ownership being akin to getting a driver's license. As long as the state is not using this to actively infringe on the right to obtain such a license and exercise it at will, it's fine.

It's already on the books in most states that possession of a firearm by a felon adds special circumstances to the conviction, and bring a whole new world of hurt, though, so I'm not sure it would accomplish much more than another expenditure by the state to set up a system to issue and so o ...


You do realize, of course, that *all* gun purchases at a dealer already require a background check to be performed when you buy, right? So, if you close the so-called gunshow loophole, *all* gun purchases would require a background check anyway, right?
 
2012-12-25 03:45:11 PM  

skodabunny: Kit Fister: You seriously have no problems controlling *knives* to the point where cooking utensils and other tools like this are micromanaged? Would you freak out if a 15-year-old had a pocket knife, too?

skodabunny: just for the record, I have zero problems with keeping under-18s away from giant knives

I dunno though, maybe your pockets are really huge. You do have that obesity thing over there so maybe it's changing the definition of pocket knife.

I'm sure there may be one or two under 18 year olds in need of a large knife for cooking. But I don't see why, in all reality, their parents can't supply the knife in that case. I don't think this is something that is ruining many aspiring teenage chef's lives. It's something that improves life for the majority of people though - people who'd rather not be stabbed by an immature neighbours kid over some bullshiat non-issue.


My pocket knife blade is 4" long.

And, what, the parents supply the knife to the chef, and then promptly lock it back up after he's through? You seriously see nothing laughable about this?
 
2012-12-25 03:45:29 PM  

Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ontos: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.

Tell that to a 68 year old disabled man.... or a 5'1" 98 pound woman.

Yeah, just fist-fight. Don't be a pussy.

Do you think either one of those defective citizens will be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their .22 anyways?


Umm, for the record, there are plenty of "disabled 68 yr old men" who also happen to be vets and shoot extremely well.

Additionally, don't ever underestimate a 5'1" 98 lb woman, some of them are quite good with guns: (click here (pops))
 
2012-12-25 03:46:23 PM  
Which is exactly the problem with gun nuts.

robnelle: Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.

 
2012-12-25 03:48:25 PM  

hinten: Which is exactly the problem with gun nuts.
robnelle: Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.


Really? Gun nuts retaliate by shooting up the place?
 
2012-12-25 03:49:04 PM  

Kit Fister: And, what, the parents supply the knife to the chef, and then promptly lock it back up after he's through? You seriously see nothing laughable about this?


Actually, I completely understand what he's saying and agree. I locked up the knives, but then I worried about the tools, so I locked up the hammers, saws, screw drivers, etc. But then I was like "Oh no, what about the cleaning supplies!" so I locked up the bleach and ammonia and then I was like "Oh no, I have benadryl", so I locked off the bathroom so he couldn't access my razor for shaving and hair clippers. But then I was like "Oh NO! They have access to oregano!" So I closed off my kitchen and locked it.

I realized how silly all of this was and then I just decided to lock them in their bedroom with nothing to hurt themselves or anyone else with (think Meowschwitz) and it really saved me on locks. I sleep peacefully now.
 
2012-12-25 03:53:17 PM  

super_grass: moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook.

First off - equating idiots self-promoting on myfacetwitspace to a paper publishing the info for its entire circulation it is a false equivalence. Especially since one can, if smart, restrict access to their social media exposure. And there are plenty of responsible folk who don't do any of the retarded things you just broad-brushed all gun owners with.

And again - how is letting any half-clever thief know where to get weapons when a house is unoccupied a good idea?

The proble with your statement is 'if smart.' The majority of people who own guns tend to be rather..., thoughtless. That is how most social engineering hacks happen.

Don't underestimate the power of gullibility.

You say that about gun owners, but it's the journalist who published all the information.

Do I detect a hint of bias?


Probably not. Look, most of my friends are family law attorneys. They cam find more dirt pf people from gun ownership to their mistress' name to their underwear brand in about 5 min of googling. The indoation is out there. It's disingenious to get upset cause someone compiled the data. The appopriate question should rather be: should that informatiom ne available to those other than law enforcement?
 
2012-12-25 03:54:53 PM  

remus: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: Ontos: Eatin' Queer Fetuses for Jesus: What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.

Tell that to a 68 year old disabled man.... or a 5'1" 98 pound woman.

Yeah, just fist-fight. Don't be a pussy.

Do you think either one of those defective citizens will be able to hit the broad side of a barn with their .22 anyways?

Umm, for the record, there are plenty of "disabled 68 yr old men" who also happen to be vets and shoot extremely well.

Additionally, don't ever underestimate a 5'1" 98 lb woman, some of them are quite good with guns: (click here (pops))


I dated a 5'1" 98 lb woman for quite a while. There's a line from Heathers that sums it up quite nicely.
 
2012-12-25 03:56:21 PM  

s2s2s2: skodabunny: Wow, do you really believe this?

It would seem England believes it as well, though not as skewed as that person you are responding too.


You're quoting the Daily Fail, the UK's 2nd worst right wing rag and a organ of fearmongering sold to lower middle class housewives in the south of England with IQs in the 80-100 range. Their main traffic is bikini pics of celebutantes and Duchess Kate.

This is clearly more authoritative than a data analyst's succinct observation that the standard for what counts as a violent crime in the UK is so all-encompassing that it inflates the stats by an order of magnitude compared to the US, where murder of a civilian by a cop in not considered violent if the cop gets off.

Moran.
 
2012-12-25 03:57:56 PM  

letrole: Madame Ovary: Like they helped Nancy Lanza?

Exactly.


People like to think they are altruistic and self sacrificing, especially in the US, but few are when it comes down to it. All the "friends" quoted in the news and the family of NL should die in a fire.

/The Newtown case is why they published this info
 
2012-12-25 03:58:04 PM  
Other than pissing off some paying customers (and it's not like newspapers are getting a
bunch more of those each day) what did they plan to accomplish. This information isn't 'news'?

If I were the owners I'd start canning anyone who had anything to do with this PR disaster.
 
2012-12-25 04:00:39 PM  

Kit Fister: moonscatter: Kit Fister: moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.

Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.

I'm a gun owner, I live in a state with mandatory registration of handguns, and I'm OK with the cops knowing I have them. As long as registration is not used inappropriately, I have no problems with it. I also have no problem with the fact that having a CCW means that the state knows I carry, either. I'm required to tell the cops if I get pulled over by law, regardless.

I don't fear police knowing I'm armed, I don't fear anyone else knowing I own guns. They're just a thing, like a wrench, a chainsaw, or a backhoe, and are treated no differently.

I also believe that many gun owners have said they're okay with firearms ownership being akin to getting a driver's license. As long as the state is not using this to actively infringe on the right to obtain such a license and exercise it at will, it's fine.

It's already on the books in most states that possession of a firearm by a felon adds special circumstances to the conviction, and bring a whole new world of hurt, though, so I'm not sure it would accomplish much more than another expenditure by the state to set up a system to issue and so o ...

You do realize, of course, that *all* gun purchases at a dealer already require a background check to be performed when you buy, right? So, if you close the so-called gunshow loophole, *all* gun purchases would require a background check anyway, right?


It's not sufficient. Won't stop straw buys and other illegal transfers, they'll just happen out of sight. Guns ned to be individually tracked by government, and the registered owner held accountable for what happens with them.
 
2012-12-25 04:02:45 PM  

moonscatter: The majority of people who own guns tend to be rather..., thoughtless.


First off, that is a bit of a broad brushed red herring. And still doesn't answer the question of why would anyone think publishing this information was a good idea?
 
2012-12-25 04:03:20 PM  

MichiganFTL: enry: But publishing the names and addresses of sex offenders or those arrested for DWI is okay, amirite?

Next:

Here are the houses of those registered at a local rally which have legal medical marijuana caregivers living in them!
Here are the houses who answered our survey saying they have an open homosexual!
Here are the houses our mall interviews found have recently purchased expensive jewelry!

What was wrong with "In the NY area, there are X people permitted for firearms"? Pretty much anyone but the die-hard gun grabbers realize this isn't helping bring even-minded people to the conversation, it only has the chance to alienate people if they believe this is what will occur.


In the cases you gave above, it's not a government organization collecting the information, so there's no requirement for them to release the information or there's likely a higher threshold for them to protect it (think HIPAA).

I'm not saying that releasing the information for sex offenders or those arrested or legal firearms owners should be released en masse to the public, but to say that one is okay while the other isn't is just wrong.

If anything, it means we need better protections of public records.
 
2012-12-25 04:04:19 PM  

ParaHandy: Kit Fister: moonscatter: Kit Fister: moonscatter: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.

Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.

I'm a gun owner, I live in a state with mandatory registration of handguns, and I'm OK with the cops knowing I have them. As long as registration is not used inappropriately, I have no problems with it. I also have no problem with the fact that having a CCW means that the state knows I carry, either. I'm required to tell the cops if I get pulled over by law, regardless.

I don't fear police knowing I'm armed, I don't fear anyone else knowing I own guns. They're just a thing, like a wrench, a chainsaw, or a backhoe, and are treated no differently.

I also believe that many gun owners have said they're okay with firearms ownership being akin to getting a driver's license. As long as the state is not using this to actively infringe on the right to obtain such a license and exercise it at will, it's fine.

It's already on the books in most states that possession of a firearm by a felon adds special circumstances to the conviction, and bring a whole new world of hurt, though, so I'm not sure it would accomplish much more than another expenditure by the state to set up a ...


So, then, wouldn't better enforcement of existing laws fix that issue, rather than jumping from A to X immediately?
 
2012-12-25 04:07:08 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: The majority of people who own guns tend to be rather..., thoughtless.

First off, that is a bit of a broad brushed red herring. And still doesn't answer the question of why would anyone think publishing this information was a good idea?


Why is it a bad idea?

And while a couple of friends who have chls and prosecutor varry permits are careful, let's face it, the majority of the US cant even be trusted to drive a car, let alone handle a weapon.
 
2012-12-25 04:12:41 PM  

NewportBarGuy: They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.


I am a gun owner as well. I have several hi-cap magazines and an AR-15. You should know the time it takes to reload is negligible if you're not under stress. What you propose will affect me. A fellow gun owner. You should also be aware of the fact of the people who will not be affected by it. You disappoint me sir.
 
2012-12-25 04:14:06 PM  

moonscatter: Why is it a bad idea?


For a whole host of reasons, detailed in multiple comments above - but the one I was specifically referring to was: Why tell lawbreakers where they can get a gun, as long as they make sure no one is home at the time? If we wish to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not only criminal, but violent criminals, this broadcasting of information seems to be antithetical to that purpose.

let's face it, the majority of the US cant even be trusted to drive a car, let alone handle a weapon.

a) Not relevant to the point I was trying to make
b) The constitution would tend to disagree
c) Ad Hominem
 
2012-12-25 04:14:20 PM  

moonscatter: No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)


So, my house gets broken in to and guns are stolen. So now, even though my rights and homestead have been violated, I'M facing criminal charges because some asshat broke the law by illegally entering my house and stealing my property? Seriously? How very British of you, blaming the victim and all.

moonscatter: See, when your house is broken into, you call the cops. And tell them what was stolen. And if the guns werent in the safe you are now personally responsible for guns being in the hands of criminals.


So now the burden of proof is on the victim? How do you propose the victim PROVE they had the guns locked up? What about homeowners who leave their car keys sitting out, which the thief then uses to steal the homeowner's car and kill innocent bystanders as he flees from the crime scene? I suppose the homeowner should be strung up for that one too, right? The logic of your argument escapes me, probably because there is no logic at work.
 
2012-12-25 04:15:09 PM  
I'm also going to note they put 9mm rounds next to a .38.
 
2012-12-25 04:15:15 PM  

Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!

 
2012-12-25 04:16:02 PM  

chumboobler: Did you really just equate this stupid act with the setup of the largest systematic genocide ever conducted in history? This is nowhere even close to the same thing. It was a poorly thought out political stunt. The Nazi's were setting up the EXTERMINATION of an entire race. The phone book publishes names and addresses too, they are just like Hitler.


Ahh yes, I long for the old phonebook days were someone's religious affiliation was listed next to their name and address. If anything, it saved me the embarrassment of buying a Hanukkah gift for David Goldberg, who was actually a card-carrying Catholic.
 
2012-12-25 04:16:40 PM  
*where
 
2012-12-25 04:17:11 PM  
Too tired to read the whole thread. Does this in effect list the home addresses of cops? Are they required to have the same permits as everyone else?
 
2012-12-25 04:17:23 PM  

s2s2s2: Brick-House: There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

How much is that saving in welfare costs?


