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 142
    More: Stupid, Putnam County  
•       •       •

23232 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-25 11:30:52 AM
6 votes:

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


Most parents don't share your paralyzing fear of firearms. Seek help.
2012-12-25 12:58:11 AM
6 votes:
They really didn't think this thing through at all. Very, very bad idea. Someone should get fired for that.

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

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.
2012-12-25 11:37:40 AM
5 votes:
i1121.photobucket.com

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

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

Right?
2012-12-25 10:55:41 AM
5 votes:

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

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


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

I am under no delusion that I have an expectation of privacy in my public records.
2012-12-25 12:42:20 PM
4 votes:

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


static.bbc.co.uk

The maps will come in handy when it comes time to round-up the undesirables.
2012-12-25 11:55:58 AM
4 votes:
Editorial staff meeting beforehand:

"Dammit, Lois, there has to be a way to make another dime off of those dead kids, and I want you ON IT!"
2012-12-25 11:47:41 AM
4 votes:

Sleeping Monkey: [mlkshk.com image 330x186]


mlkshk.com
i1121.photobucket.com

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

Why would a pro-gun person be ashamed of their guns?
2012-12-25 11:18:51 AM
4 votes:

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

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


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

The vast majority of burglars operate when the home is vacant, something your vaunted guns will do nothing to protect against.
2012-12-25 09:30:09 AM
4 votes:
mlkshk.com
2012-12-25 03:45:48 AM
4 votes:
"How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families...,"

Please do.
2012-12-25 11:27:38 PM
3 votes:

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

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


This is too easy

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

I just don't even know. Most gun owners don't even see their guns for months at a time because there's never a use for them. Some hope there won't be. Use your brain America. Can't rely on the police for immediate assistance. Sometimes you have to defend yourself once in a while.
2012-12-25 12:43:00 PM
3 votes:
Wow, this is amazing. Some people wonder why gun owners are against registration. This is why. These are not criminals. OK, it's public record there. But should it be? I get that people are deeply upset about the horrible tragedy in Connecticut. And rightly so. Publishing a list of legal gun owners that have done nothing illegal at all is sensationalist journalism, pure and simple. It does nothing to lead us to any kind of irrational debate on the issues.
2012-12-25 11:55:24 AM
3 votes:
3.bp.blogspot.com

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

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

I for one am not going to sit here and listen to you badMOUTH sensible gun restrictions. Gentlemen!
2012-12-25 11:49:32 AM
3 votes:
The AP tried to do this in Illinois, because we have a BS "FOID" card system. Lisa Madigan tried to force the ISP to release the information of everyone with a FOID. The ISP refused because they didn't want to get sued, and then the General Assembly passed a law protecting FOID information. This was entirely meant to intimidate gun owners.

You hysterical gun-grabbers sound like a lot what people were saying about Muslims after 9/11.
2012-12-25 11:44:26 AM
3 votes:

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


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

Yeah, just fist-fight. Don't be a pussy.
2012-12-25 11:27:46 AM
3 votes:
So you publish folks who, like myself, have handgun permits. Keep in mind that some states require no such permit for shotguns and rifles.
2012-12-25 11:25:55 AM
3 votes:
What, don't all you tough-guy six-shootin' cowboys want everyone to know how big and bad you are with your big bad guns? Pussies. Learn to fist-fight, like a real man.
2012-12-25 11:25:33 AM
3 votes:
How about a list of illegal gun owners.
2012-12-25 11:25:18 AM
3 votes:

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


seems like semantics at that point. I guess its annoying that a newspaper published it, but if anyone who was interested could obtain the information anyway i don't get the outrage. oh no, public information is available to the public!
2012-12-25 11:23:24 AM
3 votes:

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


Available for someone to discover, perhaps; but published is another thing.
2012-12-25 10:48:45 AM
3 votes:
Oh, my. Judging from the comments, we have a quite a number of revolutionaries on our hands here.
2012-12-25 08:32:24 AM
3 votes:

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

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

Whomever thought that was a good idea should be unemployed.


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

Someone's going to publish it eventually. Whether it's a paper or a gun control blogger.
2012-12-25 06:00:06 PM
2 votes:
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 02:31:00 PM
2 votes:
This introduction of abortion into a gun control thread is most puzzling. It's not that relevant.

