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.

(Tech Crunch)   Remember how that newspaper published names and addresses of gun owners? Well, do unto others   (techcrunch.com) divider line 1060
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

33338 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 6:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1060 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-26 10:06:07 PM  
Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.
 
2012-12-26 10:10:27 PM  
What's good for the goose, et al...

www.marriottsbutchers.co.uk
 
2012-12-26 10:23:36 PM  
They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.
 
2012-12-26 10:29:29 PM  
Who knew this would end badly? Oh yeah.

Have fun with this, both sides of this crap.
 
2012-12-26 10:35:43 PM  
Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.
 
2012-12-26 11:05:55 PM  
This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.


It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.
 
2012-12-26 11:08:36 PM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.


No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.  He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.
 
2012-12-26 11:11:52 PM  

Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.


Just because you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.
 
2012-12-26 11:19:09 PM  

Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.


You know what else is "public" information? Your criminal records. Every phone number attributed to you. Your occupation. Your employer. Your Driver's License #. Your car titles. Your home's taxable value. Anything you post on facebook. Pictures of your kids. Where your kids go to school. Your utility account numbers. Whether the dry pairs in your home are activated (Hello! THIS guy doesn't have a security system!). Who you've ever been married to. Who you've ever divorced. Your credit rating. Your name changes (say hello to that abusive boyfriend you finally got away from!). I can get to all of that in minutes.

If you don't mind these asshats publishing what they did, you have absolutely NO leg to stand on when I publish all ^^^^^ that on the newspaper's employees either.
 
2012-12-26 11:20:43 PM  

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.


Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.
 
2012-12-26 11:28:02 PM  
iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!
 
2012-12-26 11:34:44 PM  

vartian: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!


Damn right. Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger just to make some trumped up political statement and I have absolutely no problem doing the same to you with avarice and absolutely NO regard for your well being.

Hopefully such an overwhelmingly powerful retaliation would be a reminder to other dipshiats in the future that thought for even a second that shiat like this is a good idea.
 
2012-12-26 11:34:57 PM  

vartian: Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!


Joe Rogan is gonna be pissed!
 
2012-12-26 11:38:09 PM  

vartian: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!


It was done for the Virginia newspaper, it was done for the Memphis, and it will be done again when journalists forget their career and advocate for political causes.    Can you blame them?  If you were a gun owner wouldn't you be mad?  Wouldn't you want a little tit for tat.

I live in a state where there is no list of gun owners, it is expressly forbidden by law.   I live in a state where I don't need permission from the state to buy or keep a gun, it is a right not to be denied except in very limited circumstances based on my ability to safely use a gun, or my prior illegal conduct.   I live in a state where the concealed weapons licensees, who now top one million, are confident that their names and addresses are protected from this sort of journalistic fanning of the flames by the laws our elected representatives passed to stave off just this sort of stupidity.
 
2012-12-26 11:41:23 PM  

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.


in one it is done
the thread may now be so closed
no happy ending
 
2012-12-26 11:43:57 PM  

feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.
 
2012-12-26 11:48:04 PM  

Triumph: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.


Check Infowars. I'm sure someone there is on the case.
 
2012-12-26 11:55:02 PM  

iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger


How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?
 
2012-12-26 11:56:32 PM  

Triumph: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.


The shooter was his brother, his mom was a teacher, there were 2 shooters, he murdered his father in NJ first, all crap the journalists told us.   The fourth estate used to be respected, journalism used to be a calling.  Now it is what the kids who can't get into anything else go for in college.

Breaking the law by bringing illegal magazines on TV to make a baseless argument, attempting to interview families the day after their children were murdered, journalists are less respected than used car salesmen and deservedly so.

When news stations interview someone on the scene, unless it is someone paid to talk to the media, the PIO of the police or fire department everyone scatters save the few toothless unwashed who want a chance to be seen on Eyewitness sort of made up facts at 11.   Normal people know that journalists will manipulate what they say, edit what they say to serve the journalist's purpose, or simply lie.   Why involve yourself in that.  If a journalist wants to interview you tell them to fark off, you can't be misquoted that way.
 
2012-12-26 11:59:39 PM  
So what? All the tough gun people gonna go hunt these people down now?

They'll just be shooting themselves in the foot.
 
2012-12-26 11:59:45 PM  

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?


Nobody wants to shoot someone else.  That is what people have permits to carry a concealed gun - they don't want to be a target and they don't want the criminals to know they have a gun.   The element of surprise should be on the side of the law abiding citizen, not the criminal.

/not that you can see this since you ignore opinion and facts that differ from your warped world view.   Perhaps someone will quote it so you can ball your little fists up, start frothing at the mouth and post some of your usual nonsense in response.   Or not, either way is fine with me, I find you to be an amusing cog in the huge wheel of liberalism with all the other uninformed cogs.
 
2012-12-27 12:00:43 AM  

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?


It's been my experience - after living for years with relatives on the police force - that gun owners are the ones that live most in fear of others. Hence the need for a gun. So yeah, of course he assumes he's in danger.

//Sure he thinks he's one of the exceptions.
 
2012-12-27 12:03:16 AM  

Triumph: 3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?


His mom trained him.

Don't know what blog you got the rest of that from but it sucks.
 
2012-12-27 12:03:16 AM  

feckingmorons: GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

Nobody wants to shoot someone else.  That is what people have permits to carry a concealed gun - they don't want to be a target and they don't want the criminals to know they have a gun.   The element of surprise should be on the side of the law abiding citizen, not the criminal.

/not that you can see this since you ignore opinion and facts that differ from your warped world view.   Perhaps someone will quote it so you can ball your little fists up, start frothing at the mouth and post some of your usual nonsense in response.   Or not, either way is fine with me, I find you to be an amusing cog in the huge wheel of liberalism with all the other uninformed cogs.


Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.
 
2012-12-27 12:04:10 AM  

feckingmorons: The fourth estate used to be respected, journalism used to be a calling.  Now it is what the kids who can't get into anything else go for in college.


Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.
 
2012-12-27 12:04:12 AM  
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2012-12-27 12:06:44 AM  

Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.


And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?
 
2012-12-27 12:08:17 AM  

Triumph: feckingmorons: The fourth estate used to be respected, journalism used to be a calling.  Now it is what the kids who can't get into anything else go for in college.

Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.


And that makes them competent and not agenda driven how exactly?  Princeton turns out all sorts of journalists, but we have so few real journalists devoted to truth and objectivity the entire graduating class could be j school grads and we would be no better off.
 
2012-12-27 12:11:28 AM  
Next, they'll be printing huge books of people's addresses and phone numbers.
 
2012-12-27 12:12:13 AM  

GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?


No, if I have to carry my gun in the open I become the first target.  Once they shoot me then everyone else is a sitting duck.   If a burglar knows a homeowner has a gun he will kill the homeowner before the burglary rather than simply locking them in a closet or something like that.

Just like the teachers were murdered in Newton before the criminal murdered the children.   They eliminate the greatest threat first.   The element of surprise when the owner pulls his gun from the nightstand or confronts a burglar on the stairs with his shotgun is imperative.  It can often save the life of the homeowner, and in many cases the criminal as they can see that a fight is futile.   I'd much rather have a criminal running out the front door after he sees my gun than have a shoot out in my living room.   If I can surprise the burglar with my gun we can both run different directions and get out of it alive.
 
2012-12-27 12:14:17 AM  

Triumph: Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.


i47.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-27 12:15:53 AM  

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?


No, because thieves like stealing firearms. Now you're just exposing my girlfriend to a dipshiat trying to break in when he thinks no one is home. I may be willing to shoot somebody, she's not.
 
2012-12-27 12:16:59 AM  

GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?


How does CC prevent you from being shot? That's not what FM said at all.

And no, I don't think publishing the name and address of every gun owner is something anyone would want, necessarily. There are several great examples in this thread of why it shouldn't be done. I get that those are public records, but I think that goes against the nature of CC - those shouldn't be public records because that defeats the purpose of a  concealed carry permit. As for just registered gun owners, I understand why those are public records, too, but the way both the "news" and the idiot in the article are behaving is just asinine. I've seen kindergartners have a better fight than this "nyah nyah nyah I can do it too!" crap.
 
2012-12-27 12:22:30 AM  

Kimothy: How does CC prevent you from being shot? That's not what FM said at all.


You just tape it to the tactical armor that you wear everyday. It's right in the Field Manual.
 
2012-12-27 12:23:00 AM  

Kimothy: How does CC prevent you from being shot? That's not what FM said at all.


He never makes any substantive argument, he just parrots media talking points and re-engineers what others say in an attempt to make their cogent argument seem defective.

Probably a journalism student.

If you told him the sky was blue he would complain that big pharma causes bus fares to rise.
 
2012-12-27 12:23:13 AM  

GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?


Not at all. I gave you my answer to this today in a thread that was green and then went red. I don't really feel like reposting it, but among most gun owners, I don't think I'm in the minority.
 
2012-12-27 12:26:04 AM  

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?


As a responsible gun owner you should do everything you can to avoid confrontation. The newspaper pointing out every legal gun owner in a few counties increases the chance of confrontation with someone that may be armed. This is America. We have crazy people everywhere and this issue is one that both sides are passionate about.

Our angry little friend may be going over the top, but he is right. The public scrutiny does raise the risk, however small it may be.
 
2012-12-27 12:26:18 AM  

feckingmorons: Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.



THIS100.
 
2012-12-27 12:26:36 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Triumph: Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.

[Dude, wait, what?


William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard - he just wouldn't hire reporters who did, because he didn't pay them enough.
 
2012-12-27 12:27:42 AM  

Triumph: William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard - he just wouldn't hire reporters who did, because he didn't pay them enough.


So, you're referring to, like, 90 years ago when none of us were alive?
 