You'd be surprised at the abortion statistics when broken down by race, income, and age. Particularly how low the percentage is for young, low income girls/women, and how high it is for well-off women in their 30s and 40s. I know I was. It probably has something to do with affording the up-front cost. It's kind of sad as to what it might imply for most people's reasoning behind the abortion though (unable to afford/completely changing the course of your life vs inconvenience to your comfortable lifestyle).  The stats of course shouldn't be used as an argument for/against subsidizing abortions, and your argument of long term-costs still stands. I just found it surprising.

This brings up an interesting point about how the exercise of some rights is private and protected by law to be that way, while the exercise of other rights is required by law to be public record. How far should the right to privacy extend?
 
2012-12-25 04:28:49 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: Why is it a bad idea?

For a whole host of reasons, detailed in multiple comments above - but the one I was specifically referring to was: Why tell lawbreakers where they can get a gun, as long as they make sure no one is home at the time? If we wish to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are not only criminal, but violent criminals, this broadcasting of information seems to be antithetical to that purpose.

let's face it, the majority of the US cant even be trusted to drive a car, let alone handle a weapon.

a) Not relevant to the point I was trying to make
b) The constitution would tend to disagree
c) Ad Hominem


Okay, we disagree. I'd still buy you a beer. We shouldnt agree -- we need to talk and listen to each other and figure out what are some realistic solutions.

But I still maintain painting them all hot pink will help!
 
2012-12-25 04:38:32 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: moonscatter: No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)

So, my house gets broken in to and guns are stolen. So now, even though my rights and homestead have been violated, I'M facing criminal charges because some asshat broke the law by illegally entering my house and stealing my property? Seriously? How very British of you, blaming the victim and all.

moonscatter: See, when your house is broken into, you call the cops. And tell them what was stolen. And if the guns werent in the safe you are now personally responsible for guns being in the hands of criminals.

So now the burden of proof is on the victim? How do you propose the victim PROVE they had the guns locked up? What about homeowners who leave their car keys sitting out, which the thief then uses to steal the homeowner's car and kill innocent bystanders as he flees from the crime scene? I suppose the homeowner should be strung up for that one too, right? The logic of your argument escapes me, probably because there is no logic at work.


A good first sign would be, oh, a gun safe. And people will tell amazing things to cops.

My favorite was the woman who watched jumpin jack flash so ahe kept her jewels in a safe and an22 in the freezer

/i miss being at the da's office
 
2012-12-25 04:40:26 PM  

moonscatter: But I still maintain painting them all hot pink will help!


I actually wouldn't fight this to hard - my wife's is already pink. As long as I can wrap my rifle when I go hunting, I am all good. Whether it would do any good is another matter.
 
2012-12-25 04:45:45 PM  
No worse than people here gawping at and ridiculing the mugshots every week from TSG.

Funny how the snowflakes only b&m when it finally happens to them.

Deal with it or change privacy for everyone.
 
2012-12-25 04:54:59 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: But I still maintain painting them all hot pink will help!

I actually wouldn't fight this to hard - my wife's is already pink. As long as I can wrap my rifle when I go hunting, I am all good. Whether it would do any good is another matter.


(Understand I am being silly and that I live in Texas) can you JUST imagine Bubba with a bud in one hand a .30-06 in the other meeting up with his buds? Hee!

/so excited we're starting the kids on bows this spring and then trying to decide what to hint this fall
//also means a roadtrip to WV to get them.
 
2012-12-25 05:08:40 PM  

s2s2s2: Lenny_da_Hog: It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand a sentence more complex than you'd find in "Dick & Jane" books. The god was the subject of the sentence. Go ask your sixth-grade neighbor to explain it to you.

You are right. I skimmed and made a mistake. I went back and re-read it. Now I understand the point you were trying to make. I've corrected my mistake, you are still a dick.


I'm just a Rorschach blot. You're seeing your desires.
 
2012-12-25 05:08:56 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: moonscatter: No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)

So, my house gets broken in to and guns are stolen. So now, even though my rights and homestead have been violated, I'M facing criminal charges because some asshat broke the law by illegally entering my house and stealing my property? Seriously? How very British of you, blaming the victim and all.

moonscatter: See, when your house is broken into, you call the cops. And tell them what was stolen. And if the guns werent in the safe you are now personally responsible for guns being in the hands of criminals.

So now the burden of proof is on the victim? How do you propose the victim PROVE they had the guns locked up? What about homeowners who leave their car keys sitting out, which the thief then uses to steal the homeowner's car and kill innocent bystanders as he flees from the crime scene? I suppose the homeowner should be strung up for that one too, right? The logic of your argument escapes me, probably because there is no logic at work.


Two wrongs don't make a right. A firearm is a piece of property, but given the unique type of property they are, they are equally unique. That said, in this case, what is most important to consider is that YOU as the homeowner may not be able to ensure that a robbery never takes place, but that all reasonable steps are taken to maintain the safety and security of your home and your arms.

Police Officers and Military are held to a standard of being responsible for weapons issued to them. As such, maintaining a reasonable means of controlling access to them by unauthorized personnel is not only warranted, but prudent.

Any gun owner tho says "Well, my sock drawer is safe enough", clearly fails to read about the children who gain access to their parents' firearms when they're not around and do bad things with them, which is at the heart of the matter here.

Besides this, what gun owner would not wish to secure their weapons in a locking container of some sort, if for no other reason than to take advantage of the insurance premium rebates, the ability to control the environment in the safe to prevent rust, and the ability to prevent guns from being damaged by inadvertent shifting in a closet?

I mean, come on, we call ourselves responsible gun owners, and yet we fail to take every possible step to ensure safe storage of our firearms and fail to hold ourselves to a higher standard and give ammunition, as it were, to those that would paint us as irresponsible cretins.

This is one reason why I think it should be required to not only receive a trigger lock, but alternatively be required to show proof of ownership of a safe, lock box, or other means of safely securing the weapons against someone trying to steal them. DOn't make it easy on the people who would steal them.

As for those who cry "oh but the safe prevents me from getting my gun if someone breaks in," I would point out that there are so many biometric and rapid-access options available that allow both safe storage AND quick access should the need arise, that this argument is, frankly, full of holes.

Take some goddamn responsibility for yourself and your weapons. They're not toys, and people who really want guns should be forced to risk importation because we make it goddamn hard and risky for them to steal them from the lawful.
 
2012-12-25 05:17:03 PM  
There's a huge difference between something being public record and publishing every name and address of a certain group.  The average person isn't going to do the paperwork and research necessary to get that kind of information on people, but having them all put together for them is a whole other story.
 
2012-12-25 05:17:40 PM  

Kit Fister: IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: moonscatter: No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)

So, my house gets broken in to and guns are stolen. So now, even though my rights and homestead have been violated, I'M facing criminal charges because some asshat broke the law by illegally entering my house and stealing my property? Seriously? How very British of you, blaming the victim and all.

moonscatter: See, when your house is broken into, you call the cops. And tell them what was stolen. And if the guns werent in the safe you are now personally responsible for guns being in the hands of criminals.

So now the burden of proof is on the victim? How do you propose the victim PROVE they had the guns locked up? What about homeowners who leave their car keys sitting out, which the thief then uses to steal the homeowner's car and kill innocent bystanders as he flees from the crime scene? I suppose the homeowner should be strung up for that one too, right? The logic of your argument escapes me, probably because there is no logic at work.

Two wrongs don't make a right. A firearm is a piece of property, but given the unique type of property they are, they are equally unique. That said, in this case, what is most important to consider is that YOU as the homeowner may not be able to ensure that a robbery never takes place, but that all reasonable steps are taken to maintain the safety and security of your home and your arms.

Police Officers and Military are held to a standard of being responsible for weapons issued to them. As such, maintaining a reasonable means of controlling access to them by unauthorized personnel is not only warranted, but prudent.

Any gun owner tho says "Well, my sock drawer is safe enough", clearly fails to read about the children who gain access to their parents' firearms when they're not around and do bad things with them, which is at the heart of the matter here.

Besides this, what gun owner would not wish to secure their weapons in a locking container of some sort, if for no other reason than to take advantage of the insurance premium rebates, the ability to control the environment in the safe to prevent rust, and the ability to prevent guns from being damaged by inadvertent shifting in a closet?

I mean, come on, we call ourselves responsible gun owners, and yet we fail to take every possible step to ensure safe storage of our firearms and fail to hold ourselves to a higher standard and give ammunition, as it were, to those that would paint us as irresponsible cretins.

This is one reason why I think it should be required to not only receive a trigger lock, but alternatively be required to show proof of ownership of a safe, lock box, or other means of safely securing the weapons against someone trying to steal them. DOn't make it easy on the people who would steal them.

As for those who cry "oh but the safe prevents me from getting my gun if someone breaks in," I would point out that there are so many biometric and rapid-access options available that allow both safe storage AND quick access should the need arise, that this argument is, frankly, full of holes.

Take some goddamn responsibility for yourself and your weapons. They're not toys, and people who really want guns should be forced to risk importation because we make it goddamn hard and risky for them to steal them from the lawful.


So, if you're ever in Houston, I'd love to feed you good food and drinkies.
 
2012-12-25 05:25:04 PM  

msupf: No worse than people here gawping at and ridiculing the mugshots every week from TSG.

Funny how the snowflakes only b&m when it finally happens to them.

Deal with it or change privacy for everyone.


I tend to agree although no laws were broken here. This information is available to anyone via the Freedom of Information Act so that seems to be the logical objection rather than complaining about it being published.

I'd find it not being available via the FOIA more disturbing.
 
2012-12-25 05:26:37 PM  

Spanky McStupid: Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.


You live in the age of Google. This sentence no longer exists. "It's published but entirely uninteresting" is possible. "It's a public record but 'unpublished' and will remain so" is not.
 
2012-12-25 05:33:17 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


Wow what's the deal with Hempstead?
 
2012-12-25 05:34:35 PM  
Auto mechanics used to be able to go the DMV and get public records of car owners by car brand then market directly to them.

I know in CA that was removed as an option when some lady was murdered by her mechanic, or something.

Just because tradition says that certain info IS on the public record doesn't mean that news outlets, websites etc...should publish it without some, oh I don't know current public need?

A couple of years ago my neighbor a semi-crippled lady was out of work for 3 months and got behind on her house payment and her mailbox, door and phones were being used by unemployed Realtors (sorry redundant) trying to get her to list her house. Yeah it was public record that she was behind but I had to nearly beat down several Realtors who would not leave her property without a threat. Century 21 had her on autodialer and called 24 times in 36 hours...they apparently have 24 hours to comply with each do not call request and can claim each office is both owned, operated and calling independently, even for people on the DNC list. And no my unemployed neighbor didn't have money to sue them...think about it.

News is no longer information it's a product with costs and potentially huge profit margins and the obvious trend is to maximize profits regardless of consequences to individuals.
 
2012-12-25 05:39:05 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: s2s2s2: Lenny_da_Hog: It's not my fault you're too stupid to understand a sentence more complex than you'd find in "Dick & Jane" books. The god was the subject of the sentence. Go ask your sixth-grade neighbor to explain it to you.

You are right. I skimmed and made a mistake. I went back and re-read it. Now I understand the point you were trying to make. I've corrected my mistake, you are still a dick.

I'm just a Rorschach blot. You're seeing your desires.


I desire dicks?


Huh.
 
2012-12-25 05:39:10 PM  

Lawnchair: Spanky McStupid: Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.

You live in the age of Google. This sentence no longer exists. "It's published but entirely uninteresting" is possible. "It's a public record but 'unpublished' and will remain so" is not.


Is the stupid tag for readers of an information aggregation site complaining about information being aggregated and published?

Seems ironic would have worked, too.
 
2012-12-25 05:49:36 PM  

utharda: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Indeed.  Lunatic's aside you'll find that Fairfield County Ct, right next to Westchester is incredibly safe.  Port Chester.... Not so much.   But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.


apparently you have considerable experience with jack off fantasies. how's the dating scene down there in your parent's basement?
 
2012-12-25 05:49:41 PM  

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]
NY Murder Map - 2010
[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]
New York legal gun map, 2012
Anyone notice any correlation here?
Any?


This may be the biggest mapping fail that I've ever seen.

You have a map of people registered to use guns in Westchester and Rockland counties and a map of murders committed in New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties). So your data sets don't even cover the same area.

Secondly, you're comparing absolute number of gun owners with per capita murders. You need per capita gun owners.

Are you a cartographer for Fox News?
www.properlychastised.com
 
2012-12-25 05:56:12 PM  
Since you're not guilty of anything, why should you mind your name being listed as a gun owner? You HAVEN'T done anything wrong, you know - just exercised your rights under the 2nd Amendment. You should be proud to see your name listed as a gun owner, since that helps make you a real American. (I think I read about that gun owner = American connection on the Fox News website. Or maybe it was the N.R.A.'s. I get them mixed up.)
And if the gun is properly secured, then a thief won't be able to find it, or at least won't be able to remove it from the property.
 
