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  
•       •       •

23226 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 11:11 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
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
 
Displayed 50 of 535 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report