2012-12-27 12:29:48 AM  
Way to take the high road.

/idjits
 
2012-12-27 12:32:16 AM  
Oh man, so many addresses have been released now.  I wonder where I'm going to start sending those pizzas first.
 
2012-12-27 12:32:31 AM  
To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.
 
2012-12-27 12:32:57 AM  
On a different note, is now a good time to start talking about the state of mental health care in this country, or are we still dead set on the whole 'gun' thing?
 
2012-12-27 12:33:43 AM  

violentsalvation: GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?

Not at all. I gave you my answer to this today in a thread that was green and then went red. I don't really feel like reposting it, but among most gun owners, I don't think I'm in the minority.


It's simple. Letting the world know you are carrying a gun is the same as flexing your muscles, declaring you are the baddest mofo to walk the earth, and saying come at me bro. Sooner or later someone is going to take you up on it because they had a bad day and do not like the color of your shirt. Being descrete with your weapons is the responsible thing to do. Publishing lawful gun owners takes that descretion away from them with absolutley zero gain for anyone.
 
2012-12-27 12:36:08 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Triumph: William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard - he just wouldn't hire reporters who did, because he didn't pay them enough.

So, you're referring to, like, 90 years ago when none of us were alive?


Kind of - the Ivy League really moved into newspapers in the 70s and 80s. The greatest newspaper reporter ever, H.L. Mencken, never even went to college.
 
2012-12-27 12:37:22 AM  
I would think that any real journalist would respect the privacy of someone not directly making active news. Someone with an actual ax to grind or that wants to take advantage of a tragedy to get themselves noticed for their "work" shouldn't b surprised that they get some push back.
 
2012-12-27 12:42:56 AM  

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com
 
2012-12-27 12:45:08 AM  

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


Then why do people shoot at the police?  We all know they are carrying guns.

Your argument is absurd, you make broad sweeping generalizations about gun owners and you want to have it both ways by arguing for what the paper did and then saying you don't agree with it.

This is typical for you.  You never have a cogent argument and you draw conclusions that don't exist nor are they conclusions or argument that anyone else has made.   You could argue with yourself in an empty room and still come out second.
 
2012-12-27 12:45:44 AM  

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children.


Done in one/came to say this.

All of you grow the f*ck up.
 
2012-12-27 12:46:26 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: Oh man, so many addresses have been released now.  I wonder where I'm going to start sending those pizzas first.


I'd like a pizza.

I'm a good tipper too - five bucks at least more if it is raining.
 
2012-12-27 12:47:50 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]


Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.
 
2012-12-27 12:51:51 AM  

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


There are just as many glaring holes in the half of the arguments anti-gun people make. There's a reason it's called a CONCEALED carry license. When I was on the clock and running around gumshoing, yes I'd be openly carrying, because I'm  alreadya target and carrying it concealed would do absolutely nothing to sway the mind of a guy who thinks it's acceptable to come out the door with a baseball bat because you don't like the guy that just served you a huge garnishment. Nobody in their right mind, however, is going to do that when he knows the guy that just served him can easily perforate him. When I'm out and about, however? Say, taking my girlfriend out for dinner? I still need to have a good tool to defend myself with (when your living involves pissing people off, running into them at a restaurant can turn pear shaped quickly), but I don't want everybody to know I have a gun. Police frown on it, shoot people over it even, even law abiding citizens. People frown on it. Outside of Texas guns just aren't acceptable attire (I still have a wicked Bar-B-Q gun that always wins the gun peen contest).

If you think crap like this is OK, and believe contrived nonsense like the argument you just made, you're really performing some mental gymnastics. Would you approve of a public list of everyone who had an STD? You know, for public health reasons? This includes stuff like Herpes, the clap, anything that you could prevent from spreading by letting everybody out there know they have it? If you're not ok with that, why in the hell do you think this is acceptable.
 
2012-12-27 12:53:17 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com



The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."
 
2012-12-27 12:54:44 AM  

R.A.Danny: I would think that any real journalist would respect the privacy of someone not directly making active news. Someone with an actual ax to grind or that wants to take advantage of a tragedy to get themselves noticed for their "work" shouldn't b surprised that they get some push back.


Unfortunately all the real journalists are dead.  Now it is 20 and 30 somethings that think they're going to change the world by exposing law abiding citizens as 'gun owners' as if there is something to be ashamed of in owning a gun.

The absurd excuse the paper gave is 'for the children' , they want to publish the names and addresses so parents know that it may not be safe to send their kids to play in the house where a parent legally owns a registered gun.

The paper is being used politically by those who want to encroach further on our freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.  They are but willing dupes who sincerely believe they are doing good by being so stupid.   Absolutely no gain, no civic betterment, no benefit, can be gained from what they did and their reason is laughable.  If your children go over to a neighbors to play you as a parent should know the neighbors and you should have visited their house so you could see if they have guns lying about where a child might access them.   No newspaper list of gun owners is going to help anyone be a better parent.
 
2012-12-27 12:58:57 AM  

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


Yet another tack, you are indeed the drunken sailor of discourse.    You manage to work in your lack of religious faith, that must make you a celebrity among the other anti-religionists.

You claim you don't agree with the publishing of the names and addresses of gun owners then you claim the outrage makes no sense.  Which one is it, which opinion do you truly hold?  Is it that you've never had a thought or opinion of your own so you want to cover all the bases lest someone have an opinion that differs from yours?   Are you afraid of not being universally loved so you support or hate everything equally?   There is a word for that.
 
2012-12-27 01:09:10 AM  

violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com


The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."


Yes because in NY you can't carry that gun in your car or to work.  It is a premises permit.  The gun stays in the house.   Yes you can get a permit to carry a gun or a permit for a gun at your job, but you can also win the powerball and I think the odds of that are better, someone wins the power ball every few weeks.
 
2012-12-27 01:17:44 AM  

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


That isn't always the case though, it is not that simple. We can't carry a gun everywhere we go. I sure as hell don't want to carry a gun everywhere I go. I should be able to leave it at home and not have advertised on the news that a gun or guns are home alone. There are very very few times I actually bring along a gun for personal protection (Hiking in the mountains near the AZ/ Mexico border and under the arm rest of the car on a road trip within the state are pretty much it, the latter because why not? It can sit there). And personal protection is not always the reason someone owns a pistol, but those people made the news and became a target, too. The outrage makes plenty of sense. I don't want my home broken into, my guns stolen, and people in Mexico to die, shot dead with my guns because some journalist has an anti-gun agenda.

I'm glad we don't have to register our guns here, and I've found my reason for being against that push.
 
2012-12-27 01:27:26 AM  

Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map.


You have a lot of public information, too. Your name, address, employer, employer's address, every comment on fark, names and ages of any relatives, etc.

Your life can be ruined.
 
2012-12-27 01:32:58 AM  

GAT_00: The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.


strawman.
 
2012-12-27 01:48:12 AM  

log_jammin: GAT_00: The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.

strawman.


Seriously.

I have a gun in my house. Only my SO and my cousin that I occasionally go shooting with know it's here. I don't take it with me to work or around while running errands, so no, it doesn't stop crime.

But if some dickwad decides he wants to come in here in the middle of the night, he better have something that will stop a .45. If you aren't supposed to be in my house, I'll shoot to kill and ask questions later.

And don't stay with the "what if it's the cops" crap. I know what entails a no knock warrant execution. If a criminal is ingenious enough to rip through my security and front doors or come in through my backyard with 5 or 6 of his closest friends with flashlights and maybe a helicopter spotlight, we'll then, damn, I'm screwed.

Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.
 
2012-12-27 02:12:18 AM  

Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.


#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.
 
2012-12-27 02:13:31 AM  

NewportBarGuy: Who knew this would end badly? Oh yeah.

Have fun with this, both sides of this crap.


IIRC, you were in the service at some point. Firearms are sort of what you all do ( I grew up in the service, but never actually served). Guns were around me all the damned time, so you could say that I'm sort of accustomed to them.

 I'm a staunch, fire-spitting liberal, but I'm pro-gun for pragmatic reasons. No one is coming for the sidearm I keep in the bedroom. This whole discussion is farking retarded, on both sides (both sides are bad so vote [insert] in case you haven't heard].

 Remember, this is America, and we'll soon forget about all this. You and I will continue having a pistol. Ralph over there will still be able to hunt. This is just hysteria, and nothing more.
 
2012-12-27 02:16:09 AM  

dickfreckle: This whole discussion is farking retarded, on both sides


can't argue with that.
 
2012-12-27 03:46:09 AM  
I don't see anyone blaming the State of New York for making the names and addresses of gun owners public information.

Which is really a pity.
 
2012-12-27 04:00:28 AM  
And now, a word from our sponsor!
 
2012-12-27 04:25:23 AM  

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


I would have thought you would be getting smarter as you get older, but your derp instead grows stronger.
 
2012-12-27 04:33:46 AM  
Next, I hope they post a list of everyone with 1967 GTOs. My friend lives up that way and can use some parts. I'm sure they can find some guy at the local YMCA who's curious about Pontiac ownership in the area to justify publishing it all, and GM owners are laid back and wouldn't feel at all singled out by it.
 
2012-12-27 04:37:32 AM  

GAT_00: But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


except that there is tons of evidence that it does.
the classic car jacking in floriduh vs carjacking in chicago.
the grannies with their hands in their fannie packs.

The possible increased risk of getting shot does deter some crime.

If you were a thief casing suburban homes and you know these 4 have guns in them and these 4 dont have guns, you will avoid the gun homes, unless you are there to rob guns ... ROFL

on the other hand, I live on the end of the hall on the 20th floor, by the time the thieves/zombies get up the high they will be tired.
 
2012-12-27 04:43:12 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.