2012-12-25 06:00:06 PM  
So...

Everybody that thinks it's a good idea to publish the personal information on gun owners should also be in favor of open carry, rather than concealed carry then, right? I mean, after all... it's better just getting everything out in the open.
 
2012-12-25 06:05:20 PM  
I wouldn't care. It's public record. And I agree with the Fark headline.
 
2012-12-25 06:07:30 PM  

Krieghund: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]
NY Murder Map - 2010
[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]
New York legal gun map, 2012
Anyone notice any correlation here?
Any?

This may be the biggest mapping fail that I've ever seen.

You have a map of people registered to use guns in Westchester and Rockland counties and a map of murders committed in New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties). So your data sets don't even cover the same area.

Secondly, you're comparing absolute number of gun owners with per capita murders. You need per capita gun owners.

Are you a cartographer for Fox News?
[www.properlychastised.com image 500x366]


orsonwellesgolfclap.jpg
 
2012-12-25 06:13:58 PM  

Uisce Beatha: MerelyFoolish: I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.

Safes are great when preventing a smash and grab. A determined thief who knows he has time will either:
a) get into the safe (not hard - I did this to a DoD safe in under 15 minutes - and only went that slowly so I didn't catch the documents inside on fire):
[s3.amazonaws.com image 600x450]

b) carry off the safe and open it at his leisure - growing up, this happened to a friend's dad, while they were away on vacation. They lived in the sticks, and the robbers clearly came with a truck and the knowledge that they had time to ransack the place.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.

Shotgun under the bed? What happened to always having your guns in safes to keep thieves away from them?

3. Any burglar with any sense (a bit of an oxymoron) would look up their potential victims on the map published by the paper. I cannot imagine they would burglari ...


Regarding the safe - my gunsafes are much larger and stronger than that small safe in your picture. They might get in one of my gun safes in 2-3 hours in my home with the right tools, or they could get 6 guys to get it out of my basement if they had the proper lifts and trucks to haul it away. They would give up first.

And the shotgun under the bed is concealed so well you could look 5 times without seeing it. I know what I'm doing.
 
2012-12-25 06:14:29 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: And if the gun is properly secured, then a thief won't be able to find it, or at least won't be able to remove it from the property.


a) Love your dad
b) See previous comments above - no safe is infallible. So why publish their location? What purpose does it serve?
 
2012-12-25 06:22:26 PM  

Boudica's War Tampon: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 425x230]

The question is not whether you can own a gun...because you can.

What you can't do is own ANY gun you want. A gun is a commercial product. It can be regulated, controlled, recalled, restricted...just like any other commercial product.

I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you badMOUTH sensible gun restrictions. Gentlemen!


What does the word INFRINGE mean?
 
2012-12-25 06:24:49 PM  
Hmm, publishing names/addresses of gun owners. If this flies, why not publish names/ addresses of say, Food Stamp recipients. Might cut down on the gaming of the system by fraud.
 
2012-12-25 06:26:47 PM  

duffblue: MerelyFoolish: I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.

Wow.


See note above. My shotgun under the bed is concealed in an addition to the bed frame. If you look under the bed, you see only a bed frame with a large support on each side. If a thief decided to disassemble and steal a 400 lb bed frame, they would, in fact, find my shotgun. Probability is rather low there.

They'd probably say Wow

What is amazing to me is that a nutcase gives her nutcase sun access to a gun and immediately people yell "gun control". These people do not know that he could have walked into Wal-mart and bought a shotgun that would have done just as much - or more - damage than what he did with the rifle. And don't expect the shotguns to be limited at any time. You'd really piss of a bunch of folks if you outlawed duck guns.
 
2012-12-25 06:29:46 PM  

moonscatter: So, if you're ever in Houston, I'd love to feed you good food and drinkies.


Well, thanks. I may be very pro-2a and spend a lot of time defending it, but I'm also very Pro-safety, which is why I'm all in favor of training, safety standards for storage, and so on. Too many dick-nosed cheese weasels manage to get their hands on guns without knowing what the hell they're doing, and while i defend their right to own such items, I also defend MY right to make sure that they have to spend some time being taught how to use them before they do buy.

Also, while I recognize that accidents happen, I think improper handling or storage should earn people a "time out" from being able to own guns. In IPSC and IDPA, if I screw up and do something unsafe, whether because I'm a bonehead or because I make a legitimate mistake (trip, fall, drop my gun, for example), that's not a penalty or "hey, it's okay". It's a "yep, bad mistake, now go home and think about it, you're done." Not because the person is bad, but because such things are a hazard and needs to be handled RIGHT NOW.
 
2012-12-25 06:31:53 PM  

MerelyFoolish: Uisce Beatha: MerelyFoolish: I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

1. My guns are locked in safes. If someone breaks in my house, they can get the television, the inexpensive jewelry, the silver, etc., but my guns will never end up in the hands of criminals. My guns are also safe from my son and daughter's friends who might get curious when visiting. All gun owners should be responsible and accountable for keeping their guns away from thieves and children. While I am sorry that the whacko in CT's mother was killed, she should have been more responsible with her guns.

Safes are great when preventing a smash and grab. A determined thief who knows he has time will either:
a) get into the safe (not hard - I did this to a DoD safe in under 15 minutes - and only went that slowly so I didn't catch the documents inside on fire):
[s3.amazonaws.com image 600x450]

b) carry off the safe and open it at his leisure - growing up, this happened to a friend's dad, while they were away on vacation. They lived in the sticks, and the robbers clearly came with a truck and the knowledge that they had time to ransack the place.

2. The handgun I keep loaded and ready to use is in a separate lockbox that i can access in about 3 seconds from my bed. The lockbox also holds the buckshot for the shotgun under the bed - my weapon of choice for home protection if I have time to load it. Will I ever need to use it? Highly probable that I will not. But the number of home invasions where I live continue to increase, and no one will every rape or kill anyone in my household. We have an excellent police force where I live, but they are very good at solving crimes, not preventing them.

Shotgun under the bed? What happened to always having your guns in safes to keep thieves away from them?

3. Any burglar with any sense (a bit of an oxymoron) would look up their potential victims on the map published by the paper. I cannot imagine they ...


The gunsafe I have in my home is bolted to an 8" thick slab of concrete with two-inch spikes. It took four guys and a 3-ton winch to get it into the basement and placed. It is fire rated, water tight, and such that unless you brought a thermal lance, thermite, or some kind of explosive with you, you'd probably take a few days trying to bust it open, and I'm sure that I'd find you before then. Plus, you know, webcam surveillance so I can keep an eye on it from work.
 
2012-12-25 06:34:40 PM  
Also, as a side note, guns make it very hard for rapists to rape:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/Local%20News/110812AlcaldeKilling#.U N o3urZrSoF
 
2012-12-25 06:40:04 PM  

Huck And Molly Ziegler: Since you're not guilty of anything, why should you mind your name being listed as a gun owner? You HAVEN'T done anything wrong, you know - just exercised your rights under the 2nd Amendment. You should be proud to see your name listed as a gun owner, since that helps make you a real American. (I think I read about that gun owner = American connection on the Fox News website. Or maybe it was the N.R.A.'s. I get them mixed up.)
And if the gun is properly secured, then a thief won't be able to find it, or at least won't be able to remove it from the property.


i know... it's not like anyone ever broke into a safe or anything...  i mean you can't just look up how on the internet or anything.
 
2012-12-25 06:47:30 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: RexTalionis: tenpoundsofcheese: RexTalionis: Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.

sure.
just like you can go to a court house and find the names of everyone on trial and the charges against them - you can publish that too.

I don't get your point. 1) That's false, not all names are released (for instance, minors), and 2) so what? Isn't that what newspapers do?

I am under no delusion that I have an expectation of privacy in my public records.

The point is ease of access.
I doubt that newspapers publish the list of every adult who is charged with a crime and the details of that crime.
Much less do they create a nice interactive tool that, I don't know, people who are hiring people could look at in their free time
(although of course they would never make a decision based on what they read)

Are the resumes and job applications of people who apply for federal jobs considered public information?  If so, is there a searchable database for all that info?


Actually, I have made hiring decisions based on whether or not an applicant has a concealed carry permit. That is about the cheapest security check around. I sure wouldn't hire someone to handle money who couldn't qualify. Of course I live in a free state where we have citizens, not residents.
 
2012-12-25 06:47:35 PM  
 
2012-12-25 06:47:48 PM  

snuff3r: NewportBarGuy: Do something about the laws that allow the info to be pubic record..


So does that mean pictures of their genitals were published as well?
 
2012-12-25 06:49:22 PM  

Kit Fister: moonscatter: So, if you're ever in Houston, I'd love to feed you good food and drinkies.

Well, thanks. I may be very pro-2a and spend a lot of time defending it, but I'm also very Pro-safety, which is why I'm all in favor of training, safety standards for storage, and so on. Too many dick-nosed cheese weasels manage to get their hands on guns without knowing what the hell they're doing, and while i defend their right to own such items, I also defend MY right to make sure that they have to spend some time being taught how to use them before they do buy.

Also, while I recognize that accidents happen, I think improper handling or storage should earn people a "time out" from being able to own guns. In IPSC and IDPA, if I screw up and do something unsafe, whether because I'm a bonehead or because I make a legitimate mistake (trip, fall, drop my gun, for example), that's not a penalty or "hey, it's okay". It's a "yep, bad mistake, now go home and think about it, you're done." Not because the person is bad, but because such things are a hazard and needs to be handled RIGHT NOW.


You make some thoughtful points, but for egregiou driving violations, they have to fo remedial eork. Why not similar to re-train gun dingies?
 
2012-12-25 06:52:24 PM  

moonscatter: Kit Fister: moonscatter: So, if you're ever in Houston, I'd love to feed you good food and drinkies.

Well, thanks. I may be very pro-2a and spend a lot of time defending it, but I'm also very Pro-safety, which is why I'm all in favor of training, safety standards for storage, and so on. Too many dick-nosed cheese weasels manage to get their hands on guns without knowing what the hell they're doing, and while i defend their right to own such items, I also defend MY right to make sure that they have to spend some time being taught how to use them before they do buy.

Also, while I recognize that accidents happen, I think improper handling or storage should earn people a "time out" from being able to own guns. In IPSC and IDPA, if I screw up and do something unsafe, whether because I'm a bonehead or because I make a legitimate mistake (trip, fall, drop my gun, for example), that's not a penalty or "hey, it's okay". It's a "yep, bad mistake, now go home and think about it, you're done." Not because the person is bad, but because such things are a hazard and needs to be handled RIGHT NOW.

You make some thoughtful points, but for egregiou driving violations, they have to fo remedial eork. Why not similar to re-train gun dingies?


O.o   what language is that?
 
2012-12-25 06:57:50 PM  

moonscatter: Kit Fister: moonscatter: So, if you're ever in Houston, I'd love to feed you good food and drinkies.

Well, thanks. I may be very pro-2a and spend a lot of time defending it, but I'm also very Pro-safety, which is why I'm all in favor of training, safety standards for storage, and so on. Too many dick-nosed cheese weasels manage to get their hands on guns without knowing what the hell they're doing, and while i defend their right to own such items, I also defend MY right to make sure that they have to spend some time being taught how to use them before they do buy.

Also, while I recognize that accidents happen, I think improper handling or storage should earn people a "time out" from being able to own guns. In IPSC and IDPA, if I screw up and do something unsafe, whether because I'm a bonehead or because I make a legitimate mistake (trip, fall, drop my gun, for example), that's not a penalty or "hey, it's okay". It's a "yep, bad mistake, now go home and think about it, you're done." Not because the person is bad, but because such things are a hazard and needs to be handled RIGHT NOW.

You make some thoughtful points, but for egregiou driving violations, they have to fo remedial eork. Why not similar to re-train gun dingies?


Depending on the reason we're giving them a grounding...I'd be okay with that. Remembering back to some of the damn-near-fatally unsafe shiat some people do, not just with firearms, I'm OK with banning them from ownership for life, with criminal negligence charges.
 
2012-12-25 06:58:17 PM  
It's a symptom of the overall pussification of society. These namby-pamby frustrated do-gooders are ruining everything for everybody.

When's the last time you could:

1. Smoke
2. Own a gun
3. Have just one rubbish bin.
4. Appreciate an office girl's rack
5. Throw away job applications with funny names
6. Drive home stone drunk
7. Beat your kids
8. Use the cripple parking spots since they're empty anyway
9. Buy a normal light bulb like your dad, and his dad before him.
10. Enjoy the benefits of Jus Primae Noctis
 
2012-12-25 07:10:24 PM  

utah dude: computerguyUT: England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They

does that go for culinary knives, too?


Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.
 