Actually, it may just be. If you have a hankering to make a big fuss over a couple dozen murdered kids, just have a poke in the big bucket behind the clinic.
2012-12-25 01:30:08 PM
2 votes:

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

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

Cling to that gun, boyo.


I'll cling to my guns, my right to privacy, my right to a lawyer, my right to being presumed innocent until proven guilty, my right to avoid illegal search and seizure, freedom of the press, freedom to peaceably assemble, freedom to vote, etc. etc.
2012-12-25 01:11:37 PM
2 votes:
If a newspaper in Alabama complied the names and addresses of everyone who ever donated to the NAACP in their readership area and put them in an interactive map for anyone to peruse, it might be "legal" too, but would anyone try to deny that it would be a transparent attempt at intimidation?
2012-12-25 12:53:34 PM
2 votes:

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

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

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



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

Say, you don't suppose he edited his OWN name and address out for some reason, do you?
2012-12-25 12:53:08 PM
2 votes:

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

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


This is the main issue here, I think. This looks like a shopping list for someone who wants to steal some guns.
2012-12-25 12:52:26 PM
2 votes:

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

NY Murder Map - 2010

[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


overlaid for you:

img405.imageshack.us
2012-12-25 12:31:28 PM
2 votes:
Public records are public. The freedom to access public information and the right to government transparency are even more important to democracy than the freedom to own a firearm.
2012-12-25 12:18:18 PM
2 votes:
Gun nuts, ready to violently overthrow the government at a moments notice, piss their pants when a local newspaper points at them.. And here I thought they've been claiming to be so brave and prepared for opposition.
2012-12-25 12:15:18 PM
2 votes:

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


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

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

Why the f*ck can't you people THINK and work TOGETHER to solve your issues?! You're tearing the damned country apart!
2012-12-25 12:12:19 PM
2 votes:
Oh, gawd. I despise the gun worshiping mentality as much as the next gun grabbing libby lib derpty doo but this is bullsh*t.

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

Sickening.
2012-12-25 12:08:51 PM
2 votes:

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

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


No gun safe is impenetrable. At most, a safe deters a thief looking for a quick smash and grab. A thief who has access to my house and knows I am not due home could probably cut his way into my safe in under a half an hour, using the tools in my garage. The safe merely lets him know where all my guns are.
2012-12-25 12:04:59 PM
2 votes:

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

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


Several states require the destruction of all records on gun ownership after 7 days or so of the records being created. They also ban the creation of records in certain circumstances. For a good reason why, watch Red Dawn. Or this, this right here.
2012-12-25 12:00:07 PM
2 votes:

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

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


The dots on Manhattan are probably bodyguards for liberal celebrities. You know, the ones like Michael Moore that have armed guards but then go on TV and say poor people should not have guns.
2012-12-25 11:58:40 AM
2 votes:
Class action lawsuit.
2012-12-25 11:51:46 AM
2 votes:
The full blown batshiat crazy fear from the wannabe fascist progressives proves that the the second amendment works.
2012-12-25 11:49:57 AM
2 votes:
To everyone involved in either side of the gun control debate, you aren't helping.
2012-12-25 11:44:55 AM
2 votes:

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


Exactly.

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

/They outed my sekrit gun!
//The gun nuts really posted info on the reporters kids the last time? Anyone OK with that is a douchbag.
Pav
2012-12-25 11:30:17 AM
2 votes:
Public records are public! Oh the horror!
2012-12-25 11:28:08 AM
2 votes:
Step 1)Have a break in staged Step 2) hide gun Step 3) sue paper

Profit!
2012-12-25 11:27:29 AM
2 votes:
There's an idea. Treat gun owners like registered pedophiles, and then wonder why they have such a persecution complex.
2012-12-25 11:17:33 AM
2 votes:
I'm familiar with a smal part of the area in question and can emphatically state that this list is incomplete both in not listing all pistol permit holders and in totally omitting unregistered guns. Doesn't excuse the idiocy of the decision to publish this information for general consumption, but anyone who thinks they're guaranteed a selection of easy targets based on unlisted homes might well be on the receiving end of some small-caliber hilarity.
2012-12-25 10:20:27 AM
2 votes:
God, but zealots do some thoroughly brain dead stuff. I mean, that's Westboro Baptist crazy.

