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

23253 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Dec 2012 at 11:11 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


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

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 535 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report