2012-12-25 07:15:57 PM  

Krieghund: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]
NY Murder Map - 2010
[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]
New York legal gun map, 2012
Anyone notice any correlation here?
Any?

This may be the biggest mapping fail that I've ever seen.

You have a map of people registered to use guns in Westchester and Rockland counties and a map of murders committed in New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties). So your data sets don't even cover the same area.

Secondly, you're comparing absolute number of gun owners with per capita murders. You need per capita gun owners.



Hey, I pulled up what was quick and handy, and it makes the point: Murder rates DROP where more guns are LEGALLY in the hands of private citizens.

img405.imageshack.us

Here's an overlay compiled by utah dude [thanks].

If you want to try to dredge up data that will support an alternative view, go for it.

Otherwise have a Merry Christmas.
 
2012-12-25 07:28:18 PM  
IMHO it's bullshiat that sex offender lists are public information. bullshiat. you get arrested, you do your time and that's that. we all know there are people on that list because of pissing in the park or an 18yr old having consensual sex with the 17yr old. fark that.
 
2012-12-25 07:34:02 PM  

KrispyKritter: IMHO it's bullshiat that sex offender lists are public information. bullshiat. you get arrested, you do your time and that's that. we all know there are people on that list because of pissing in the park or an 18yr old having consensual sex with the 17yr old. fark that.


There are also people on that list for rape raping little children.  The problem is with the application of the "sex offender" registry.  It should not be a general purpose "it involves genitalia" list which is what it seems to be now.  Fix the list, then list only the actual perverts.  That I would have no problem with.
 
2012-12-25 07:38:02 PM  

GT_bike: Auto mechanics used to be able to go the DMV and get public records of car owners by car brand then market directly to them.

I know in CA that was removed as an option when some lady was murdered by her mechanic, or something.

Just because tradition says that certain info IS on the public record doesn't mean that news outlets, websites etc...should publish it without some, oh I don't know current public need?

A couple of years ago my neighbor a semi-crippled lady was out of work for 3 months and got behind on her house payment and her mailbox, door and phones were being used by unemployed Realtors (sorry redundant) trying to get her to list her house. Yeah it was public record that she was behind but I had to nearly beat down several Realtors who would not leave her property without a threat. Century 21 had her on autodialer and called 24 times in 36 hours...they apparently have 24 hours to comply with each do not call request and can claim each office is both owned, operated and calling independently, even for people on the DNC list. And no my unemployed neighbor didn't have money to sue them...think about it.

News is no longer information it's a product with costs and potentially huge profit margins and the obvious trend is to maximize profits regardless of consequences to individuals.


Americann law Cavour's corporations due to lobbying. It's the only NATO country where you can telemarket to people on do not call lists and where spam is still legal.
 
2012-12-25 07:43:36 PM  

letrole: It's a symptom of the overall pussification of society. These namby-pamby frustrated do-gooders are ruining everything for everybody.

When's the last time you could:

3. Have just one rubbish bin.


You call it a "rubbish bin." Clearly, you have been pussified.
 
2012-12-25 07:48:26 PM  

moonscatter: Kit Fister:
You make some thoughtful points, but for egregiou driving violations, they have to fo remedial eork. Why not similar to re-train gun dingies?


I'd actually be ok with this, and have some serious misgivings about folks who weren't willing to at least consider this idea

Kit Fister: The gunsafe I have in my home is bolted to an 8" thick slab of concrete with two-inch spikes. It took four guys and a 3-ton winch to get it into the basement and placed. It is fire rated, water tight, and such that unless you brought a thermal lance, thermite, or some kind of explosive with you, you'd probably take a few days trying to bust it open, and I'm sure that I'd find you before then. Plus, you know, webcam surveillance so I can keep an eye on it from work.


Fair enough. I'm also one of the few folks who has a plasma torch sitting in his garage, so I may be overly pessimistic regarding the durability of safes. However, you have to admit, your setup is not the norm - and while I think it is great, I don't necessarily think it should be the requirement, either, mostly as it would make prevent gun ownership by the poor.
 
2012-12-25 07:49:26 PM  

ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.


my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.
 
2012-12-25 07:50:16 PM  

IamSoSmart_S_M_R_T: moonscatter: No, the absolute opposite should be true. If the gun owners are not home the guns should be in a secure safe, not in a bedroom dresser drawer. Any gun stolen in a theft that was not provably in a safe should result in criminal charges against the owners regardless of a red dot on a newspaper map (ie for those who are identified and those who are not)

So, my house gets broken in to and guns are stolen. So now, even though my rights and homestead have been violated, I'M facing criminal charges because some asshat broke the law by illegally entering my house and stealing my property? Seriously? How very British of you, blaming the victim and all.

moonscatter: See, when your house is broken into, you call the cops. And tell them what was stolen. And if the guns werent in the safe you are now personally responsible for guns being in the hands of criminals.

So now the burden of proof is on the victim? How do you propose the victim PROVE they had the guns locked up? What about homeowners who leave their car keys sitting out, which the thief then uses to steal the homeowner's car and kill innocent bystanders as he flees from the crime scene? I suppose the homeowner should be strung up for that one too, right? The logic of your argument escapes me, probably because there is no logic at work.


The safe being cut open is presumably a clue. If you have a problem remembering to secure a firearm then you should not own such a dangerous item.
 
2012-12-25 07:51:37 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.


I agree. All gun advertising should be banned, and gun store signs.
 
2012-12-25 07:53:50 PM  

david_gaithersburg:


You have the wrong crowd ... Ben Franklin invented the concept of open sourcing IP and Jefferson was an atheist.
 
2012-12-25 07:55:34 PM  

Amos Quito: Here's an overlay compiled by utah dude [thanks].

If you want to try to dredge up data that will support an alternative view, go for it.

Otherwise have a Merry Christmas.


we need to do the map nationwide, plot both sets of data then divide-skew both sets of data (the guns and the crime) by local population density. my guess is that after all this population density determines crime more than registered gun ownership. send me jpegs and i'll get crazy in pshop.
 
2012-12-25 08:01:45 PM  

moonscatter: But I still maintain painting them all hot pink will help!


I'd be okay with this. The only thing that matters to me is how well the firearms function, and the color would have no effect on function. Making them all pink would probably cut down on the imbeciles who want a gun to make themselves feel tough, an idea I heartily support. It would still leave a couple hundred million non-pink firearms available for at least the next three decades, however.

Your jib. I like the cut of it.
 
2012-12-25 08:05:05 PM  

utah dude: ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.

my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.


I am really sure this isn't true ... I will buy a couple of knives this week in Scotland and see.
 
2012-12-25 08:15:26 PM  
The names and addresses of pretty much everyone are available (easily) online.

A few people, rich people or famous people, have thought about how to avoid this happening.  So do some gun owners.

But in general, much is public record:  when you buy real property, whether you dwell in it, when you sell it and the like.  For $5 I can have your license plate number reveal your address.  For $10 in most states, I can get a copy of your birth certificate.

If I wished to, I could run a newspaper and publish all that information.  Personally, I think it's too bad all our addresses (nearly all) are so available (that is, if you have an address of your own), but that's the way it is.
 
2012-12-25 08:18:32 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: Kit Fister:
You make some thoughtful points, but for egregiou driving violations, they have to fo remedial eork. Why not similar to re-train gun dingies?

I'd actually be ok with this, and have some serious misgivings about folks who weren't willing to at least consider this idea

Kit Fister: The gunsafe I have in my home is bolted to an 8" thick slab of concrete with two-inch spikes. It took four guys and a 3-ton winch to get it into the basement and placed. It is fire rated, water tight, and such that unless you brought a thermal lance, thermite, or some kind of explosive with you, you'd probably take a few days trying to bust it open, and I'm sure that I'd find you before then. Plus, you know, webcam surveillance so I can keep an eye on it from work.

Fair enough. I'm also one of the few folks who has a plasma torch sitting in his garage, so I may be overly pessimistic regarding the durability of safes. However, you have to admit, your setup is not the norm - and while I think it is great, I don't necessarily think it should be the requirement, either, mostly as it would make prevent gun ownership by the poor.


Wow, so you're socialist as to guns?  Fascinating.  Certainly there's nothing in the second amendment that guarantees gun ownership, regardless of income.

Think about the poor babies - the ones who get shot by all those guns that aren't kept safely...think about the babbies!
 
2012-12-25 08:22:34 PM  

GT_bike: Auto mechanics used to be able to go the DMV and get public records of car owners by car brand then market directly to them.

I know in CA that was removed as an option when some lady was murdered by her mechanic, or something.

Just because tradition says that certain info IS on the public record doesn't mean that news outlets, websites etc...should publish it without some, oh I don't know current public need?

A couple of years ago my neighbor a semi-crippled lady was out of work for 3 months and got behind on her house payment and her mailbox, door and phones were being used by unemployed Realtors (sorry redundant) trying to get her to list her house. Yeah it was public record that she was behind but I had to nearly beat down several Realtors who would not leave her property without a threat. Century 21 had her on autodialer and called 24 times in 36 hours...they apparently have 24 hours to comply with each do not call request and can claim each office is both owned, operated and calling independently, even for people on the DNC list. And no my unemployed neighbor didn't have money to sue them...think about it.

News is no longer information it's a product with costs and potentially huge profit margins and the obvious trend is to maximize profits regardless of consequences to individuals.


So how do you feel about the immense lists of information about your internet whereabouts being circulated privately among hundreds of corporations?

Who decides "public" need?

Where I live, if you are at all famous, every real estate transaction you enter into will be reported in a newspaper and probably on a thousand blogs.  Even if you try to use a dummy corporation, someone is going to notice what you're up to.  That all becomes "public" even though it's not "publicly available" gubermint info.
 
2012-12-25 08:28:47 PM  

Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: Kit Fister:
You make some thoughtful points, but for egregiou driving violations, they have to fo remedial eork. Why not similar to re-train gun dingies?

I'd actually be ok with this, and have some serious misgivings about folks who weren't willing to at least consider this idea

Kit Fister: The gunsafe I have in my home is bolted to an 8" thick slab of concrete with two-inch spikes. It took four guys and a 3-ton winch to get it into the basement and placed. It is fire rated, water tight, and such that unless you brought a thermal lance, thermite, or some kind of explosive with you, you'd probably take a few days trying to bust it open, and I'm sure that I'd find you before then. Plus, you know, webcam surveillance so I can keep an eye on it from work.

Fair enough. I'm also one of the few folks who has a plasma torch sitting in his garage, so I may be overly pessimistic regarding the durability of safes. However, you have to admit, your setup is not the norm - and while I think it is great, I don't necessarily think it should be the requirement, either, mostly as it would make prevent gun ownership by the poor.


I went overboard. Simple safes you can bolt to the floor are around $150, so cheap enough you can buy one fairly easily, and they come predrilled for lag bolts to secure it to the floor.
 
2012-12-25 08:29:47 PM  

NannyStatePark: david_gaithersburg: Pav: david_gaithersburg: Pav: Public records are public! Oh the horror!  ...

Not as stupid as using your real name on Fark, but close.


Whether to restrict gun licensee data from publication or release under state public records laws has been the subject of proposed legislation in a number of states in the last ten years.  Here in blue OR, the leg passed HB 4045-B in 2012.  It prohibits most access to the licensee data, with exceptions such as for law enforcement and crime victims.  A lot of the gun-friendly rural D's supported it, and the only ones against were a few D's from Portland, Ashland etc.  The D governor did not try to veto it.

It is hard to find someone more supportive of press freedoms than 4ts but FWIW he thinks laws like HB 4045-B are good policy.  Hard issue like all info privacy issues in the age of the network.
 
2012-12-25 08:29:56 PM  

ParaHandy: Uisce Beatha: moonscatter: I'm aware safes can be broken into, that, however does not excuse not using one.

Note I suggested no such thing, and lock my weapons up as well.

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.

I agree. All gun advertising should be banned, and gun store signs.


Oh, it's you again.
 
2012-12-25 08:31:11 PM  

ParaHandy: utah dude: ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.

my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.

I am really sure this isn't true ... I will buy a couple of knives this week in Scotland and see.


May you be arrested for possession of an unregistered butter knife.
 
2012-12-25 08:33:16 PM  

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Wow, so you're socialist as to guns? Fascinating. Certainly there's nothing in the second amendment that guarantees gun ownership, regardless of income.


Socialist? inigomontoya.jpg I do, however, think that there should not be a bunch of expensive hurdles placed in the way of gun ownership - all that does is make self protection the realm of the wealthy only, and that is not right.

Kit Fister: I went overboard. Simple safes you can bolt to the floor are around $150, so cheap enough you can buy one fairly easily, and they come predrilled for lag bolts to secure it to the floor.