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

Fire the editor and whatever writers were involved with this.
2012-12-25 08:58:02 AM
2 votes:
I live in a somewhat rural area, where you assume that every house has at least one gun.
2012-12-25 08:52:51 AM
2 votes:
Pfaw, public records. I could've gotten the same information if I go to the local town halls.
2012-12-25 08:20:01 AM
2 votes:

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

Please do.


The publisher, the publisher's home alarm security code, the publisher's favorite nine-martini-lunch restaurant, the publisher's country club tee times and the dates he tells his family he's going to a men's fellowship meeting but really goes to Dita's Dungeon to be tied up with extension cords and repeatedly violated with a bottle of Pert by a shaved midget albino.
2012-12-25 01:25:35 AM
2 votes:
Newspapers do this sort of thing every five or six years.  Then somebody publishes the names, addresses, phone numbers, license plate numbers, and schools of the kids of all the reporters and editors and they all have to jump through hoops to get phone numbers changed, and if I recall last time I read about this foolishness one of the reporters moved because she was tired of getting rotten fish guts on her porch.
2012-12-26 09:07:31 AM
1 votes:

ParaHandy: This is what I want to see the US do with guns ... if you have a reason like hunting great, go get your sport gun and give Bambi cause to run. No-one has a reasonable need for an AR15.


Couple of things:

1. You don't get to decide what someone does and doesn't have a "reasonable need" for. I use my AR for hunting varmints like coyote and wild pigs, where there are LOTS of them in a group, and the idea is to take them down quickly. So, that's a reasonable need.

2. It'll never happen, because too many people that own and shoot guns will stand in your way.

3. I'm so glad you and people like you aren't in power, and enough people don't want people like you in power.
2012-12-26 05:49:27 AM
1 votes:
Drew, can you please email me a list of everyone's email address who has commented here?

I think it will help a lot of people recognize the value of privacy if I grab all of the bank statements and bills that they throw away, and create a website with scans of those documents. It's OK: those bills and statements are public domain once they hit the curb.

Some people are too stupid and lazy to recognize what they have until you take it away from them.
2012-12-26 05:37:06 AM
1 votes:
It's a bit dismaying that so many Farkers either A) don't understand why privacy is valuable or B) they recognize the value but they'll happily sacrifice their neighbor's privacy if doing so boosts their own half wit agenda.

Either way, there's no fixing that much stupid.
2012-12-26 02:15:24 AM
1 votes:

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

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

I'm not suggesting they retaliate, it is unseemly.   Education is more effective than retaliation.   I believe that discussion has already begun.


Stupidity has already begun, and intimidation. The newspaper went the authoritarian intimidation route.
2012-12-25 10:56:50 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


That is the idea, I think.
2012-12-25 08:55:03 PM
1 votes:

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 08:47:19 PM
1 votes:

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 06:24:49 PM
1 votes:
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 05:49:41 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito: [i1121.photobucket.com image 606x452]
NY Murder Map - 2010
[i1121.photobucket.com image 850x596]
New York legal gun map, 2012
Anyone notice any correlation here?
Any?


This may be the biggest mapping fail that I've ever seen.

You have a map of people registered to use guns in Westchester and Rockland counties and a map of murders committed in New York City (Bronx, Kings, New York, Queens, and Richmond Counties). So your data sets don't even cover the same area.

Secondly, you're comparing absolute number of gun owners with per capita murders. You need per capita gun owners.

Are you a cartographer for Fox News?
www.properlychastised.com
2012-12-25 05:34:35 PM
1 votes:
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 05:17:03 PM
1 votes:
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 05:08:56 PM
1 votes:

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 04:45:45 PM
1 votes:
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 04:14:20 PM
1 votes:

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 03:36:00 PM
1 votes:
2012-12-25 03:32:29 PM
1 votes:

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 02:53:53 PM
1 votes:

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

They apply authoritarianism against things they fear, mostly women and plants. They favour deadly firearms, overseas wars and pollution, as long as some rich fark is making money.