#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.


you know, I dont have a shot gun and well, I know nothing
so wikipedia .....
WTF, you werent even close to making that shiat up!
nice

would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders
 
2012-12-27 04:50:40 AM  

namatad: would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


I choose #000 for a few reasons. I'm going to fire a shotgun, so stopping-power/spread is important. I'd either go with #00 buck with 15x pellets or #000 buck with 10 pellets. Personally, the idea of emptying a 10rd magazine of 9mm for every pull of the trigger is appealing to me. Most people are good shots, and I am too, but a high-stress home-invasion is different from the range. So while some prefer handguns for home defense, I prefer shotguns.

Another reason is noise. Dear god, I can't imagine the sound of firing #000 indoors or at close range or worse... standing downrange from it. The sound of a 10x pellet #000 buck round going off sounds like a grenade. It's startling the first time you fire it. If someone was coming into your home and you fired that at them, it would either A) tear them to pieces or B) Make them think you fired a mortar round at them. Either way, that bastard will know he made a big mistake in will rethink his life's choices if he survives.
 
2012-12-27 04:55:35 AM  

namatad: Cubansaltyballs: Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.

#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.

you know, I dont have a shot gun and well, I know nothing
so wikipedia .....
WTF, you werent even close to making that shiat up!
nice

would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


Shotguns are nice because your intruder will most likely be leaving a steaming pile of whatever he had for lunch on the porch as he melts his soles trying to get the hell out of there.

Thieves have been known to defenestrate themselves at the mere sound of Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 racking a shell into the chamber. It's pretty much the most recognizable sound on earth. Next to a gun clearing a leather holster, and a hammer being cocked on a semi-auto or revolver. My favorite fight is one I never have to participate in, I hear someone who shouldn't be wandering around and the first thing on the checklist aside from pulling it out of the closet is racking my Reminton 870. Chances are I won't even have to leave the room, I'll hear pants filling noises and someone beating feet.

But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.
 
2012-12-27 04:58:29 AM  

namatad: the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


Headshots are for movies and swordplay.

Projectiles should go towards the center of mass. If you get a shot right in the solar plexus area, even if you're off by an inch or five, you'll still do some harm. Zombies aren't real and even if they were you'll miss more heads than torsos.
 
2012-12-27 05:02:29 AM  
If the newspaper wanted to be helpful they could have published a map of domestic violence offenders.

Nothing gets a guy to behave more than the prospect of never getting laid again unless he gets his shiat together.
 
2012-12-27 05:05:55 AM  

iq_in_binary: But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.


This is where we our opinions diverge. For home defense I have a double-barrel, side-by-side and a Saiga 12ga. I'd go for a pump-action, but I'd rather have semi-auto. Why? Because F*ck them, that's why. If someone were so sh*t-all stupid as to enter my home, I fully expect to lose my security deposit because there's a smoking pile of brains, eye-balls, blood, and fecal matter in the doorway.
 
2012-12-27 05:07:57 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: iq_in_binary: But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.

This is where we our opinions diverge. For home defense I have a double-barrel, side-by-side and a Saiga 12ga. I'd go for a pump-action, but I'd rather have semi-auto. Why? Because F*ck them, that's why. If someone were so sh*t-all stupid as to enter my home, I fully expect to lose my security deposit because there's a smoking pile of brains, eye-balls, blood, and fecal matter in the doorway.


IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.
 
2012-12-27 05:11:57 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: iq_in_binary: But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.

This is where we our opinions diverge. For home defense I have a double-barrel, side-by-side and a Saiga 12ga. I'd go for a pump-action, but I'd rather have semi-auto. Why? Because F*ck them, that's why. If someone were so sh*t-all stupid as to enter my home, I fully expect to lose my security deposit because there's a smoking pile of brains, eye-balls, blood, and fecal matter in the doorway.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

All the benefits of getting the guy out of the house without leaving the room, without any of the downsides of a pump.

I'll probably own one eventually, mainly because it could serve so many different purposes and I'm willing to bet one of my wood furniture treatments would make the thing beeeeee-autiful.
 
2012-12-27 05:12:12 AM  

doglover: IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.


My cat would probably set it off. He's passive aggressive like that.
 
2012-12-27 05:18:25 AM  

Gulper Eel: If the newspaper wanted to be helpful they could have published a map of domestic violence offenders.

Nothing gets a guy to behave more than the prospect of never getting laid again unless he gets his shiat together.


http://marriage.about.com/cs/prisonmarriage/ht/prisonmarriage.htm
 
2012-12-27 05:23:13 AM  

iq_in_binary: encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

All the benefits of getting the guy out of the house without leaving the room, without any of the downsides of a pump.

I'll probably own one eventually, mainly because it could serve so many different purposes and I'm willing to bet one of my wood furniture treatments would make the thing beeeeee-autiful.


While I agree, that's a nice weapon... I have zero interest in the guy leaving. They'd probably catch the guy. I'd have to show up to court which means I'd have to look for parking, bring change for the parking meter. Blah. Just not worth it.

I'd prefer to just remove the guy with a shovel and a few Glad bags before I forfeit my security deposit because they have to replace the carpet and paint the place before I move because my apt would become the Overlook Hotel.... and I don't really want my cat walking around saying "redrum" and seeing brains on the wall that aren't there anymore, because he "Shines".
 
2012-12-27 05:24:34 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: doglover: IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.

My cat would probably set it off. He's passive aggressive like that.


Besides, sounds are far scarier. I've long toyed with the idea of planting speakers at various places in the house that have a NetDuino system to play a recording of me racking a shotgun and going off on some Liam Neeson-esque dialog about how what he just heard hit the floor was a round of buckshot and the round now in the chamber was a pig sticker slug (plastic slugs used by the Marines, known for their lack of over-penetration, whereas lead slugs suuuuuuck for keeping a security deposit). I figure by the time I get to explaining the pig sticker the guy would be shiatting his pants, and with a NetDuino I could set up an automated call to the cops with an old Nokia using the same tactics to arrive about the time he started running.

Wouldn't even have to pull the shotgun out of the closet then, just hit a button on my nightstand. Make some coffee for the poor guy who had to clean the shiat out of the back of his cruiser, and offer my services to the guys that responded. Win/Win!

/Break-ins are common in this neighborhood
//Would put a speaker in the garage too with an IR sensor.
 
2012-12-27 05:25:45 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: iq_in_binary: encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

All the benefits of getting the guy out of the house without leaving the room, without any of the downsides of a pump.

I'll probably own one eventually, mainly because it could serve so many different purposes and I'm willing to bet one of my wood furniture treatments would make the thing beeeeee-autiful.

While I agree, that's a nice weapon... I have zero interest in the guy leaving. They'd probably catch the guy. I'd have to show up to court which means I'd have to look for parking, bring change for the parking meter. Blah. Just not worth it.

I'd prefer to just remove the guy with a shovel and a few Glad bags before I forfeit my security deposit because they have to replace the carpet and paint the place before I move because my apt would become the Overlook Hotel.... and I don't really want my cat walking around saying "redrum" and seeing brains on the wall that aren't there anymore, because he "Shines".


All cats are basically Stalin on paws. They wouldn't say "REDRUM" they'd say "Aw, and nobody invited me."
 
2012-12-27 05:37:38 AM  

iq_in_binary: Cubansaltyballs: doglover: IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.

My cat would probably set it off. He's passive aggressive like that.

Besides, sounds are far scarier. I've long toyed with the idea of planting speakers at various places in the house that have a NetDuino system to play a recording of me racking a shotgun and going off on some Liam Neeson-esque dialog about how what he just heard hit the floor was a round of buckshot and the round now in the chamber was a pig sticker slug (plastic slugs used by the Marines, known for their lack of over-penetration, whereas lead slugs suuuuuuck for keeping a security deposit). I figure by the time I get to explaining the pig sticker the guy would be shiatting his pants, and with a NetDuino I could set up an automated call to the cops with an old Nokia using the same tactics to arrive about the time he started running.

Wouldn't even have to pull the shotgun out of the closet then, just hit a button on my nightstand. Make some coffee for the poor guy who had to clean the shiat out of the back of his cruiser, and offer my services to the guys that responded. Win/Win!

/Break-ins are common in this neighborhood
//Would put a speaker in the garage too with an IR sensor.


Or: 10,000,000 bees in a nest that gets agitated when the sensors are tripped.
 
2012-12-27 05:52:00 AM  

feckingmorons: Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.

No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.   He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


So much this. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. My ex went to prison for trying to kill me. He has been out for a while now and is a hazard to me every day he breathes. If I were actively hiding from him, which I am not because he knows I carry and  knows I will not hesitate to shoot him, and someone posted my address like that, I'd be MAD. I'd be beyond mad. I'm not sure "livid" would even cover it. The word to describe my reaction simply doesn't exist, I don't think.

Those journalists are idiots and should have considered how their actions may impact others, but apparently that is too much to ask from most people anymore.

/feels old and tired now
//and sad for anyone who was trying to hide for their own safety
 
2012-12-27 05:58:18 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: feckingmorons: Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.

No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.   He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

So much this. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. My ex went to pri ...


Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.
 
2012-12-27 06:25:16 AM  

iq_in_binary: Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.


I would support you 100% in that. If you inadvertently violated any laws, I'd even put money on your account in jail and visit you.

Orders of protection are not magical force fields that keep you safe, so I had to go beyond that. I have better tools to protect myself now.  I'm still terrified of my ex. He's out of prison, mentally unstable, doesn't take his meds and has already tried to kill me once - why wouldn't  I be terrified? I'm not real down with people outing those who are trying to hide. I agree the shiat needs to stop.

I still do think everyone should be required to do what I did and take classes and pass tests (which I did for myself), but I do not think gun owners' lives should be put in danger or that they should be demonized simply for owning guns or having a concealed carry permit. That's just sheer douchebaggery right there.
 