I am jealous of your ability to go overboard. I had to settle for one of the simple ones, knowing full well that it prevents kids from getting at weapons, but not determined thieves.
 
2012-12-25 08:43:43 PM  

Uisce Beatha: Atypical Person Reading Fark: Wow, so you're socialist as to guns? Fascinating. Certainly there's nothing in the second amendment that guarantees gun ownership, regardless of income.

Socialist? inigomontoya.jpg I do, however, think that there should not be a bunch of expensive hurdles placed in the way of gun ownership - all that does is make self protection the realm of the wealthy only, and that is not right.

Kit Fister: I went overboard. Simple safes you can bolt to the floor are around $150, so cheap enough you can buy one fairly easily, and they come predrilled for lag bolts to secure it to the floor.

I am jealous of your ability to go overboard. I had to settle for one of the simple ones, knowing full well that it prevents kids from getting at weapons, but not determined thieves.


Well as mentioned, I'm also a gunsmith and work with a few FFLs, so, it lowers my liability to have a super secure vault.

Were I going to do something just for myself, I would probably go the route of home building it a little. By that, I mean buying a lesser safe, frame up a box around the safe after setting it in with anchor bolts, pack plastic and insulation around it along with heavy duty steel grating material, then pour concrete into the box/form to encase all but the doors.

You can also buy just safe doors fairly cheaply, and if you own your home, you could simply do the above sans safe, make the walls eight inches to a foot thick, and hang the vault door on it. Permanent, built in, and secure. Add in a steel door with good locks between your main floor and where your safe is, keep it locked, and I doubt burglars are going to spend a lot of time trying to find it to get into.
 
2012-12-25 08:47:19 PM  

Amos Quito: Krieghund: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]
NY Murder Map - 2010
[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]
New York legal gun map, 2012
Anyone notice any correlation here?
Any?

This may be the biggest mapping fail that I've ever seen.

You have a map of people registered to use guns in Westchester and Rockland counties and a map of murders committed in New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties). So your data sets don't even cover the same area.

Secondly, you're comparing absolute number of gun owners with per capita murders. You need per capita gun owners.


Hey, I pulled up what was quick and handy, and it makes the point: Murder rates DROP where more guns are LEGALLY in the hands of private citizens.

[img405.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Here's an overlay compiled by utah dude [thanks].

If you want to try to dredge up data that will support an alternative view, go for it.

Otherwise have a Merry Christmas.


It doesn't make that point at all. Not well. It's not a scientific map whatsoever. For one thing, it posits that there is only one legally owned gun in ALL of Brooklyn.

Is it a communal gun? Do they pass it around when they need to shoot pheasants or protect their places of occupation from marauding scalliwags?
 
2012-12-25 08:53:39 PM  

utah dude: Amos Quito: Here's an overlay compiled by utah dude [thanks].

If you want to try to dredge up data that will support an alternative view, go for it.

Otherwise have a Merry Christmas.

we need to do the map nationwide, plot both sets of data then divide-skew both sets of data (the guns and the crime) by local population density. my guess is that after all this population density determines crime more than registered gun ownership. send me jpegs and i'll get crazy in pshop.



That would mean mapping all registered gun owners and all murder (and other crime) rates across the US, the former task being far more formidable.

I'm betting that with a few flattering, kiss-ass letters and emails we can get the author of TFA to create the gun map for us.

;-)
 
2012-12-25 08:55:03 PM  

Atypical Person Reading Fark: The names and addresses of pretty much everyone are available (easily) online.


True, but there are millions of people.
What you want isn't just a random name or address, but a reason to pay that person a visit.
This paper did the equivalent of saying "Here is a list of all the people who just got a new flat screen TV" or "Here's some folks who keep a few thousand dollars in their house".

Why would any normal person need to know that?
Why air an article to air peoples information?

Its bad enough that there was a list, things are worse now that people know which door to stop at.
 
2012-12-25 08:56:30 PM  

ParaHandy: utah dude: ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.

my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.

I am really sure this isn't true ... I will buy a couple of knives this week in Scotland and see.


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation

Based on this, it's completely asinine. And you want us to be more like this? hell no. Quoting:

The 1689 Bill of Rights ensured that only Parliament and not the King could restrict the right of the people to bear arms. Over the last 60 years, Parliament has enacted a series of increasingly restrictive laws and acts regarding the possession and use of knives and bladed tools. The United Kingdom (to include England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) has one of the most comprehensive set of laws of any developed nation governing an individual's right to import, purchase, possess, sell, and carry knives.[31]

Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (amended 1961) (ROWA), prohibits the importation, sale, hire, lending, or gift of certain types of knives in England, Wales, and Scotland as of 13 June 1959[32][33] under Section 1:

(1) Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire or lends or gives to any other person-
(a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a flick knife or "flick gun"; or
(b) any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force and which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever, or other device, sometimes known as a gravity knife,
shall be guilty of an offence [...][32][33]
Subsection 2 also makes it illegal to import knives of this type as of 13 June 1959.[32] The above legislation criminalizes the conduct of the original owner or transferor of an automatic-opening or gravity knife, not the new owner or transferee; in addition, the statute does not criminalize possession of such knives other than possession for the purpose of sale or hire. It is therefore not illegal per se to merely possess such a knife, though the difficulties of acquiring one without violating the statute makes it (almost) impossible to obtain one without either committing or abetting an offence. Furthermore, in the UK it is customary for the Metropolitan Police, not a barrister to be consulted as legal experts on a question of whether a given knife is to be considered illegal under existing under UK knife laws, and this has resulted in a tendency to interpret any bladed object of questionable status as falling within the definition of a prohibited knife.[34]

Criminal Justice Act 1988

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 mainly relates to carrying knives in public places, Section 139 being the most important:

(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
(3) This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.
(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
The definition of "public place" is unsettled, but can loosely be defined as anywhere the public have a legitimate right to be whether this access is paid for or not, which could include any populated area within the United Kingdom, including one's motor vehicle, which is defined by law as a 'public place' unless parked on private property. In a remote or otherwise unpopulated area, a public place could include: 1) an organised wilderness gathering or event; 2) a National Park; 3) Forestry Commission land that is held open to the public; 4) public footpaths; 5) bridleways; and 6) any area where an individual does not need to ask specific permission to walk, camp, or travel from a landowner.[35]

The phrase "good reason or lawful authority" in Subsection 4 is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Subsection 5 gives some specific examples of bona fide reasons: a knife for use at work (e.g. a chef's knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh for the Scottish national costume), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan). However, even these specific statutory exceptions have proven unavailing to knife owners at times.[36] It is important to note that that "good reason or lawful authority" exceptions may be difficult to establish for those not using a knife in the course of their trade or profession, but merely because the knife is needed in case of emergency or for occasional utility use.[37][38][39] A person on holiday and travelling by motor vehicle in the UK might well be obliged to purchase a knife at their destination, rather than risk prosecution if one is found by the police during a routine traffic stop or checkpoint.[37][38][39][40]

Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed, an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a "good reason or lawful authority" for carrying a knife (if this is the case) upon being detained. While this may appear to be a reversal of the usual burden of proof, technically the prosecution has already proven the case (prima facie) by establishing that a knife was being carried in a public place (see Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 on Knives, etc.; New powers to tackle gun and knife crime)

As the burden of proving "good reason or lawful authority" lies with the defendant, it is likely that an individual detained and searched by the police will need to prove the following (sometimes known as the THIS list): Has THIS person got permission; to use THIS article (knife); for THIS use; on THIS land; and by THIS land owner.[35]

The special exception which exists in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Sec. 139) for folding knives (pocket knives) is another "common sense" measure accepting that some small knives are carried for general utility; however, even a folding pocket knife or multi-tool equipped with a blade of less than 3 inches (76 mm) may still be considered an offensive weapon if it has a locking blade.[38][41] It is a common belief that a folding pocket knife with a blade of 3 inches (76mm) or less must have a locking blade to be considered an offensive weapon, but the wording of the Criminal Justice Act does not mention locking and the matter becomes a question as to the definition of "folding pocket knife". In the Crown Court appeal of Harris v. DPP (1992)[38] and the Court of Appeal case of 'R. v Deegan (1998)[42] the ruling that 'folding' was intended to mean 'non-locking' was upheld. As the only higher court in England and Wales to the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court, the only way the decision in R. v. Deegan could be overturned is by a dissenting ruling by the Supreme Court or by Act of Parliament.

In Scotland, the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 1995 prevents the carrying of 'offensive weapons', including knives and other articles with blades or points in public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Other relevant Scotland knife legislation includes the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons Act) (Scotland), Order 2005 which bans sword canes, push daggers, butterfly (balisong knives), throwing stars, knives that can defeat metal detectors, and knives disguised as other objects, and the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 which makes it an offence to sell a knife, knife blade, or bladed or pointed object to a person under eighteen years of age, unless the person is sixteen or older and the knife or blade is "designed for domestic use." In 2007, the passage of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 allowed exemption from criminal liability under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Scotland) for selling a prohibited offensive weapon if the sale was made for purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances, the production of films (as defined in section 5B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)), or the production of television programmes (as defined in section 405(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)).

Offensive Weapons Act 1996

The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 covers the possession of knives within school premises:

(1) Any person who has an article to which section 139 of this Act applies with him on school premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who has an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the M1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 with him on school premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon with him on the premises in question.
(4) (Subsection 4 gives the same specific exceptions as subsection 139(5) with the addition of "for educational purposes". This would appear to imply that all legislation on knives in public applies similarly to school premises, and therefore a folding pocket knife under 3 inches (76mm) in length would be considered legal.)
The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 imposes an age restriction on the sale of knives:

(1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of sixteen years an article to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence [...]
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to-
(a) any knife, knife blade or razor blade...[43]
In Scotland, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 makes it an offence to sell knives to someone under 18 years of age (including any blade, razor blade, any bladed or pointed article, or any item made or adapted for causing personal injury.)

Knives Act 1997

The Knives Act 1997 prohibits the sale of combat knives and restricts the marketing of knives as offensive weapons.

Prevention of Crime Act 1953

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.[44] The term "offensive weapon" is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

Under the Prevention of Crime Act, otherwise 'exempt' knives carried for "good reason or lawful authority" may be still deemed illegal if authorities conclude the knife is being carried as an "offensive weapon". In recent years, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 has been reinterpreted by police and public prosecutors, who have persuaded the courts to minimize exceptions to prosecution on the grounds that the defendant had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" in order to apply the Act to a wide variety of cases.[45] This new approach now includes prosecution of citizens who have admitted carrying a knife for the sole purpose of self-defence (in the eyes of the law, this is presently viewed as an admission that the defendant intends to use the knife as an "offensive weapon", albeit in a defensive manner, and in otherwise justifiable circumstances).[46] While the onus lies on the officer to prove offensive intent, UK prosecutors and courts have in the past taken the appearance and the marketing of a particular brand of knife into account when considering whether an otherwise legal knife was being carried as an offensive weapon. In addition, the Knives Act 1997 now prohibits the sale of combat knives and restricts the marketing of knives as offensive weapons. A knife which is marketed as "tactical", "military", "special ops", etc. could therefore carry an extra liability. Even when the knife in question appears relatively innocuous (blade length not exceeding three inches, non-locking blade), there is the perception that anyone carrying a knife in a public place is well advised to take steps to place the knife in question out of their immediate control, i.e. storing the knife when on foot or when using public transit in the bottom of a rucksack, not on the belt, in the pocket, or around the neck, and while traveling in a privately-owned motor vehicle, by placing the knife in locked storage in the vehicle boot, not in the glove compartment or in the seating area.[47][48]

Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act 2007

Further legislation in Scotland, known as the Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act 2007, is now in effect (certain parts of this Act came into force on 10 September 2007). This legislation amends the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and makes it compulsory to possess a local authority license to sell knives, swords and blades (other than those designed for 'domestic use'), or to sell any sharply pointed or bladed object "which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person." Any dealer in non-domestic knives will be required to hold a 'knife dealer's licence'.