Bullshiat.

Authoritarianism is the goal of those who wish to concentrate power in the hands of a few, and they will happily use whatever method is politically convenient  - be it "left" or "right", to accomplish that goal.
2012-12-25 02:50:43 PM
1 votes:

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

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


This isn't a problem with the First Amendment. Gun owners are pissed because they are forced to disclose this information.

Their 4th Amendment rights are being violated.
2012-12-25 02:37:00 PM
1 votes:

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

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

However, advertising where weapons are kept, so that an enterprising criminal doesn't have to look hard to find one, is still a bad idea.


Do you know an easier way to find out who has funs? Facebook. They are all over talking about the issues, hinting season etc. or the idiots posting coments after the Newtown articles. Follow any sticker-laden pick up truck out of a Gander Mountain parking lot. Heck, look for the guy making a big deal about cleaning his gun at the campsite next to yours. Raid a boys out storage facility.it isn't like this is unknown information.

And if you dont like it, get the equivalent of HIPAA passed with the exception that the cops do get to know who you are.
2012-12-25 02:35:40 PM
1 votes:
These are the same people that saw no problem with hard-right anti-abortionist sites posting abortion doctors names, addresses, and photos online and outright calling them murderers.

fark em.

You want to own a gun it's going into public records where people can aggregate the information and post it online. Don't like it? Don't own a gun. Your right to bear arms has not been infringed, only your right to bear arms secretly.
2012-12-25 01:50:18 PM
1 votes:
I wonder how many of the gun owners moved and didn't update their registrations (or moved out of state), leaving some innocent person's address on the burglary hit list.

Did the newspaper think validate these addresses?
2012-12-25 01:38:32 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Cling to that gun, boyo.

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

OMG LIBERTIES

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


Yeah, our Bill of Rights is just crazy talk. (Sigh)
2012-12-25 01:33:36 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Cling to that gun, boyo.

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

OMG LIBERTIES

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


Or, you know, we're completely sane and just disagree with your position, and like winding you up because it's funny to watch you piss your pannies...
2012-12-25 01:27:26 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Fire the editor and whatever writers were involved with this.


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

This is just plain westboro baptist church crazy and irresponsible.

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

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

Oh and gun control advocates... you just lost me right there. You've just shown that your cause is run by crazies that'll do any irresponsible thing that they can to get what they want. That sort of fanaticism need to be curb stomped.
2012-12-25 01:25:13 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


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

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

As much as people like to throw around "ZOMG THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY WANTED!", I submit that our framers never intended for militarized police to roam the streets, and the culture of fear we live in now.
2012-12-25 01:23:39 PM
1 votes:
In fact, due to this B.S. I am going to find the names and addresses of everyone that was involved in posting this data to the public.

Then I am going to post THEIR ADDRESSES, and if each and every one owns a gun or not. Gotta let the crooks know who is easy right? If they want to post our info, I guess we should post theirs, RIGHT?
2012-12-25 01:19:06 PM
1 votes:

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

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

Every man a good idea that simply will not work.


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

I don't have a problem with the government having a light tax on ammo and firearm sales provided that the money funded firearm training and education, law enforcement, or assistance to families of gun related crimes.
2012-12-25 01:14:58 PM
1 votes:
StopLurkListen: This is an atrocity clearly equal to the mass murder of Kindergarteners and firefighters, to say nothing of the too-frequent senseless (but less newsworthy) murders, therefore both sides are bad.

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

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

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

The newspaper is worse.
2012-12-25 01:13:09 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

What a ridiculous fear. Cars have windows.

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

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


So, what you're saying is, you basically want the US to be more like the UK? Why not go live in the UK and let us alone?
2012-12-25 01:12:54 PM
1 votes:

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


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

The government can regulate, that is its job, but some things it cannot totally restrict. To keep it on topic, the government can require firearms registration, or background checks, etc, all of which I think are fine, but a total restriction is off the table, as the 2nd Amendment is currently interpreted. As other folks can relate better than I, the amendment was written with an eye towards protecting the rights of the people from an overzealous government.
2012-12-25 01:12:14 PM
1 votes:
No matter your views on gun control this was a stupid, vindictive idea.
2012-12-25 01:07:37 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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


The only reason they thought they could make money from this is the recent shooting sprees.
2012-12-25 01:05:09 PM
1 votes:

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


That's a nice idea but those statements are so vague as to be useless in actual practice. Your constitution lays out the specifics of some civil rights and federal and state laws further define them. The point is there is no specific civil right that the government doesn't have some say in.
2012-12-25 01:02:03 PM
1 votes:

stiletto_the_wise: Second Amendment, meet First Amendment.