2012-12-27 06:35:20 AM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.


Nah - thieves are greedy and willing to take calculated risks. Guns are the single most valuable commodity on the black market, and are the best burglar-bait there is. A gun in a empty house is a threat to no one but the victim of the criminal who will eventually buy it from the fence a thief sells it to.
 
2012-12-27 06:36:33 AM  
One is an implied threat and one isn't. Not the same at all. God, I hope civil war II comes soon.
 
2012-12-27 06:37:58 AM  
I think they should publish a list of all houses with swimming pools, seeing as those kill more children than firearms.

I wanted to do something grumbly about Jenny McCarthy's cause or Barbara Streisand's diet, but swimming pools are a real killer.
 
2012-12-27 06:38:13 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: iq_in_binary: Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.

I would support you 100% in that. If you inadvertently violated any laws, I'd even put money on your account in jail and visit you.

Orders of protection are not magical force fields that keep you safe, so I had to go beyond that. I have better tools to protect myself now.  I'm still terrified of my ex. He's out of prison, mentally unstable, doesn't take his meds and has already tried to kill me once - why wouldn't  I be terrified? I'm not real down with people outing those who are trying to hide. I agree the shiat needs to stop.

I still do think everyone should be required to do what I did and take classes and pass tests (which I did for myself), but I do not think gun owners' lives should be put in danger or that they should be demonized simply for owning guns or having a concealed carry permit. That's just sheer douchebaggery right there.


Knowing what I know, and how capable of finding information as I am, I tend to keep a "No Prisoners, Kill everyone" point of view on the subject. Nor am I alien to the licensing idea, hence my suggestion of expanding the NFA. These poeple were straight dicks. They deserve every ounce of bad news headed their way. They need to be taught a lesson. They should be thankful I didn't end up on that list, because they very well would end up suffering for it, if not their kids. Actions need to have consequences, they were too stupid to think that through and they deserve the anguish of their kids suffering for it, if for no other reason than they tried to make mine suffer.

fark these people, they deserve no pity whatsoever for whatever happens to them.
 
2012-12-27 06:41:34 AM  

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.


Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!
 
2012-12-27 06:45:34 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Next, they'll be printing huge books of people's addresses and phone numbers.


You, sir, win the thread.

You may pick your prize from any of the items in Drew's home. (I hope you like empty maker's mark bottles)
 
2012-12-27 06:48:55 AM  

ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!


No, public records are public but most don't know or think of ways to use them nefariously because they are NOT published in the GODDAMN NEWSPAPER (or on the Internet, or wherever).

It was a bad idea to out gun owners, its a bad idea to out the papers staff.
People need to grow up.
 
2012-12-27 06:49:10 AM  
Journalism seems to have one intent and that is "how can we alarm people today?" by making news where there is none and combining it with real news in such a way as to cause unease and (they think) a dependency on the media for more news. If the headline is alarmist, I don't read the article. Whatever the blaring headline says is usually buried in the story and is inconsequential other than to make an attention grabbing banner. Drudge is the worst (or best) at this. Damn shame - what news organizations have become.
 
2012-12-27 06:50:42 AM  
Public info, non-story.

I wish my newspaper published names and addresses of CCW holders about twice a year.

Every single person I know who has more than 3 guns shouldn't have any. I bet most of them carry, too.

\gun owner
 
2012-12-27 06:54:59 AM  

way south: ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!

No, public records are public but most don't know or think of ways to use them nefariously because they are NOT published in the GODDAMN NEWSPAPER (or on the Internet, or wherever).

It was a bad idea to out gun owners, its a bad idea to out the papers staff.
People need to grow up.


Retaliation needs to happen, or they will think it is a good idea in the future.

I wasn't a part of what was outed, but if I was I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson. This shiat needs to stop, I've seen it happen 5 times already just in my adult life. Until these farkers suffer the consequences of what can happen to the people they jut published on, this shiat will not stop. The last one caught a girl that was trying to keep away from her abusive husband. Until they all or at least some of them suffer the consequences of something like that, they don't deserve any farking quarter. Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.They need to feel the ramifications of their actions.

fark their rights, they violated that of thousands. They get to suffer every god damned ramification of having the same thing done of them.
 
2012-12-27 06:58:09 AM  
I'm surprised no one has posted the #1 derp from the comment section.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-27 06:59:23 AM  
pjmedia.com
 
2012-12-27 07:03:41 AM  
It must suck to live in some piece of trash neighborhood where a GED is an accomplishment, you aren't a day's drive from an ocean, turning left is a sport, and God is something other than an obvious attempt of humanity to humor itself about death and morality.

Me, I get up every day in a place where not only is a gun not necessary for anyone, it's not even considered. We are just educated, busy people who just live life without masturbatory fantasies of cowboys and indians. As much as I like to wish you or more realistically your progeny to extract yourselves from this redneck stupor, it really is for the best for all the sooner your genetic line finds a pistol on the seat of the pickup and mercifully smears their nervous tissue harmlessly about the cabin.

Dark ages people with old ways of thinking need to go away so the actual future of humanity can move on.
 
2012-12-27 07:04:18 AM  
it was rude to publish information about the gun owners.
but I'm surprisingly okay with like-retaliation
 the media isn't (for the most part) on the side of the gun owner, policeman etc.
The mainstream news is about sensationalism, doomsaying, personal agenda
so if it gets people bent, but isn't truly against the law, they're in.
Though I certainly hope that nobody is targeted of either group from the information published
This includes women who are armed to avoid crazy/abusive former spouses

on a happy note, I got a mare's leg for christmas!
 
2012-12-27 07:05:25 AM  

Frederf: Dark ages people with old ways of thinking need to go away so the actual future of humanity can move on.


Please tell us how so much better than the rest of humanity you are. It's soooo fascinating.
 
2012-12-27 07:05:29 AM  

feckingmorons: Normal people know that journalists will manipulate what they say, edit what they say to serve the journalist's purpose, or simply lie.


There's an upside to that. If you're careful, you can get them to package the story exactly as you tell them to. They're lazy, and they just want to collect their paycheck and go home.
 
2012-12-27 07:06:58 AM  

Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.


So treat legal gun owners like pedophiles?
 
2012-12-27 07:08:00 AM  

SlothB77: Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

So treat legal gun owners like pedophiles?


You're not helping.
 
2012-12-27 07:08:56 AM  
Well it's pretty much becoming a war, so all's fair.
 
2012-12-27 07:09:07 AM  

BlameBush: Journalism seems to have one intent and that is "how can we alarm people today?" by making news where there is none and combining it with real news in such a way as to cause unease and (they think) a dependency on the media for more news. If the headline is alarmist, I don't read the article. Whatever the blaring headline says is usually buried in the story and is inconsequential other than to make an attention grabbing banner. Drudge is the worst (or best) at this. Damn shame - what news organizations have become.


News is a delivery method for advertising. If it's not selling ads it's because you're not selling the news well enough. Like almost any other job, if you can't make your product good enough to sell better than the other guys, you're not going to have a job much longer. There's money to be made.
 
2012-12-27 07:09:22 AM  
Just what this debate needed, more evidence that gun owners are a vindictive bunch of douches who are eager to escalate a conflict. I'm sure the general public finds this a very reassuring quality in someone who carries a concealed gun.
 
2012-12-27 07:10:01 AM  
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-12-27 07:11:22 AM  

ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!


So the newspaper staff shouldn't feel at all uncomfortable or intimidated about their information being put out on the internet, right?
 
2012-12-27 07:11:31 AM  
Well I guess they shouldn't have pulled that bullsh*t, should they?
 
2012-12-27 07:12:04 AM  

Orange-Pippin: I'm surprised no one has posted the #1 derp from the comment section.

[i.imgur.com image 734x197]


are people on welfare a matter of public record? food stamps? disability?

NO MORE SECRETS
time to implant everyone with GPS trackers and keep 10 years of data
of course we will start with the criminals first, felons, LEOs, elected officials.
That data alone will keep the courts and media entertained for decades
 
2012-12-27 07:12:13 AM  
Everybody knows there are enough crazies around and you don't need a gun to show up at somebody's house in the middle of the night to express your opinion on their stance anonymously. I'm guessing the newspaper people have been doing coonty things and pissing people off far longer than any of the gun owners. Sleep tight Janet.

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
 
2012-12-27 07:12:45 AM  
Internet detectives getting the same done unto them? noproblemwiththis.jpg.
 
2012-12-27 07:13:38 AM  
This thread is hilarious. I kind of feel like I'm being trolled, between Iq's ITG act and Cuban beating off to the idea of getting to murder someone.

Anyway, continue with the entertainment.
 
2012-12-27 07:13:41 AM  
I love how everyone says "it's public information, what's the big deal?" How many crack-head burglars or gang bangers looking for guns to steal do you know of that would go to the court house or city hall, file the proper request, then go home and compile it all into a nice, handy map? None? That's what I thought.

Now they can just look at this idiots map and decide which houses in their area they should case and hit when no one is home. Or worse, do a home invasion where they or someone in the house ends up getting killed.
 
2012-12-27 07:16:16 AM  

Triumph: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.


What's this? Common sense? IN A WHARGBARBLE THREAD!?!?!

I'm so ashamed of you. At least put a cheap troll in there.
 
2012-12-27 07:16:16 AM  

Cubansaltyballs: namatad: would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders

I choose #000 for a few reasons. I'm going to fire a shotgun, so stopping-power/spread is important. I'd either go with #00 buck with 15x pellets or #000 buck with 10 pellets. Personally, the idea of emptying a 10rd magazine of 9mm for every pull of the trigger is appealing to me. Most people are good shots, and I am too, but a high-stress home-invasion is different from the range. So while some prefer handguns for home defense, I prefer shotguns.