Northern Ireland

The laws restricting knife ownership, use, possession and sale are nearly identical to the laws of Scotland and the rest of the UK, though contained in different acts.[49] In 2008, in response to a surge in public concern over knife-related crimes, Northern Ireland doubled the prison sentence for persons convicted of possessing a knife deemed to be an offensive weapon in a public place to four years' imprisonment, and added an evidentiary presumption in favour of prosecution for possession of a knife.[50]

Summary

In recent years, laws criminalising knife possession in the United Kingdom have been strictly interpreted and applied by police and prosecutors to citizens and foreigners alike of all ages and backgrounds, even where the evidence supporting the crime is in doubt.[45][51] This development, combined with increasingly frequent application of such laws to marginal or inadvertent offenders by the police and the public prosecutor[38][52][53] can easily result in an arrest and a criminal charge in the event a person carrying a folding knife, scissors, plastic knife, multi-tool, or bladed object is detained and searched, and the defendant may have to wait weeks or months for a trial or other disposition of his case by the public prosecutor.[37][51][54][55][56][57][58][59] HM Customs officials in the Customs Inspection unit at the Mount Pleasant Postal Depot in London, aware of the steadily narrowing interpretation of what constitutes a legal knife in England and Wales, have begun confiscating knives imported through the mail, going so far as to individually test otherwise legal locking and non-locking[60] bladed pocket knives to see if they can be made to open their blades to the fully opened position with a practised "double-action of the wrist"; those that open fully and thus fail the 'test' are confiscated and destroyed as illegal 'gravity knives' under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.[61]

Paradoxically, the acknowledged failure of previously-enacted anti-knife legislation in reducing the number of violent crimes involving a knife[62] has led to demands for even stricter measures.[63][64] The likelihood of being detained and searched by the police in the United Kingdom depends frequently upon circumstances and the policies of the local constabulary, but is more likely to occur in areas noted for incidents of random assault and violent crime, where an individual encounters the police in the course of an investigation of a criminal complaint involving a knife, during vehicle stop-and-search operations at police checkpoints,[65] or where the police are conducting mass searches of the public at large in so-called dispersal zones as part of knife crime crackdown operations under Section 60 of the Public Order Act.[38][55][56][66][67][68]
 
2012-12-25 08:57:29 PM  

ParaHandy: utah dude: ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.

my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.

I am really sure this isn't true ... I will buy a couple of knives this week in Scotland and see.



No true Scotsman would do such a thing.
 
2012-12-25 09:02:22 PM  
Whenever some pants-wetter thinks "I'll show them!" something stupid like this is going to happen. I think most permit owners realize it's public knowledge but never expect it to be plastered across the news.

Really, the best thing to do at this point is just have separate societies and gated communities; one for gun owners and armed teachers and armed police officers and one without. Let the handwringers who don't trust themselves with guns live in their own towns without them.
 
2012-12-25 09:05:45 PM  

way south: Atypical Person Reading Fark: The names and addresses of pretty much everyone are available (easily) online.

True, but there are millions of people.
What you want isn't just a random name or address, but a reason to pay that person a visit.
This paper did the equivalent of saying "Here is a list of all the people who just got a new flat screen TV" or "Here's some folks who keep a few thousand dollars in their house".

Why would any normal person need to know that?
Why air an article to air peoples information?

Its bad enough that there was a list, things are worse now that people know which door to stop at.



Or rather, NOT to stop at.

I would hope that any would-be criminal that is smart enough to read this map is also smart enough not to enter abodes where he is likely to exit under the care of the coroner.
 
2012-12-25 09:05:57 PM  

Delectatio Morosa: Whenever some pants-wetter thinks "I'll show them!" something stupid like this is going to happen. I think most permit owners realize it's public knowledge but never expect it to be plastered across the news.

Really, the best thing to do at this point is just have separate societies and gated communities; one for gun owners and armed teachers and armed police officers and one without. Let the handwringers who don't trust themselves with guns live in their own towns without them.


I think that's happened already with NYC and Chicago.
 
2012-12-25 09:09:48 PM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: Amos Quito: Krieghund: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]
NY Murder Map - 2010
[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]
New York legal gun map, 2012
Anyone notice any correlation here?
Any?

This may be the biggest mapping fail that I've ever seen.

You have a map of people registered to use guns in Westchester and Rockland counties and a map of murders committed in New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties). So your data sets don't even cover the same area.

Secondly, you're comparing absolute number of gun owners with per capita murders. You need per capita gun owners.


Hey, I pulled up what was quick and handy, and it makes the point: Murder rates DROP where more guns are LEGALLY in the hands of private citizens.

[img405.imageshack.us image 640x480]

Here's an overlay compiled by utah dude [thanks].

If you want to try to dredge up data that will support an alternative view, go for it.

Otherwise have a Merry Christmas.

It doesn't make that point at all. Not well. It's not a scientific map whatsoever. For one thing, it posits that there is only one legally owned gun in ALL of Brooklyn.

Is it a communal gun? Do they pass it around when they need to shoot pheasants or protect their places of occupation from marauding scalliwags?



Once again, the gun map was a SCREEN SHOT FROM TFA.

The author is clearly a gun-grabber, and if he tweaked the figures - "only one legally owned gun in ALL of Brooklyn ", then he did so to suit HIS gun-grabbing agenda.

/Take it up with the author of TFA
 
2012-12-25 09:15:31 PM  

NewportBarGuy: They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.


Most so called "high-capacity" magazines are the standard size magazine that comes with the firearm. I also bet you think an "assault weapon" is full auto when it is really just a term that was invented to demonize firearms.
 
2012-12-25 09:39:02 PM  

Amos Quito: ParaHandy: utah dude: ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.

my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.

I am really sure this isn't true ... I will buy a couple of knives this week in Scotland and see.


No true Scotsman would do such a thing.


We like them so much we keep one in our right sock (scian dubh)
 
2012-12-25 09:50:49 PM  

enry: Spanky McStupid: tlchwi02: isn't it generally known when you apply that it will be publically available? pretty sure i knew that when i got my permit in MA.

Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.

But publishing the names and addresses of sex offenders or those arrested for DWI is okay, amirite?


I'm thinking, no; legal ownership of a legal product ≠ arrested for DUI or sex offenders but that was a nice try.

3/10
 
2012-12-25 10:06:10 PM  

ParaHandy: I have been thinking during other recent gun threads that this would be a good idea, for all guns. As things stand, you only need a permit if you're a serious gun nerd, or a SoF rambo. This kind of map is perfect for parents who don't want to buy a house near someone who is likely to send a stray round through the wall.

Why would a pro-gun person be ashamed of their guns?


The stray round doesn't come from the neighbor. It comes from the drive by.
 
2012-12-25 10:15:34 PM  

fredklein: Hamanu: I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.

Are they going to pick the lock on the gun safe, or carry the whole thing away on their backs??


Yes you idiot, it's quite common.

http://www.securitybase.com/blog/gun- safes-stolen-from-home-in-bluffd a le-utah

Hell, just within the last few months in Seattle an acquaintance had his house broken into. He had his gun safe bolted into his floor beams, so the thieves cut out his floor and carried the safe out.

Turns out, when you get a few guys together and rob a house when no one is home, you have the time and muscle to do things like that....

I'm willing to bet that most of you folks who have no issues with this list the paper published are the same ones who will later be rallying against guns because "all illegal firearms were legal before they were stolen".

Part of being a responsible gun owner is not advertising to burglars that you are a gun owner.
 
2012-12-25 10:21:40 PM  

Amos Quito:
/Take it up with the author of TFA


Here's the thing. you, or other people in this thread, are USING that graph to make a SEPARATE point. The graph can clearly, quite easily, be shown to be a complete absurdity, making that SEPARATE point farking retarded. I'm not blaming you or anyone for making the graph, but for making the stupid SEPARATE point.
 
2012-12-25 10:35:25 PM  

Amos Quito: The All-Powerful Atheismo: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?

you're telling me only one person owns a legal gun in Brooklyn?


No, that is what the MAP compiled by the author of the article is telling you.

Frankly, I find it hard to believe.

I mean, do all of those rich Wall Street tycoons, etc. run around with unarmed body guards?

/Bloomberg gets police protection, so he's ok


That map is for Westchester county residents only. So someone who has had more than one residence since then originally registered his firearm in Westchester. The overlaid murder map is a non-sequitur because of this.
 
2012-12-25 10:46:34 PM  

prince of peas: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Or perhaps there is high gun ownership in those high crime areas because people want to be able to defend themselves. Which came first, the high crime rate or the high gun ownership rate?


It's Manhattan. There are virtually no guns in the hands of citizens.
 
2012-12-25 10:56:50 PM  

here to help: Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.

Not every gun owner is an irresponsible lunatic and claiming that is the case is not helping the cause.

If you lump in the responsible gun owners who are willing to work on fixing things in with the sh*theads you will only ostracize them.

Why the f*ck can't you people THINK and work TOGETHER to solve your issues?! You're tearing the damned country apart!


That is the idea, I think.
 
2012-12-25 11:07:00 PM  

flabmaster: Yes you idiot, it's quite common.

http://www.securitybase.com/blog/gun- safes-stolen-from-home-in-bluffd a le-utah

Hell, just within the last few months in Seattle an acquaintance had his house broken into. He had his gun safe bolted into his floor beams, so the thieves cut out his floor and carried the safe out.

Turns out, when you get a few guys together and rob a house when no one is home, you have the time and muscle to do things like that....

I'm willing to bet that most of you folks who have no issues with this list the paper published are the same ones who will later be rallying against guns because "all illegal firearms were legal before they were stolen".

Part of being a responsible gun owner is not advertising to burglars that you are a gun owner.


Bingo.

I've been a burglary detective for a while (fortunately heading to a different unit soon). Keeping guns in a safe is important for the safety of people in the home, and I would never tell someone to do otherwise. But the only times it will prevent theft are when the burglars are little kids or incredibly stupid (in relation to other burglars). Even the best gun safes get stolen when thieves know they have the time and muscle to do it.
 
2012-12-25 11:08:17 PM  

Jekylman: That map is for Westchester county residents only. So someone who has had more than one residence since then originally registered his firearm in Westchester



While I don't discount the possibility, a citation would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.
 
2012-12-25 11:11:40 PM  

RedVentrue: here to help: Ima4nic8or: I dont have a problem with this. Its good to know where the paranoid loonies are so that you can avoid them and their houses. They may not want the info out there but its much like the sex offender registries. I am sure those folks dont like their names out there either, but lets face it, the info is not being put out there for their benefit. It is for all the sane folks that want to avoid them.

Not every gun owner is an irresponsible lunatic and claiming that is the case is not helping the cause.

If you lump in the responsible gun owners who are willing to work on fixing things in with the sh*theads you will only ostracize them.

Why the f*ck can't you people THINK and work TOGETHER to solve your issues?! You're tearing the damned country apart!

That is the idea, I think.



www.williambyrdband.org
 
2012-12-25 11:25:10 PM  

StopLurkListen: FYI:

http://www.fark.com/farq/posting/#What_are_the_posting_rules.3F
"Don't post private/contact information no matter how easily obtained."


Hey, do gay men's magazines come with tear out subscription cards?
 
2012-12-25 11:27:38 PM  

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.


This is too easy

images.sodahead.com
 
2012-12-25 11:39:55 PM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.

This is too easy

[images.sodahead.com image 361x320]


I'm sorry, but that sign only makes burglarizing your house more enticing. Free guns!
 
2012-12-25 11:57:17 PM  

Amos Quito: Jekylman: That map is for Westchester county residents only. So someone who has had more than one residence since then originally registered his firearm in Westchester


While I don't discount the possibility, a citation would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.


Check the map linked in the article. It's labeled: "This map shows pistol permits registered with the Westchester County Clerk's Office. Residents are required to renew the permit every five years. Zoom in and out for more information and click on a dot to see details of a permit."

So some guy registered his weapon in Westchester county but lives in Brooklyn. Possibly a Westchester police officer or works in security in Westchester & lives elsewhere or some such.

Also FTFA:
"We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law requests..."
 
2012-12-26 12:04:47 AM  

gryf: Brick-House: Hey, lets next publish the name and address of all the women out there who have had an Abortion.

While there are about 30,000 gun related deaths in America each year. A number that has been decreasing by the way. There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

And while everyone should be outraged and saddened by the killing of the Sandy Hook school children we should also be saddened and outraged by the killing of babies...

HANDS OFF MY REPRODUCTIVE ORGANS!

thank you.


I don't get it. So concerned about guns, but babykilling is a right?
 
2012-12-26 12:11:42 AM  
Someone published public records?

Boo farking hoo.
 
2012-12-26 12:22:07 AM  

redhook: also bet you think an "assault weapon" is full auto when it is really just a term that was invented to demonize firearms.


No, because I'm not retarded. But, thanks for asking.
 
2012-12-26 12:37:18 AM  

Clemkadidlefark: utharda: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Indeed.  Lunatic's aside you'll find that Fairfield County Ct, right next to Westchester is incredibly safe.  Port Chester.... Not so much.   But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.

apparently you have considerable experience with jack off fantasies. how's the dating scene down there in your parent's basement?


Your mom's been here all week.  Also your sister, your wife, your dog and your guidance counselor.

Nice try.  Now why don't you see if you can fit your penis in a .22 barrel.

DIAF.
 
2012-12-26 01:24:25 AM  
If I end up on a published list like that I'm going all farking out on all of the staff. I still have some of my database subscriptions. We're talking phone numbers, account numbers, addresses, schools which their children attend, the whole gamut of the information I can get on them. And then I'm posting it online in the very worst depths of hell the internet can muster.