This.

Anti-gun people: There should be heavy restrictions on gun ownership.
Pro-gun people: SECOND AMENDMENT! SECOND AMENDMENT!
Anti-gun people: We're going to publish a list of public records as allowed by the First Amendment.
Pro-gun people: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
2012-12-25 01:00:46 PM
1 votes:

Amos Quito:

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?


More guns and murders in poor areas.

That's a social issue, not a firearms related issue.
2012-12-25 12:59:55 PM
1 votes:
so many feral pigs in New York? Gevalt, who knew?
2012-12-25 12:58:11 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Wow.
2012-12-25 12:58:08 PM
1 votes:

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


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

The government does not grant us our basic rights - they are ours as human birthright.
2012-12-25 12:54:33 PM
1 votes:

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


Canada has a constitution. We also have a Bill of Rights. Your statement that "the only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems them worthy of" is absolutely ridiculous. Do Americans have civil rights outside of those the government has granted?
2012-12-25 12:50:47 PM
1 votes:

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


The ones on this list registered their firearms. If they didn't give a shiat, they woudn't have done that, huh.
2012-12-25 12:50:37 PM
1 votes:
Non-story.

Burglars don't read the newspaper, nor does anyone.
2012-12-25 12:46:29 PM
1 votes:

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

How much is that saving in welfare costs?

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


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

Not that you gun fetishists give a shiat about law, though. Your guns put you above the law, right? Right?
2012-12-25 12:45:32 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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

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



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

Regulating weapons and ammo is more practical. The 2nd amendment may give you the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say a thing about ammo. Tax $20 a bullet and implement a national buyback program for weapons, ammo and accessories. I bet a lot of families that are unhappy with a certain member's gun collection would gladly start bringing them in. In a generation, the number of usable weapons floating around out there would decline dramatically.
2012-12-25 12:43:16 PM
1 votes:
People need to stop thinking it's 1960. Any information that is publicly available is going to end up categorized in some database somewhere that is easily accessible.

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

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

If you have a problem with the newspaper publishing this information you should take it up with the laws that make this information a matter of public record.
2012-12-25 12:43:03 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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


Did he put his home address in the article?
2012-12-25 12:41:52 PM
1 votes:

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

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


Irresponsible use of First Amendment in response to irresponsible use of Second Amendment.
2012-12-25 12:38:47 PM
1 votes:

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


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

The newspaper will get away with it though, because they will pull some justification out of their ass.
2012-12-25 12:38:39 PM
1 votes:

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


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

If there is anyone who fantasizes about the death of other humans it is progressices/liberals/democrats.
2012-12-25 12:38:09 PM
1 votes:
gun ownership should be mandatory.
2012-12-25 12:37:54 PM
1 votes:
i1121.photobucket.com

NY Murder Map - 2010

i1121.photobucket.com

New York legal gun map, 2012

Anyone notice any correlation here?

Any?
2012-12-25 12:34:25 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

Right?

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

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

But let's ban guns anyhow, mmmmkay?


See, this is the absurdist approach the NRA has pushed as a defense and is being echoed thoughtlessly, that any mention of regulating firearms = complete gun ban. But the NRA is completely on the wrong side of the argument with the general public, and by a big margin. Every product available to the public is regulated for public safety. This all or nothing gambit has not, and will not, continue to fool the public and only cements in the "gun nut" stereotype.
2012-12-25 12:34:07 PM
1 votes:
Good for the paper. Now people no what local nut jobs to stay away from.
2012-12-25 12:33:40 PM
1 votes:
I love all the people with GEDs in law from NRA U who think that they have a right to sue over this, as if the newspaper is strictly liable for anything that happens to anyone they report on. Don't like it? Stick to hunting rifles that don't need to be registered; you can still clutch it in your cold dead hands when you're murdered by a government drone during the great defense of the second amendment.
2012-12-25 12:31:18 PM
1 votes:

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

Exactly.