Another reason is noise. Dear god, I can't imagine the sound of firing #000 indoors or at close range or worse... standing downrange from it. The sound of a 10x pellet #000 buck round going off sounds like a grenade. It's startling the first time you fire it. If someone was coming into your home and you fired that at them, it would either A) tear them to pieces or B) Make them think you fired a mortar round at them. Either way, that bastard will know he made a big mistake in will rethink his life's choices if he survives.


I knew the shotguns for home invasion and the noise alone. I guess in the end, at close range, the difference between 15 8.4mm and 10 9.1mm is 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. In the end, the effect will be pretty much the same thing.

I have to say, shooting at a range with proper protection really ruined a lot/most movies for me.
REALLY?? You are shooting a gun in a hallway, without earplugs and you can hear without shouting??
ROFL
 
2012-12-27 07:17:19 AM  
Eh, I don't see the newspaper's action as that douchebaggy. After all, gun owners are all so damn proud of their babies. They want everyone to know that they're armed so that no one messes with them. The newspaper was doing them a favor, really. Besides, publishing a list of gun owners is no different than publishing a list of pedophiles or government employees. They're people you should get to know. In this case, either so that you don't get shot by the overzealous or that you use the overzealous to shoot.

Couldn't get away with that here without just listing the phonebook. Hell, I "own" three shotguns myself. I shot one of them once, but all three are in my name because of the overzealous nutjob I live with. But I'm already on other lists, so this one would be no different.

/Wanted a handgun but nooooo according to the nutjob, handguns are something you use only to shoot your way back to the shotgun you should have never left behind to start with. Ass.
 
2012-12-27 07:17:26 AM  

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.


The thing to do is mail info on all their children to every registered sex offender in a 25 mile radius and let them know about it. Let them sleep on that thought every night
 
2012-12-27 07:18:29 AM  

iq_in_binary: fark their rights, they violated that of thousands. They get to suffer every god damned ramification of having the same thing done of them.


That's sort of the point. Just off the top of my head - what's more privacy-intrusive, 'singling out' 30% (or whatever the rate is) of a population or %0.004 of a population?

Or perhaps - If you join a crowd of people, 30% of whom have a handswidth of red paint on their shirt, and another 10% have a handswidth of red paint where it cannot be seen somewhere, who's been singled out?

And no, your credit report is not a public record.
 
2012-12-27 07:21:11 AM  
Epic ITG thread.
 
2012-12-27 07:21:13 AM  

abhorrent1: I love how everyone says "it's public information, what's the big deal?" How many crack-head burglars or gang bangers looking for guns to steal do you know of that would go to the court house or city hall, file the proper request, then go home and compile it all into a nice, handy map? None? That's what I thought.

Now they can just look at this idiots map and decide which houses in their area they should case and hit when no one is home. Or worse, do a home invasion where they or someone in the house ends up getting killed.


mhmm
but

there is another side to this that I have not heard anyone talking about.
hypocrisy.
I wonder how many people on the list of owners are vocal anti-gun nuts.
Publicly or privately. They tell their friends that they hate guns, they work for anti-gun orgs, but in their house, they have guns ... LOL

I have a hypocritical sister. She is actively against abortion. But she had an abortion.
I wonder how things might change if some private things all of a sudden became public.
Santorum and Rmoney's wives both had abortions. WBush's drug rehab record. Clinton's paternity tests.
Every politicians exact income, including all the bribes and insider info.
this could make for an interesting change in society
 
2012-12-27 07:22:43 AM  

Warlordtrooper: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

The thing to do is mail info on all their children to every registered sex offender in a 25 mile radius and let them know about it. Let them sleep on that thought every night


ROFL
because sex-offenders have TROUBLE finding the next kid??
it isnt that your analogy is so bad or despicable, it is that it is so silly
 
2012-12-27 07:23:28 AM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target....


Granted this information is public record, I just don't see the point the journalist was trying to convey. That said, I have heard your argument time and time again and, no offense, but it really makes no sense. Most home roberries are comitted by people the person knows, not some scary boogie men in the night. Victims said they knew the offender in 65 percent of violent household burglaries (source) so it may be a good idea to check your friends and family ---who already know where you live. The thief also has the element of surprise or will simply wait for you to go on a trip (especially if its someone you know). Case in point, another farmer a few miles down the road was robbed blind by his cousin. He waited for him to go to Florida, pulled up in a moving van and cleaned him out. We are all hunters around here --but his rifle didn't help him that time.
 
2012-12-27 07:23:41 AM  

namatad: there is another side to this that I have not heard anyone talking about.
hypocrisy.
I wonder how many people on the list of owners are vocal anti-gun nuts.
Publicly or privately. They tell their friends that they hate guns, they work for anti-gun orgs, but in their house, they have guns ... LOL


Kind of like republicans that talk about "family values" and the gays?
 
2012-12-27 07:26:47 AM  

iq_in_binary: way south: ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!

No, public records are public but most don't know or think of ways to use them nefariously because they are NOT published in the GODDAMN NEWSPAPER (or on the Internet, or wherever).

It was a bad idea to out gun owners, its a bad idea to out the papers staff.
People need to grow up.

Retaliation needs to happen, or they will think it is a good idea in the future.

I wasn't a part of what was outed, but if I was I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson. This shiat needs to stop, I've seen it happen 5 times already just in my adult life. Until these farkers suffer the consequences of what can happen to the people they jut published on, this shiat will not stop. The last one caught a girl that was trying to keep away from her abusive husband. Until they all or at least some of them suffer the consequences of something like that, they don't deserve any farking quarter. Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.They need to feel the ramifications of their actions.

fark their rights, they violated that of thousands. They get to suffer every god damned ramification of having the same thing done of them.


Retaliation should happen and I don't disagree that it should be painful, but it should take the form in something they will remember: a lawsuit.

Lets face the fact that the publisher doesn't care about the people. Not others and not its own. They could give FARK all if the guy who wrote this story got tarred and feathered, because its more news and a giant win for the guy selling that news. It's manufactured controversy.

What the publisher needs is to be deprived a few million dollars and be publicly shamed as nothing more than a scandal sheet. That hurts the owners, and they'll put the screws to any editor that approves similarly bad ideas.

Leaving a bag of flaming dog shiat at the reporters door doesn't have the same impact as making his boss sign you a big settlement check.
 
2012-12-27 07:27:07 AM  

GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?


man, you have shiatty reading comprehension
 
2012-12-27 07:28:32 AM  
www.practicaltacticaltraining.com
 
2012-12-27 07:28:59 AM  

namatad: Orange-Pippin: I'm surprised no one has posted the #1 derp from the comment section.

[i.imgur.com image 734x197]

are people on welfare a matter of public record? food stamps? disability?

NO MORE SECRETS
time to implant everyone with GPS trackers and keep 10 years of data
of course we will start with the criminals first, felons, LEOs, elected officials.
That data alone will keep the courts and media entertained for decades



Implants are sooooo passé ;) If you are using your grocery "loyalty" card there are no reason for implants.
 
2012-12-27 07:29:36 AM  
You only have one gun but statistically, all guns taken together *automatically* create an arms race.
 
2012-12-27 07:30:20 AM  
I think the point that is being missed is what John Lott was trying to make in his books is that the thought or threat of someone having a concealed weapon was enough of a deterrent. Now a criminal knows where the guns aren't and in theory, can target the non-gun permitted homes.
 
2012-12-27 07:30:32 AM  
Newspaper dudes were dicks. A lot of the responses in this thread sound like they'd like to see the journalists

iq_in_binary: SlothB77: Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

So treat legal gun owners like pedophiles?

You're not helping.


I dunno man, I'm on your side in theory when I clicked the thread but reading the stuff like these quotes you posted earlier:

- Pictures of your kids. Where your kids go to school. I can get to all of that in minutes.
- I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, everything I could find on them AND their family.
- I have absolutely no problem doing the same to you with avarice and absolutely NO regard for your well being.
- But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place
- Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time
- I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson
- they deserve the anguish of their kids suffering for it
- Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.
- Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

...makes it sound like you're hoping someone shoots and kills their children. I would say you're not really helping either, you sound like a psycho who is willing to abuse your work resources (if you're a cop or something). If someone cuts you off in traffic do you look up their license number and threaten their newborn? I mean "and their families" man, what did some dumb writer's 5 year old kid do to deserve 'retaliation', just be born to some asshole? Why do you emphasize their kids so much, right after sandy hook?

I assume your argument will be 'my kids were threatened by my address being posted' but there's a reason we have laws and legal recourse rather than 'eye for an eye'. If you can prove you are more in danger as a result of their actions in court, you're entitled to damages. I don't see how a story next week about gun owners threatening children of journalists (eg if you did all that) will change the public at large's mind about this issue, rather it will just reinforce the general misconceptions that people like these journalists have and make people more terrified of CC'ers than they already seem to be. If you really want to be the bigger man, don't resort to threatening children. You won't get too many supporters, I'd imagine.

Just went to the shooting range for 2nd time ever, gf and I are shopping around for a handgun. Had been planning for a while, unrelated to the recent tragedies though. More of a neighborhood-drive thing.

Other more reasonable-sounding people though, I agree upthread. Not sure what the 'journalists' were trying to prove but this isn't helping their cause.
 
2012-12-27 07:30:48 AM  
why not post the names and addresses of bath salts users
 
2012-12-27 07:31:34 AM  
Thousands of years of recorded history and so far, we've managed "nuh UH, I'm gonna tell on YOU!" *sigh*
 
2012-12-27 07:32:33 AM  
A gun can shoot you.
 
2012-12-27 07:32:49 AM  
Something I'm wondering: How does the rule from the FArQ apply when Fark links to personal information?
 