We'll see how they like it when pictures of their children end up on some skeevy perv's blog.
 
2012-12-26 02:09:40 AM  

snuff3r: Do something about the laws that allow the info to be pubic record.


In my state it is illegal for the police or any other governmental agency to compile or maintain a list of firearm owners so there can be no record to be open to public inspection.     The names and addresses or concealed weapon permit (class W license) holders are exempt by law from disclosure.

Some people have done something about it, the people of NY are apparently not as concerned or they think they're doing something wrong by owning a gun.   They're not.
 
2012-12-26 02:10:48 AM  

clowncar on fire: feckingmorons: Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.

So are you suggesting that they retaliate or merely expressing your complete lack of surprise for the retaliation that has yet to occur?


I'm not suggesting they retaliate, it is unseemly.   Education is more effective than retaliation.   I believe that discussion has already begun.
 
2012-12-26 02:15:24 AM  

feckingmorons: clowncar on fire: feckingmorons: Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.

So are you suggesting that they retaliate or merely expressing your complete lack of surprise for the retaliation that has yet to occur?

I'm not suggesting they retaliate, it is unseemly.   Education is more effective than retaliation.   I believe that discussion has already begun.


Stupidity has already begun, and intimidation. The newspaper went the authoritarian intimidation route.
 
2012-12-26 05:24:49 AM  

Brick-House: Hey, lets next publish the name and address of all the women out there who have had an Abortion.

While there are about 30,000 gun related deaths in America each year. A number that has been decreasing by the way. There are about 1,300,000 abortions in America each year.

And while everyone should be outraged and saddened by the killing of the Sandy Hook school children we should also be saddened and outraged by the killing of babies...


Yeah but they lump the fetal suicide numbers in that statistic.
 
2012-12-26 05:37:06 AM  
It's a bit dismaying that so many Farkers either A) don't understand why privacy is valuable or B) they recognize the value but they'll happily sacrifice their neighbor's privacy if doing so boosts their own half wit agenda.

Either way, there's no fixing that much stupid.
 
2012-12-26 05:49:27 AM  
Drew, can you please email me a list of everyone's email address who has commented here?

I think it will help a lot of people recognize the value of privacy if I grab all of the bank statements and bills that they throw away, and create a website with scans of those documents. It's OK: those bills and statements are public domain once they hit the curb.

Some people are too stupid and lazy to recognize what they have until you take it away from them.
 
2012-12-26 05:51:16 AM  

utharda: Clemkadidlefark: utharda: Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

So, if the hysterical Gun-Grabbers are right, a map showing gun-related crimes should correlate very closely to the above.

Red areas: High gun crime.
Non-red: Crime Free Zones.

Right?

Indeed.  Lunatic's aside you'll find that Fairfield County Ct, right next to Westchester is incredibly safe.  Port Chester.... Not so much.   But enjoy your penis surrogate gun toting call of duty jack off fantasy.

apparently you have considerable experience with jack off fantasies. how's the dating scene down there in your parent's basement?

Your mom's been here all week.  Also your sister, your wife, your dog and your guidance counselor.

Nice try.  Now why don't you see if you can fit your penis in a .22 barrel.

DIAF.



Best flame war of the day! A++, would LOL again!
/guidance counselor omg
 
2012-12-26 05:52:58 AM  

Giblet: Drew, can you please email me a list of everyone's email address who has commented here?

I think it will help a lot of people recognize the value of privacy if I grab all of the bank statements and bills that they throw away, and create a website with scans of those documents. It's OK: those bills and statements are public domain once they hit the curb.

Some people are too stupid and lazy to recognize what they have until you take it away from them.


Nope, I used a burner. But if you have a small dick, I can hook you up, dawg.
 
2012-12-26 05:59:44 AM  

NannyStatePark: Giblet: Drew, can you please email me a list of everyone's email address who has commented here?

I think it will help a lot of people recognize the value of privacy if I grab all of the bank statements and bills that they throw away, and create a website with scans of those documents. It's OK: those bills and statements are public domain once they hit the curb.

Some people are too stupid and lazy to recognize what they have until you take it away from them.

Nope, I used a burner. But if you have a small dick, I can hook you up, dawg.


Does that last remark make sense to anyone? Can someone explain what it means? NannyStatePark, are you just drunk or is that a more permanent condition?
 
2012-12-26 07:05:43 AM  

Brick-House: Publish a interactive map with the name and address of all the women who have had an Abortion


Medical records are not public.
 
2012-12-26 07:39:02 AM  

Giblet: Nope, I used a burner. But if you have a small dick, I can hook you up, dawg.

Does that last remark make sense to anyone? Can someone explain what it means? NannyStatePark, are you just drunk or is that a more permanent condition?



A burner is a pay as you go mobile phone not registered to anybody. You use the credit it comes with then throw it into a fire. Untraceable. You can talk openly about illegal activities or send documents without being traced. It seems nannystatepark used such a device to transmit the names and addresses so cannot be caught.

There seems to be a suggestion that a person who has a large penis would be able to obtain a burner already along with an offer to supply a burner should you be unable to procure one yourself.
 
2012-12-26 08:41:28 AM  

The All-Powerful Atheismo: It doesn't make that point at all. Not well. It's not a scientific map whatsoever. For one thing, it posits that there is only one legally owned gun in ALL of Brooklyn.


we already covered the data skew issue. we need nationwide accurate map and one of violent crime, plz.
 
2012-12-26 08:45:24 AM  
None of my guns are registered. Problem solved.
 
2012-12-26 08:53:45 AM  

Giblet: NannyStatePark: Giblet: Drew, can you please email me a list of everyone's email address who has commented here?

I think it will help a lot of people recognize the value of privacy if I grab all of the bank statements and bills that they throw away, and create a website with scans of those documents. It's OK: those bills and statements are public domain once they hit the curb.

Some people are too stupid and lazy to recognize what they have until you take it away from them.

Nope, I used a burner. But if you have a small dick, I can hook you up, dawg.

Does that last remark make sense to anyone? Can someone explain what it means? NannyStatePark, are you just drunk or is that a more permanent condition?


I mean that all the information held in that account is SPAM, mostly for penis enlargement. Do you not receive ordinary emails or does your condition prevent you from recognizing the joke I made? Maybe your condition has you acting irrationally, giving out an email you use for financial business on a website full of the technically savvy, thus creating a situation where I could crack that biatch wide open with an app my husband uses as a sys admin. In about five minutes.
 
2012-12-26 08:53:45 AM  

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: utah dude: ex-nuke: Yes, And you have to show photo ID proving you are over 18 to purchase a butter knife with no edge.

my goodness that entire island has gone GHEY.

I am really sure this isn't true ... I will buy a couple of knives this week in Scotland and see.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation

Based on this, it's completely asinine. And you want us to be more like this? hell no. Quoting:

The 1689 Bill of Rights ensured that only Parliament and not the King could restrict the right of the people to bear arms. Over the last 60 years, Parliament has enacted a series of increasingly restrictive laws and acts regarding the possession and use of knives and bladed tools. The United Kingdom (to include England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) has one of the most comprehensive set of laws of any developed nation governing an individual's right to import, purchase, possess, sell, and carry knives.[31]

Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 (amended 1961) (ROWA), prohibits the importation, sale, hire, lending, or gift of certain types of knives in England, Wales, and Scotland as of 13 June 1959[32][33] under Section 1:

(1) Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire, or exposes or has in his possession for the purpose of sale or hire or lends or gives to any other person-
(a) any knife which has a blade which opens automatically by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, sometimes known as a flick knife or "flick gun"; or
(b) any knife which has a blade which is released from the handle or sheath thereof by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force and which, when released, is locked in place by means of a button, spring, lever, or other device, sometimes known as a gravity knife,
shall be guilty of an offence [...][32][33]
Subsection 2 also makes it illegal to import knives of this type as of 13 June 1959.[32] The above legislation criminalizes the conduct of the original owner or transferor of an automatic-opening or gravity knife, not the new owner or transferee; in addition, the statute does not criminalize possession of such knives other than possession for the purpose of sale or hire. It is therefore not illegal per se to merely possess such a knife, though the difficulties of acquiring one without violating the statute makes it (almost) impossible to obtain one without either committing or abetting an offence. Furthermore, in the UK it is customary for the Metropolitan Police, not a barrister to be consulted as legal experts on a question of whether a given knife is to be considered illegal under existing under UK knife laws, and this has resulted in a tendency to interpret any bladed object of questionable status as falling within the definition of a prohibited knife.[34]

Criminal Justice Act 1988

The Criminal Justice Act 1988 mainly relates to carrying knives in public places, Section 139 being the most important:

(1) Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, any person who has an article to which this section applies with him in a public place shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to any article which has a blade or is sharply pointed except a folding pocketknife.
(3) This section applies to a folding pocketknife if the cutting edge of its blade exceeds 3 inches.
(4) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article with him in a public place.
The definition of "public place" is unsettled, but can loosely be defined as anywhere the public have a legitimate right to be whether this access is paid for or not, which could include any populated area within the United Kingdom, including one's motor vehicle, which is defined by law as a 'public place' unless parked on private property. In a remote or otherwise unpopulated area, a public place could include: 1) an organised wilderness gathering or event; 2) a National Park; 3) Forestry Commission land that is held open to the public; 4) public footpaths; 5) bridleways; and 6) any area where an individual does not need to ask specific permission to walk, camp, or travel from a landowner.[35]

The phrase "good reason or lawful authority" in Subsection 4 is intended to allow for "common sense" possession of knives, so that it is legal to carry a knife if there is a bona fide reason to do so. Subsection 5 gives some specific examples of bona fide reasons: a knife for use at work (e.g. a chef's knife), as part of a national costume (e.g. a sgian dubh for the Scottish national costume), or for religious reasons (e.g. a Sikh Kirpan). However, even these specific statutory exceptions have proven unavailing to knife owners at times.[36] It is important to note that that "good reason or lawful authority" exceptions may be difficult to establish for those not using a knife in the course of their trade or profession, but merely because the knife is needed in case of emergency or for occasional utility use.[37][38][39] A person on holiday and travelling by motor vehicle in the UK might well be obliged to purchase a knife at their destination, rather than risk prosecution if one is found by the police during a routine traffic stop or checkpoint.[37][38][39][40]

Although English law insists that it is the responsibility of the prosecution to provide evidence proving a crime has been committed, an individual must provide evidence to prove that they had a "good reason or lawful authority" for carrying a knife (if this is the case) upon being detained. While this may appear to be a reversal of the usual burden of proof, technically the prosecution has already proven the case (prima facie) by establishing that a knife was being carried in a public place (see Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 on Knives, etc.; New powers to tackle gun and knife crime)

As the burden of proving "good reason or lawful authority" lies with the defendant, it is likely that an individual detained and searched by the police will need to prove the following (sometimes known as the THIS list): Has THIS person got permission; to use THIS article (knife); for THIS use; on THIS land; and by THIS land owner.[35]

The special exception which exists in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Sec. 139) for folding knives (pocket knives) is another "common sense" measure accepting that some small knives are carried for general utility; however, even a folding pocket knife or multi-tool equipped with a blade of less than 3 inches (76 mm) may still be considered an offensive weapon if it has a locking blade.[38][41] It is a common belief that a folding pocket knife with a blade of 3 inches (76mm) or less must have a locking blade to be considered an offensive weapon, but the wording of the Criminal Justice Act does not mention locking and the matter becomes a question as to the definition of "folding pocket knife". In the Crown Court appeal of Harris v. DPP (1992)[38] and the Court of Appeal case of 'R. v Deegan (1998)[42] the ruling that 'folding' was intended to mean 'non-locking' was upheld. As the only higher court in England and Wales to the Court of Appeal is the Supreme Court, the only way the decision in R. v. Deegan could be overturned is by a dissenting ruling by the Supreme Court or by Act of Parliament.

In Scotland, the Criminal Law (Consolidation) Act 1995 prevents the carrying of 'offensive weapons', including knives and other articles with blades or points in public places without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.

Other relevant Scotland knife legislation includes the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons Act) (Scotland), Order 2005 which bans sword canes, push daggers, butterfly (balisong knives), throwing stars, knives that can defeat metal detectors, and knives disguised as other objects, and the Police, Public Order and Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2006 which makes it an offence to sell a knife, knife blade, or bladed or pointed object to a person under eighteen years of age, unless the person is sixteen or older and the knife or blade is "designed for domestic use." In 2007, the passage of the Custodial Sentences and Weapons (Scotland) Act 2007 allowed exemption from criminal liability under section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Scotland) for selling a prohibited offensive weapon if the sale was made for purposes of theatrical performances and of rehearsals for such performances, the production of films (as defined in section 5B of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)), or the production of television programmes (as defined in section 405(1) of the Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)).