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

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


Why are they douches? It's public information.
2012-12-25 12:24:08 PM
1 votes:

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

How much is that saving in welfare costs?



I know you jest, but Texas, which has recently attempted to prevent Planned Parenthood from getting any money (even the clinics that don't perform abortions), realized that the loss of family planning clinics would result is an extra $273 million a year in taxpayer costs due to unplanned birth care.
2012-12-25 12:23:59 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

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



Way to completely sidestep the question I put forth to you. I'm surprised you didn't just scream "NO! MINE" like a toddler. Enjoy your permanent infancy. I look forward to my paycheck supporting your welfare check.
2012-12-25 12:23:50 PM
1 votes:
I would have no problem having my name published in the paper as owning guns because:

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

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

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

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

If I was one not on the list, I would be a bit upset that the paper identified my house as an unprotected house.
2012-12-25 12:22:48 PM
1 votes:

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

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

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

Right?

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


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

But let's ban guns anyhow, mmmmkay?
2012-12-25 12:21:21 PM
1 votes:

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

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp


England has done exactly that. It's illegal for a person under 18 to own a knife longer than 3 1/4" and all knives longer have to be registered. They have also recently banned cricket bats in public.
England, as well as Canada also doesn't have this one document that we treasure so greatly called a constitution. The only civil rights they have are the ones the government deems they are worthy of. But they're groomed from birth to accept that the government is there to spoonfeed you everything you need, so they just accept it.
England has 1/5 the the population of the US and their Violent crime is 4x ours. Yeah, the anti gunners spout the gun stats, but completely leave out that little tidbit.
2012-12-25 12:20:18 PM
1 votes:

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

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


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

The answer is C. Home burglars are generally junkies. Junkies don't read the newspaper. The answer is C because this will have no impact.
2012-12-25 12:19:55 PM
1 votes:

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


So says the mental patient.
2012-12-25 12:17:55 PM
1 votes:

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

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


I want a list of where all the young nubile children live as well as their school schedules. It's public records, after all.
2012-12-25 12:17:24 PM
1 votes:

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


Uh-huh.

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

Merry Christmas! See you next Passover!
2012-12-25 12:16:03 PM
1 votes:

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


How much is that saving in welfare costs?
2012-12-25 12:14:30 PM
1 votes:

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


Well this is about what is legal to do. It is legal to own a gun, if you go through the proper channels. It is legal to print their names. It is also legal to get an abortion, if you go through the proper channels. Perhaps the names of anyone that has had an abortion should be made public, so men will know which women are less likely to attempt the pregnancy trap?
2012-12-25 12:13:06 PM
1 votes:
Hey, lets next publish the name and address of all the women out there who have had an Abortion.

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

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

www.philipbrocoum.com
2012-12-25 12:07:32 PM
1 votes:

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

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


While we are at it, add income tax records to the list!
2012-12-25 11:59:24 AM
1 votes:

halB: Oh thank god!

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


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

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

Because your brain may not be wired like the rest of us, I'll explain this clearly. Publishing information already in the public record does not even begin to begin to begin to equate to the mass murder of twenty little kids.
2012-12-25 11:57:42 AM
1 votes:
Wow, the biases here are really on display. Nobody has the right to know who owns what - including cars and guns. This paper hates gun owners so much they thought this would be OK. Enjoy the payback, biatches.
2012-12-25 11:54:21 AM
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

Or here:

When GPS Tracking Violates Privacy Rights

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

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

The majority opinion held that there was no constitutional violation of the defendant's rights because he "did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data given off by his voluntarily procured pay-as-you-go cellphone."
2012-12-25 11:53:17 AM
1 votes:

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

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


I don't think you understand the concept of public records.
2012-12-25 11:51:12 AM
1 votes:
Hold the paper responsible if firearms are stolen from the home and used to murder someone. Count the reporter as being liable under federal law for gun crime....10 year prison term....at least.
2012-12-25 11:50:59 AM
1 votes:
This is such a horrible idea. Now people are not going to want to register their guns. I'd like tighter gun control, not more unregistered guns. Also if anybody there is hiding from a psycho ex .... too bad for them I guess. This doesn't accomplish anything other than bad things for everybody.
2012-12-25 11:50:56 AM
1 votes:
I'm not for banning guns, but I also don't recall anyone having a "right" to secrecy when owning an instrument that has only two uses: threatening and killing. If you have a problem with this, then you are not what anyone would consider a responsible gun owner, so all the more reason for you to be identified in a public forum. Let me make it clear: community safety far exceeds your desire to not give people a reason to pass judgment on you. Don't like it, find a different community. Threatening others over this is just going to prove the point.
2012-12-25 11:46:00 AM
1 votes:
As a fan of everything in the bill of rights, I find this hilarious. As strident as some gun owners can be about their rights, they tend to lose sight of free speech and what bits of information should be public knowledge. After all, when you ban lists of gun owners, only outlaws will have lists of gun owners.

/we're getting carried away with privacy rights at the expense of the public good.
//It takes nerve for a newspaper to do this. They will lose more revenue than they will gain.
2012-12-25 11:45:32 AM
1 votes:
I completely support the paper's right to publish publically available info.

I completely suppprt the gun owner's right to publish all the publically available info of any/all people who work at the paper.
2012-12-25 11:45:00 AM
1 votes:

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


I remember the last time this was trendy with the local 'journalists' and the shock and appall when their tactic was turned on them. Serves the hypocritical douches right, IMO.
2012-12-25 11:43:43 AM
1 votes:
While I'm all for openness in government, why the hell are those public records?
2012-12-25 11:41:46 AM
1 votes:
"The Journal News" is obviously gay, and should be sued!
2012-12-25 11:40:36 AM
1 votes:
I don't see the problem.
2012-12-25 11:39:58 AM
1 votes:
Wait, I thought all you Fark gun nuts were responsible gun owners, that kept their guns locked up and secured. You know, unlike Nancy Lanza. If you are telling the truth, noone will be able to break in and steal your guns.

If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, gun-owning citizen.
2012-12-25 11:36:00 AM
1 votes:
What's next? Registering knives? Then they will make us register baseball bats. Then maybe our Laser Tag blasters. The next thing you know Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot is marching down Main Street.

Wake up people. Second Amendment!

/derp
2012-12-25 11:32:48 AM
1 votes:

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


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

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

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

Just putting it out there like they did? Not cool with that at all.
2012-12-25 11:31:10 AM
1 votes:

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


Not at all. I've never known of a burglar who bothered to go downtown to check public records for information like this. But despite what many probably believe, many see the local section of the newspaper. If for no other reason than to see which of their buddies was recently arrested.
.
I can't speak for others, but I know I don't worry about my house getting broken into when I'm home. I'm worried about my house getting broken into when I'm not home.
2012-12-25 11:30:16 AM
1 votes:

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


Real world doesn't work that way, also just because you have a gun permit doesn't mean you have a conceal/carry permit which means they can be stolen once people know you are not home.
2012-12-25 11:25:52 AM
1 votes:

snuff3r: Noones going to lose their job over this.


But Noone didn't have anything to do with this. Noone has been doing a great job since he joined the paper.
2012-12-25 11:25:21 AM
1 votes:
The people that should be pissed are the ones that DON'T own guns. Now everone knows that they have to legal way to defend themselves. This is just plain batshiat crazy.
2012-12-25 11:20:42 AM
1 votes:
Follow up article:

Mass shooting at The Journal News offices by disgruntled gun owner.
2012-12-25 11:18:34 AM
1 votes:

doglover: Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.

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


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

I would think that the reason people are pissed off is because thieves are going to be targeting gun owner's houses to steal their guns.
2012-12-25 11:17:55 AM
1 votes:
isn't it generally known when you apply that it will be publically available? pretty sure i knew that when i got my permit in MA.
2012-12-25 08:51:48 AM
1 votes:

Generation_D: I could see this backfiring.


Case an address, doublecheck the list. Not on the gun owners' registry? Easy pickins for a home invasion. They won't shoot back.
 
Displayed 142 of 142 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report