2012-12-27 07:32:58 AM  
What should be published is a list of those who are not allowed to own a weapon.
 
2012-12-27 07:33:38 AM  
Ahhh. The good old days of mutually assured destruction.
 
2012-12-27 07:34:27 AM  

Jon iz teh kewl: why not post the names and addresses of bath salts users


Crazy motherfarkers keep eating people that's why.
/Except for McAfee
//Still love that Vice got him caught.
 
2012-12-27 07:34:38 AM  

Electromax: iq_in_binary: ...You're not helping.

I dunno man, I'm on your side in theory when I clicked the thread but reading the stuff like these quotes you posted earlier:

- Pictures of your kids. Where your kids go to school. I can get to all of that in minutes.
- I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, everything I could find on them AND their family.
- I have absolutely no problem doing the same to you with avarice and absolutely NO regard for your well being.
- But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place
- Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time
- I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson
- they deserve the anguish of their kids suffering for it
- Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.
- Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

...makes it sound like you're hoping someone shoots and kills their children. I would say you're not really helping either, you sound like a psycho who is willing to abuse your work resources (if you're a cop or something)...


Don't be silly. He's got a roommate and a live-in girlfriend. He's some college or university kid who's trying to turn his script kiddie teen years into a career. He doesn't even know what's public and what isn't, only that he can use a tool to get to it.
 
2012-12-27 07:36:35 AM  

namatad: Warlordtrooper: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

The thing to do is mail info on all their children to every registered sex offender in a 25 mile radius and let them know about it. Let them sleep on that thought every night

ROFL
because sex-offenders have TROUBLE finding the next kid??
it isnt that your analogy is so bad or despicable, it is that it is so silly


The idea is that you worry the parents to death. How well would you sleep if you knew your child's public info was compiled in the hands of a guy who likes to abuse little kids.


However im concerned about the hypocrisy. The time to be outraged over something like this is when they passed the sex offender registry. Not wait till it actually affects you
 
2012-12-27 07:37:14 AM  

Mean Daddy: I think the point that is being missed is what John Lott was trying to make in his books is that the thought or threat of someone having a concealed weapon was enough of a deterrent. Now a criminal knows where the guns aren't and in theory, can target the non-gun permitted homes.


The "umbrella of protection" theory works on uncertainty.
You can walk through a minefield safely if you know where the mines are. With some cunning, you can even pickup a few free boxes of explosives to use as IED's.
Not knowing is what makes the entire area into a "do not trespass" zone.

Criminals are deterred because they know gun owners exist in the area, but they don't know if the house they chose has an unarmed milf or a granny guns with her sons bubba'd up AK-47.
 
2012-12-27 07:42:54 AM  

jso2897: Nah - thieves are greedy and willing to take calculated risks. Guns are the single most valuable commodity on the black market, and are the best burglar-bait there is. A gun in a empty house is a threat to no one but the victim of the criminal who will eventually buy it from the fence a thief sells it to.


Absolutely - When that info is published, that just makes those houses more likely as targets....everybody leaves the house some time, and that's when a burglar will come a-callin'. My BIL has several guns, and someone targeted his house when he wasn't home (he and my sister were traveling), and they took at least 6 guns. His name wasn't published in any paper, and he should have had them in a gun safe bolted to the floor......but still, he was definitely targeted by someone who knew he had guns.
 
2012-12-27 07:44:55 AM  

henryhill: Epic ITG thread.


Yup.
 
2012-12-27 07:45:33 AM  

The My Little Pony Killer: On a different note, is now a good time to start talking about the state of mental health care in this country, or are we still dead set on the whole 'gun' thing?


^Totally this. Don't give me an assault weapons ban bill without one to make it easier for health professionals to put the mentally ill on a list to prevent gun ownership.
 
2012-12-27 07:46:17 AM  

ktybear: Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.

Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.


...or scabs it won't stop picking.
 
2012-12-27 07:47:04 AM  

Gulper Eel: If the newspaper wanted to be helpful they could have published a map of domestic violence offenders.

Nothing gets a guy to behave more than the prospect of never getting laid again unless he gets his shiat together.


CSB time. When I was a few years younger, I didn't know what the fark to do with myself, and ended up drifting into a job on a roofing crew. There was this one job that was just down the street from a battered women's shelter. Took about a week. Every morning, they took the clients out for a morning constitutional. We were big men, tattoo-encrusted, unshaven, covered in filth, and chronically pissed-off. Those chicks were soooo happy to see us... Trust me, there are women out there actually looking to get beat. I guess they just don't know anything else. It's one more way I will disappoint them, I suppose.
 
2012-12-27 07:47:24 AM  

KeelingLovesCornholes: The My Little Pony Killer: On a different note, is now a good time to start talking about the state of mental health care in this country, or are we still dead set on the whole 'gun' thing?

^Totally this. Don't give me an assault weapons ban bill without one to make it easier for health professionals to put the mentally ill on a list to prevent gun ownership.


Considering most of the things we're still trying to leverage our economy on were built by batsh*t nuts, hubris addled sociopaths with money and guns, this might not fare well for the GDP. : )
 
2012-12-27 07:48:03 AM  
Wow, what a terrible thing to do to these fine, upstanding journalists. They may feel frightened and defenseless, exposed to this cruel and crazy world, especially if they live in a bad neighborhood. Too bad there's no way to proactively prepare to defend oneself from life's seedier elements.
 
2012-12-27 07:48:19 AM  
The majority of murders are committed by young men in the 17-29 age bracket with the most likely murderers being males aged 20-24. Addressing violent aggression in this demographic has got to be the key focus if the real goal is reducing violent crime.
 
2012-12-27 07:49:47 AM  

feckingmorons: Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.

No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.  He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


Journalistic integrity was the first thought I had.
 
2012-12-27 07:51:12 AM  

Command1: [www.practicaltacticaltraining.com image 800x600]


You know who else believes in gun control?

www.wherejesuswalked.org

thejewsdidthis.jpg
 
2012-12-27 07:51:54 AM  

kinkkerbelle: The majority of murders are committed by young men in the 17-29 age bracket with the most likely murderers being males aged 20-24. Addressing violent aggression in this demographic has got to be the key focus if the real goal is reducing violent crime.


In WjMorris' eyes, every male 20-24 is already a murderer.

What is your source for this?
 
2012-12-27 07:53:08 AM  

davidphogan: Something I'm wondering: How does the rule from the FArQ apply when Fark links to personal information?


Fark doesn't want to see personal contact info posted in threads, for just this reason: 99% of the time, it's done in hopes that people will see it and harass the person whose info has been posted. This link was to the story of what was happening without being a direct link to specific contact info.
 
2012-12-27 07:53:09 AM  
Honestly, I really don't get why posting people's addresses like this is not illegal as all hell.


Shiat like this invites, if not incites, confrontations.
 
2012-12-27 07:54:06 AM  

Onkel Buck: Well it's pretty much becoming a war, so all's fair.


Mean Daddy: I think the point that is being missed is what John Lott was trying to make in his books is that the thought or threat of someone having a concealed weapon was enough of a deterrent. Now a criminal knows where the guns aren't and in theory, can target the non-gun permitted homes.


rlv.zcache.com

I would hate for one of those folks to be inadvertently protected from harm because someone who would hurt them didn't know they were unarmed. Have the courage of your convictions for the love of god. You despise guns so very much, make a statement that you won't allow them in your home for the world to see.
 
2012-12-27 07:54:45 AM  

great_tigers: kinkkerbelle: The majority of murders are committed by young men in the 17-29 age bracket with the most likely murderers being males aged 20-24. Addressing violent aggression in this demographic has got to be the key focus if the real goal is reducing violent crime.

In WjMorris' eyes, every male 20-24 is already a murderer.

What is your source for this?


FBI Crime data:

Link
 
2012-12-27 07:56:06 AM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:


Liberal plant, overzealous staffer, etc.

I'd take all the sturm und drang over the first list more seriously, if for every 'mah guns make me safer than you unarmed sheeple' there was a flurry of 'You're Not Helping'. Maybe now there will.
 
2012-12-27 07:57:59 AM  

great_tigers: kinkkerbelle: The majority of murders are committed by young men in the 17-29 age bracket with the most likely murderers being males aged 20-24. Addressing violent aggression in this demographic has got to be the key focus if the real goal is reducing violent crime.

In WjMorris' eyes, every male 20-24 is already a murderer.

What is your source for this?


Link

Sorry, gave you the wrong table before.
 
2012-12-27 07:58:23 AM  
Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?
 
2012-12-27 07:58:29 AM  
Golly, that was fast.

sinschild: I would hate for one of those folks to be inadvertently protected from harm because someone who would hurt them didn't know they were unarmed. Have the courage of your convictions for the love of god. You despise guns so very much, make a statement that you won't allow them in your home for the world to see.


So you have the same courage of your own convictions to have that sign in your front yard, right? If your name and address wound up in the local paper as a gun owner, you'd stand right up and pull a Colonel Jessup on all the pansy gun-grabbers, right?

C'mon, ITG. Stand loud and proud. Announce it to the world.
 
2012-12-27 07:59:03 AM  

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?


The information could be used to target homes that had handguns and if you wait until no one is home the gun most likely won't be very dangerous (guns don't kill people, people kill people), then steal the gun.

The information could also be used to target homes without guns, not 100% accurate since rifles and shotguns don't require a permit and could still be in the house.
 
2012-12-27 08:00:29 AM  

liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?


Only in the same school district and age bracket.
 
2012-12-27 08:00:42 AM  
binary iq


If you were on this list what would you do again?

Because I almost made it to the list myself. I used to live in Rockland county, and never left a forwarding address.

If I had ever completed the pistol "permit" I would be on it. The insane requirements of the permit were what got me to buy a shotgun and rifle to begin with. I know a few guys from the range whose houses are outed. I don't imagine they're happy.