Offensive Weapons Act 1996

The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 covers the possession of knives within school premises:

(1) Any person who has an article to which section 139 of this Act applies with him on school premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who has an offensive weapon within the meaning of section 1 of the M1 Prevention of Crime Act 1953 with him on school premises shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) or (2) above to prove that he had good reason or lawful authority for having the article or weapon with him on the premises in question.
(4) (Subsection 4 gives the same specific exceptions as subsection 139(5) with the addition of "for educational purposes". This would appear to imply that all legislation on knives in public applies similarly to school premises, and therefore a folding pocket knife under 3 inches (76mm) in length would be considered legal.)
The Offensive Weapons Act 1996 imposes an age restriction on the sale of knives:

(1) Any person who sells to a person under the age of sixteen years an article to which this section applies shall be guilty of an offence [...]
(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, this section applies to-
(a) any knife, knife blade or razor blade...[43]
In Scotland, the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 makes it an offence to sell knives to someone under 18 years of age (including any blade, razor blade, any bladed or pointed article, or any item made or adapted for causing personal injury.)

Knives Act 1997

The Knives Act 1997 prohibits the sale of combat knives and restricts the marketing of knives as offensive weapons.

Prevention of Crime Act 1953

The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 prohibits the possession in any public place of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse.[44] The term "offensive weapon" is defined as: "any article made or adapted for use to causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use".

Under the Prevention of Crime Act, otherwise 'exempt' knives carried for "good reason or lawful authority" may be still deemed illegal if authorities conclude the knife is being carried as an "offensive weapon". In recent years, the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 has been reinterpreted by police and public prosecutors, who have persuaded the courts to minimize exceptions to prosecution on the grounds that the defendant had "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" in order to apply the Act to a wide variety of cases.[45] This new approach now includes prosecution of citizens who have admitted carrying a knife for the sole purpose of self-defence (in the eyes of the law, this is presently viewed as an admission that the defendant intends to use the knife as an "offensive weapon", albeit in a defensive manner, and in otherwise justifiable circumstances).[46] While the onus lies on the officer to prove offensive intent, UK prosecutors and courts have in the past taken the appearance and the marketing of a particular brand of knife into account when considering whether an otherwise legal knife was being carried as an offensive weapon. In addition, the Knives Act 1997 now prohibits the sale of combat knives and restricts the marketing of knives as offensive weapons. A knife which is marketed as "tactical", "military", "special ops", etc. could therefore carry an extra liability. Even when the knife in question appears relatively innocuous (blade length not exceeding three inches, non-locking blade), there is the perception that anyone carrying a knife in a public place is well advised to take steps to place the knife in question out of their immediate control, i.e. storing the knife when on foot or when using public transit in the bottom of a rucksack, not on the belt, in the pocket, or around the neck, and while traveling in a privately-owned motor vehicle, by placing the knife in locked storage in the vehicle boot, not in the glove compartment or in the seating area.[47][48]

Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act 2007

Further legislation in Scotland, known as the Custodial Sentences and Weapons Act 2007, is now in effect (certain parts of this Act came into force on 10 September 2007). This legislation amends the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and makes it compulsory to possess a local authority license to sell knives, swords and blades (other than those designed for 'domestic use'), or to sell any sharply pointed or bladed object "which is made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person." Any dealer in non-domestic knives will be required to hold a 'knife dealer's licence'.

Northern Ireland

The laws restricting knife ownership, use, possession and sale are nearly identical to the laws of Scotland and the rest of the UK, though contained in different acts.[49] In 2008, in response to a surge in public concern over knife-related crimes, Northern Ireland doubled the prison sentence for persons convicted of possessing a knife deemed to be an offensive weapon in a public place to four years' imprisonment, and added an evidentiary presumption in favour of prosecution for possession of a knife.[50]

Summary

In recent years, laws criminalising knife possession in the United Kingdom have been strictly interpreted and applied by police and prosecutors to citizens and foreigners alike of all ages and backgrounds, even where the evidence supporting the crime is in doubt.[45][51] This development, combined with increasingly frequent application of such laws to marginal or inadvertent offenders by the police and the public prosecutor[38][52][53] can easily result in an arrest and a criminal charge in the event a person carrying a folding knife, scissors, plastic knife, multi-tool, or bladed object is detained and searched, and the defendant may have to wait weeks or months for a trial or other disposition of his case by the public prosecutor.[37][51][54][55][56][57][58][59] HM Customs officials in the Customs Inspection unit at the Mount Pleasant Postal Depot in London, aware of the steadily narrowing interpretation of what constitutes a legal knife in England and Wales, have begun confiscating knives imported through the mail, going so far as to individually test otherwise legal locking and non-locking[60] bladed pocket knives to see if they can be made to open their blades to the fully opened position with a practised "double-action of the wrist"; those that open fully and thus fail the 'test' are confiscated and destroyed as illegal 'gravity knives' under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.[61]

Paradoxically, the acknowledged failure of previously-enacted anti-knife legislation in reducing the number of violent crimes involving a knife[62] has led to demands for even stricter measures.[63][64] The likelihood of being detained and searched by the police in the United Kingdom depends frequently upon circumstances and the policies of the local constabulary, but is more likely to occur in areas noted for incidents of random assault and violent crime, where an individual encounters the police in the course of an investigation of a criminal complaint involving a knife, during vehicle stop-and-search operations at police checkpoints,[65] or where the police are conducting mass searches of the public at large in so-called dispersal zones as part of knife crime crackdown operations under Section 60 of the Public Order Act.[38][55][56][66][67][68]


Flick knives and other rambo shiat have been banned since I was in high school. I used to carry a Swiss army knife at school and was never questioned.

The new law basically boils down to not carrying knives in public without a reason, and not selling them to children. BFD.

This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.
 
2012-12-26 08:56:41 AM  
Oh, and that isn't a threat from me personally. I wouldn't soil myself over some nut and his condition, and about 25 percent or so here already know how, asstalker.
 
2012-12-26 09:07:01 AM  
Looks like the crime rate is going to spike a bit in that area. Watch this spawn a website which gives daily updates in each state for a low membership fee of couse which can be paid with a stolen credit card.
 
2012-12-26 09:07:31 AM  

ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.


Couple of things:

1. You don't get to decide what someone does and doesn't have a "reasonable need" for. I use my AR for hunting varmints like coyote and wild pigs, where there are LOTS of them in a group, and the idea is to take them down quickly. So, that's a reasonable need.

2. It'll never happen, because too many people that own and shoot guns will stand in your way.

3. I'm so glad you and people like you aren't in power, and enough people don't want people like you in power.
 
2012-12-26 09:12:17 AM  

NewportBarGuy: I am a gun owner and I support new legislation and common-sense measures to restrict/ban hi-cap mags, certain types of weapons and more enforcement of current laws on the books. This is NOT helping!


therepublika.files.wordpress.com

Standard 30-round magazine:
www.theshootersbox.com

"Hi capacity" 100 round magazine:
www.mississippiautoarms.com

Standard 100 round magazine:
forum.gon.com
How do you define "Hi capacity"? More than 10 rounds? Where did this magic number come from? Did a bunch of scientists sit down and conclude that exactly 11 rounds of ANY caliber is the exact number you need to go on a murderin' spree?

I would tend to think that something above what is specifically designed by the manufacture would be considered 'hi-capacity'. Lets apply this theory to cars for a second, shall we? A 1994 Geo Metro holds 10 (magic number) gallons of gas. That's what it was designed to work with. A 2008 Ford F-250 holds 38 gallons. Again, that is what the manufacture thought was a good number. Would the Ford be condsiderd to have a 'high-capacity' tank or a 'normal' tank for that that model? You know if we restricted all cars to having no more than 10 gallon tanks, it would cut down on the length of police chases and save lives. Sure this might impact the 99.999% of registered car owners who DONT go on police chases, but isn't that worth it if it saves just one life? So you might have to refuel more often. Is that really a big inconvience? It doesn't take very long to refuel. And the one people that would really be affected are people who drive for sport and fun. But they can just adjust their driving habits around the new hi-cap tank bans, right?

I admit my analogy (while most creative!) is a bit of a strech, but you undertand the basic point I am trying to make here, right?
Why 10 rounds? What is so special about 10? Hell, a 1911 only hold 7-8 because that is what it was designed for. Under your plan, do you get off-set credits for 'under-cap' magazines? If I have two 7 round .45 mags, would I be allowed one 15 round 9mm mag?

If people are so concerned with 'saving lifes' by making people reload, why not cap guns at 1 round? Make everything bolt action. It wouldn't affect hunters (the only reasonable use to have a gun) and sport shooters could still shoot. You only ever need 1 round for self defense, right?

Can anyone actualy explain to me why 11 is 'hi-capacity' and 10 is not? And why 10 is considered the golden rule for ALL types of guns?
 
2012-12-26 09:15:22 AM  

ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.


I have a reason. Home defense.

That is not a justifiable reason

It sure as hell is. See you in court.

Make sure to brush up on your ballistics so you can explain why larger calibers are less dangerous than smaller ones, and how bolt on plastic parts affect this.

/Which is why the gun debate never goes anywhere.
 
2012-12-26 09:19:58 AM  
As a followup to my observations on Syria and David Patreus, the commander of the Syrian military police defected this morning, and denounced the army for terrorizing innocent Syrians. Hope this helps them get to peace more quickly.

Syria being what it is, everyone who can afford it has a gun, typically an AK47 knock-off as they are the de facto standard. Despite some light military arms supplied by the west, they haven't managed to make much of a dent in territory controlled by Assad.
 
2012-12-26 09:20:10 AM  

maniacbastard: My gun does nothing when I am not at home.

My dogs chewed through a metal screen on the back of the door trying to eat the mailman.


I would be willing to bet that your gun wouldn't kill the mailman while you're at work
 
2012-12-26 09:24:46 AM  

ParaHandy: As a followup to my observations on Syria and David Patreus, the commander of the Syrian military police defected this morning, and denounced the army for terrorizing innocent Syrians. Hope this helps them get to peace more quickly.

Syria being what it is, everyone who can afford it has a gun, typically an AK47 knock-off as they are the de facto standard. Despite some light military arms supplied by the west, they haven't managed to make much of a dent in territory controlled by Assad.


Sadly, the US and the west are doing too little to help shut down the Syrian regime.
 
2012-12-26 09:30:31 AM  

way south: ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.

I have a reason. Home defense.

That is not a justifiable reason

It sure as hell is. See you in court.

Make sure to brush up on your ballistics so you can explain why larger calibers are less dangerous than smaller ones, and how bolt on plastic parts affect this.

/Which is why the gun debate never goes anywhere.


Agree. Sadly people that talk about gun control jump from how we actually make a dent in the issue (enforcing current laws, etc.), to ZOMGBAN. Ignorance of this order annoys the crap out of me.
 
2012-12-26 09:31:40 AM  

way south: ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.

I have a reason. Home defense.

That is not a justifiable reason

It sure as hell is. See you in court.

Make sure to brush up on your ballistics so you can explain why larger calibers are less dangerous than smaller ones, and how bolt on plastic parts affect this.

/Which is why the gun debate never goes anywhere.


Every serious gun expert I know, plus my own common sense analysis, concur that a shotgun is the most effective firearm for home defence if one is ever needed. It also lends itself to less lethal but effective loads.

In my neighborhood, violent crime is low enough that the risk of having a gun in the house is higher, as it is for most of the US. The only unauthorized entry to my home ever was by Austin PD, and I wasn't home.
 
2012-12-26 09:36:09 AM  

ParaHandy: way south: ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.

I have a reason. Home defense.

That is not a justifiable reason

It sure as hell is. See you in court.

Make sure to brush up on your ballistics so you can explain why larger calibers are less dangerous than smaller ones, and how bolt on plastic parts affect this.

/Which is why the gun debate never goes anywhere.

Every serious gun expert I know, plus my own common sense analysis, concur that a shotgun is the most effective firearm for home defence if one is ever needed. It also lends itself to less lethal but effective loads.

In my neighborhood, violent crime is low enough that the risk of having a gun in the house is higher, as it is for most of the US. The only unauthorized entry to my home ever was by Austin PD, and I wasn't home.


But this doesn't give you special authority to make statements...
 
2012-12-26 09:39:03 AM  

Kit Fister: ParaHandy: way south: ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.

I have a reason. Home defense.

That is not a justifiable reason

It sure as hell is. See you in court.

Make sure to brush up on your ballistics so you can explain why larger calibers are less dangerous than smaller ones, and how bolt on plastic parts affect this.

/Which is why the gun debate never goes anywhere.

Every serious gun expert I know, plus my own common sense analysis, concur that a shotgun is the most effective firearm for home defence if one is ever needed. It also lends itself to l