Gat

You don't get it do you? I mean on a very basic level, you just don't seem able to connect the dots.

If you advertise that you have a gun, you're basically threatening everyone around you. Thats irresponsible gun ownership dude. If you ever read anything, like American Rifleman, you would see that in their self-defense section most of the time, the potential victims only had to flash their gun to stop a crime.
 
2012-12-27 08:01:31 AM  
Onkel Buck: Well it's pretty much becoming a war, so all's fair.

So is baking cakes, cupcakes, storage unit auction brokering, whaling and anything else that you can film for 400.00 an episode and call "WARS!". It's like a big commercial for "the biggest prick wins". It's like were being groomed for a very convenient holocaust and we get to do all the work.
 
2012-12-27 08:01:34 AM  

liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?


Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?
 
2012-12-27 08:03:19 AM  

kinkkerbelle: great_tigers: kinkkerbelle: The majority of murders are committed by young men in the 17-29 age bracket with the most likely murderers being males aged 20-24. Addressing violent aggression in this demographic has got to be the key focus if the real goal is reducing violent crime.

In WjMorris' eyes, every male 20-24 is already a murderer.

What is your source for this?

Link

Sorry, gave you the wrong table before.


Nice info on both links. Thanks!

It is sad, 100 percent of all murderers ages 5-8 are white males.
 
2012-12-27 08:08:50 AM  

PopularFront: Just what this debate needed, more evidence that gun owners are a vindictive bunch of douches who are eager to escalate a conflict. I'm sure the general public finds this a very reassuring quality in someone who carries a concealed gun.


Not everyone carries a concealed weapon because it's "fun" or "our right". Some do it because we have a valid, demonstrable need to do so to preserve our own lives. When names and addresses are published in an easily accessible format when the people they are trying to hide from wouldn't normally know how to access that information,  public or not, they are putting those people at risk.

My ex has already done prison time for trying to kill me. Not enough of it, IMO. I am armed to the teeth for a reason. If I were trying to hide from him and someone outed my address so he could just be surfing the net one day, find it and say "So THAT'S where that biatch is hiding!" I'd be even more terrified of him than I already am and I'd be beyond upset. My entire family would have to move. I wouldn't put it past him to harm my Grandma, my Mom, my Sister or even our son, just to get to me. The guy is not stable, is determined to "get me" eventually and will not take his meds. Why make things easy for him?

What they did was inexcusable. Do not put this on gun owners. Turnabout is always fair play. The difference is, my life could be on the line, and I'm sure some of the people they outed do have their lives on the line. Where's the justification in making them easy targets? There is NONE. If someone is going to come after you, and you know they will if they can find you, they should at least have to work at it.
 
2012-12-27 08:09:15 AM  

R.A.Danny: I would think that any real journalist would respect the privacy of someone not directly making active news. Someone with an actual ax to grind or that wants to take advantage of a tragedy to get themselves noticed for their "work" shouldn't b surprised that they get some push back.


Well said. This is shoddy journalism.
 
2012-12-27 08:09:32 AM  
Since the government requires you to disclose your checking account details so that they may deposit your welfare check and/or tax return, then why not publish this "public information"? I would also like a copy of your birth certificate, thank you very much.
 
2012-12-27 08:10:08 AM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Golly, that was fast.

sinschild: I would hate for one of those folks to be inadvertently protected from harm because someone who would hurt them didn't know they were unarmed. Have the courage of your convictions for the love of god. You despise guns so very much, make a statement that you won't allow them in your home for the world to see.

So you have the same courage of your own convictions to have that sign in your front yard, right? If your name and address wound up in the local paper as a gun owner, you'd stand right up and pull a Colonel Jessup on all the pansy gun-grabbers, right?

C'mon, ITG. Stand loud and proud. Announce it to the world.


Only a fool lets their enemy choose the time and place of a conflict. I would not stand up vocally and make sure they knew exactly where to look. I would note their names and bide my time. Threaten my family in any way for your stupid little political agenda and you will come up missing.

/not an ITG.
/Just wants everyone to get along and respect each others rights.
/Strange that they use the 1st to attack the second, I wonder if they think they are immune?
 
2012-12-27 08:10:29 AM  
And people wonder why so many unregistered weapons are out there. It is like this whole medical pot legalization thing. You have to register to get a card, so that they can track who is using it "legally" (it is still illegal at the federal level, remember). So what happens if tomorrow the feds decide to enforce the federal law? That's right...they have ready made lists of which doors to knock on to make their arrests. Is that likely to happen? No, not with dope. But perhaps with guns. Most gun owners I know here in MI have at least 2 or 3 unregistered firearms in addition to the registered ones, just in case the government ever decides to disarm the public. I know several people who have never registered a single weapon with anyone*, and these guys have some pretty nice collections. The thought is that if they don't register them, nobody will know they have them, so nobody (government or general public) will treat them differently because of it. I'm not sure I follow that thought process, but there it is. I do understand the general idea though, that public records are publically available and because of the internet we should all assume that our public records are known by everyone. The thing is, most people don't know everything that is contained in their "public record", and just how much additional information can be amassed by extrapolation just from that information.

*One guy I know in particular has worn the same unregistered, illegally concealed revolver every day of his life since I first met him back in the early 60's. It is always loaded, and to my knowledge he has never used it apart from target shooting on his own property, though he may well have used it to put down his dying livestock at some point. I have a hard time thinking of him as anything but a responsible gun owner.
 
2012-12-27 08:10:44 AM  

kinkkerbelle: great_tigers: kinkkerbelle: The majority of murders are committed by young men in the 17-29 age bracket with the most likely murderers being males aged 20-24. Addressing violent aggression in this demographic has got to be the key focus if the real goal is reducing violent crime.

In WjMorris' eyes, every male 20-24 is already a murderer.

What is your source for this?

FBI Crime data:

Link


I do find it interesting, ages 13-34 the black race commits more murders than the white race in every demographic category. Ages 34 and over, the white race commits more murders than the black race in every demographic. I would look at this end of the spectrum as more of a lifestyle choice. One would have to think that the number of murderers 13-34 of the black race is influenced by gang related violence.
 
2012-12-27 08:12:45 AM  

ktybear: Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.

Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.


If only other countries had the ability to not listen to our own internal debates...
 
2012-12-27 08:13:37 AM  

Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?


What crime did the gun owners commit again?
 
2012-12-27 08:14:56 AM  

sinschild: Only a fool lets their enemy choose the time and place of a conflict. I would not stand up vocally and make sure they knew exactly where to look. I would note their names and bide my time. Threaten my family in any way for your stupid little political agenda and you will come up missing.


So you post that sign but have zero courage of your own convictions to put it up on your own lawn, and we get a bonus ITG moment thrown in as well.

I think that says pretty much everything right there.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:03 AM  

feckingmorons: The fourth estate used to be respected,


Maybe a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, but not on this planet.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:31 AM  

Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?


Why not a spousal abuse, DWI, tax fraud or Jay walking registry?

I, for one, oppose ANY offender registry.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:37 AM  

liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?


Every single one of them is a potential murderer. WE MUST PROTECT OUR CHILDREN FROM THEM.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:42 AM  

liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?


They sought to the ability to protect themselves. This is treason to the idea that your government is responsible for you from the cradle to the grave and is just about the only capital crime acceptable to hoplophobes.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:44 AM  
This whole mess of publishing publicly available information is like living in an apartment with thin walls and telling the neighborhood about the sex you hear then being upset when your neighbors tell everyone about the sex YOU had.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:47 AM  
I'm sure it has been said more then once in this thread, but in case not, here goes.

Where the fark is the HERO tag when you need it!!!

This lawyer has done more to redeem the reputation of lawyers then the Goldwater law firm has done to destroy it.
 
2012-12-27 08:15:56 AM  
Well, journalists are doing a lot more harm than registered gun owners.
 
2012-12-27 08:21:41 AM  

liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?


It's not about crimes it's about the hypocrisy
 
2012-12-27 08:22:05 AM  
Well, this is the ultimate logical outcome of Google maps and facebook style social media. But oh wait, Computer Scientists, engineers, and MBA holders don't study history or philosophy, where this crap is ALREADY FIGURED OUT. God I hate everyone who pisses on the liberal arts. They're getting what they deserve now, yeah that means you, fark.com. You should be cheering this on.
 
2012-12-27 08:22:24 AM  
i.imgur.com

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.
 
2012-12-27 08:23:14 AM  
Then::

rlv.zcache.com

Media: "Well, you must be alright with us publishing your home addresses then."

Now:

images.sodahead.com

And lo the world learns yet another lesson about the ITG.
 
MFK
2012-12-27 08:24:39 AM  
I am not a gun owner. I have no problem with people wanting a gun to hunt or perhaps to defend their home. What I have a problem with is military style weapons proliferating like crazy into the hands of whoever wants one because they think it's their "right" to amass personal arsenals. It's never really bothered me, however, until the last couple years when these mass shooting events seem to happen every other week or so. And anytime one happens everyone throws up their hands and says "welp, there's nothing we can do. They bought their guns legally."

I am pissed off that because I have a huge problem with this sort of wholesale killing, that I am labeled a "gun grabber who hates the constitution". It pisses me off that the way the NRA and the gun "enthusiasts" frame the debate it's either "all guns for all people" or "the government is taking away all our guns" as if there is no sane, sensible middle ground. I'm tired of not having a voice in this debate. I'm tired of reading about a massacre of school children (farking CHILDREN!) and having the gun "enthusiasts" bring up Tim McVeigh as an example of why we shouldn't bother doing any gun control at all. I'm tired of reading about slaughters and killings with these guns that have no business in civilian hands just so Randy can look badass in his bedroom mirror with his army gun.

I come from a rural state where hunting is a legit activity and fully support guns for that. But not people hunting and that's what AR-15's are for and anyone who tells you otherwise is a farking liar.
 
2012-12-27 08:25:09 AM  

Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.


Yes, but "anyone" could not have published it in a newspaper, thus making it available to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to compile it themselves.

Were the author and editor and publisher of the paper within their rights to print the map? Yes. Just as they would have been within their rights to publish photos of the dead bodies from Sandy Hook Elementary. Part of their job is to exercise editorial discretion--to draw the line that separates what they can do from what they should do. That line is subjective, and opinions will differ as to whether what they did was appropriate.

I think what they did was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based in any real understanding of the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are just as peaceful and law-abiding as the editorial board of The Journal News.
 
2012-12-27 08:25:14 AM  
That'll dun larn ya.
 
2012-12-27 08:27:22 AM  

Balchinian: And people wonder why so many unregistered weapons are out there. It is like this whole medical pot legalization thing....Most gun owners I know here in MI have at least 2 or 3 unregistered firearms in addition to the registered ones, just in case the government ever decides to disarm the public....One guy I know in particular has worn the same unregistered, illegally concealed revolver every day of his life .... I have a hard time thinking of him as anything but a responsible gun owner.



Wow. Just. Wow. What in blazes are you trying to insinuate other than your admited association with criminals? Your not helping any gun owner with this steaming pile of derp.
 
2012-12-27 08:27:32 AM  
Well, this article made my day a little more enjoyable than it started out. Good for them.
 
2012-12-27 08:29:02 AM  

Frederf: It must suck to live in some piece of trash neighborhood where a GED is an accomplishment, you aren't a day's drive from an ocean, turning left is a sport, and God is something other than an obvious attempt of humanity to humor itself about death and morality.

Me, I get up every day in a place where not only is a gun not necessary for anyone, it's not even considered. We are just educated, busy people who just live life without masturbatory fantasies of cowboys and indians. As much as I like to wish you or more realistically your progeny to extract yourselves from this redneck stupor, it really is for the best for all the sooner your genetic line finds a pistol on the seat of the pickup and mercifully smears their nervous tissue harmlessly about the cabin.

Dark ages people with old ways of thinking need to go away so the actual future of humanity can move on.


Unfortunately the future goes to those with the most fertile loins, and I think we all know which class of humanity that is. Poverty and wretched parenting aren't going anywhere. Coincidentally, that's the same reason gun owners want more guns, and frankly, I can't say I blame them.
 
2012-12-27 08:31:07 AM  

MFK: What I have a problem with is military style weapons proliferating like crazy into the hands of whoever wants one because they think it's their "right" to amass personal arsenals.


All guns capable of firing more than one bullet per trigger pull, i.e. "military style guns" have been heavily regulated since the 1930s. If you're referring to utterly irrelevant cosmetics like a plastic stock instead of a wood stock, well, you're barking up the wrong tree.
 
2012-12-27 08:33:39 AM  

Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?

It's not about crimes it's about the hypocrisy


I think the difference he's insinuating is that the sex offender registry actually has the addresses of "proven" criminals (or college kids who got unlucky while peeing in a shrub) whereas locations of gun owners or journalists aren't criminals and thus didn't do anything to "deserve" it. So at least from one perspective it's a slightly misaligned hypocrisy. The sex offender registry, in theory, IS about the crime. It's a lot easier to say "i want to map where all the people who have raped children live" vs. "i want to map where all the people with weapon x or preference y live" when convincing timid moms to sign off on stuff like this.

If you guys want this tasty government data about where people live who like this or that, write a free iphone game aimed at your target market (eg something that would appeal to people who dont like guns, in the examples above) and get them to click ok when you install it. get them to hand over their GPS coords, likes, dislikes, photos, etc. free of hassle and charge! if it's a company logo on their software/services and not the big bad government, people are more than happy to fill out the forms. Bury it in a TOS writeup and you can get away with anything.

/not a defence of big bad government
 
2012-12-27 08:33:40 AM  

liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?


They disagreed with liberals.
 
2012-12-27 08:33:57 AM  

GAT_00: Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?


I thought the whole point of owning a gun is to scare people

Which is it?
 
2012-12-27 08:34:03 AM  
ITG bullshiat aside, we all realize that neither of these things (publishing gun owners, publishing journal staff) are appropriate behavior, right? While whether you own a given product or whether you work for a given company are strictly speaking not private data, and the information being accessible isn't a problem, compiling a list of either without the explicit consent of the people on the list, especially for the purposes of a creepy political hit list, pretty thoroughly violates the reasonable expectation of privacy that most societies consider worth protecting.

Basically, slap a fine on all of these idiots on both sides and tell them they can start participating in discussions regarding the second amendment when they start respecting the fourth and the ninth, or at minimum acting like adults instead of exceptionally retarded children.

Also, given the outright glorification of spree killers by the media, and their insistence on telling everyone that can hear it how very, very important these loons are and how they should have a lasting impact on policy, and how we should all pay attention to them and think about them all the time:

The Muthaship: Well, journalists are doing a lot more harm than registered gun owners.


That. Nobody's going to go murder a bunch of people just 'cause a gun's handy. They might go and murder a bunch of people because the media forces the entire population of america to pay attention to their bullshiat, though. I mean, it's a pretty reliable way to get your crazy-ass manifesto and so on out, at minimum.
 
2012-12-27 08:34:52 AM  
So basically, the journalists posted a big map of where criminals can attempt to acquire (steal) firearms when nobody is home... and the anti-gun folks are happy with this, even though they want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

And for the record, posting the information on the newspaper staff was just as asinine.

Everyone needs to grow the fark up.

/gun owner
 
2012-12-27 08:36:59 AM  
The one thing that these threads make me wonder is... where do these 2 anti gun control fanatics get their persona management software?
 
2012-12-27 08:38:06 AM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Posting names and addresses of the gun owners wasn't necessarily the brightest idea, however, it was to prove a point. Posting ANY information on the journalists involved proves no point; it's for intimidation purposes only.


It's all publicly available information. Why the double standard?
 
2012-12-27 08:38:27 AM  
I hate the Journal News. Rockland County is actually a pretty nice place.

/not a gun owner
//considering it now, though
 
2012-12-27 08:38:34 AM  

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.


I think the journalists are the real dangerous ones and not the registered gun owners. The journalists are also showing they can't pick the correct fights - pissing contest with registered gun owners, what a poor choice.
 
2012-12-27 08:39:20 AM  

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

I thought the whole point of owning a gun is to scare people

Which is it?


Neither, I would think. Knowing that you have a gun isn't going to scare any really dangerous person, and only a fool would think he was safe because he had one.
 
2012-12-27 08:39:56 AM  

Jim_Callahan: That. Nobody's going to go murder a bunch of people just 'cause a gun's handy. They might go and murder a bunch of people because the media forces the entire population of america to pay attention to their bullshiat, though. I mean, it's a pretty reliable way to get your crazy-ass manifesto and so on out, at minimum.


The inevitable result of the "everyone matters" and "everyone gets a trophy" crowd being allowed to educate children for the last 20 years. You build up some losers self esteem to the point where he thinks his pathetic life matters and when he finds out it doesn't he pulls this shiat to make sure he is "remembered".

Perhaps "20 children were killed in a tragic shooting in CT today. We are withholding the name of the shooter and will not give it one second of airtime" would be more appropriate? Deny them the validation they crave.

This will never happen because there is ad revenue to be made by interviewing his farking barber and classmates to drive those clicks and ratings.
 
2012-12-27 08:40:07 AM  
You reap what you sow. That includes the media.
 
2012-12-27 08:42:08 AM  

Jim_Callahan: IBasically, slap a fine on all of these idiots on both sides and tell them they can start participating in discussions regarding the second amendment when they start respecting the fourth and the ninth, or at minimum acting like adults instead of exceptionally retarded children.


+1 for 9th Amendment mention. You don't see that one too often.
 
2012-12-27 08:43:00 AM  
And until this site stops gawping at the mugshots on TSG, anyone on here decrying either list is likely a hypocrite.

Just because it is public record doesn't mean we should slather it everywhere for people. Even good intentions can have negative consequences, and I'm not even seeing good intentions in any of this.
 
2012-12-27 08:43:05 AM  

jso2897: only a fool would think he was safe because he had one


And now that criminals know that I don't have a gun, what do I do? I have a family to protect.

Does it make me a fool if I want a gun in the wake of this BS caused by the Journal News?
 
MFK
2012-12-27 08:43:13 AM  
Thank you, fark gun "enthusiasts" for proving my point.
 
2012-12-27 08:43:18 AM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Command1: [www.practicaltacticaltraining.com image 800x600]

You know who else believes in gun control?


Citing yet another militarist state based on racial superiority claims isn't exactly presenting a counterexample.
 
2012-12-27 08:43:24 AM  

Your Average Witty Fark User: Posting names and addresses of the gun owners wasn't necessarily the brightest idea, however, it was to prove a point. Posting ANY information on the journalists involved proves no point; it's for intimidation purposes only.


I'm sorry, what point was proven?

They didn't validate the list, didn't make any news story out of it per se -- they justified the whole story by saying some guy at the YMCA wanted to know which neighbors had weapons. There was no public journalistic interest in compiling that list.

None of those people had anything to do with Sandy Hook, yet that was the justification for running this sensationalistic story. They could have made a point with aggregate data. They could have made a non-detailed map from a screen shot instead of giving all names and addresses, if they'd had an actual point to make -- but they never made an actual point, other than "That guy at the YMCA was sure nervous about his neighbors having guns, when we posed the question he didn't ask us."

Rather than letting individuals *pull* data by request, a corporation with resources compiled and *pushed* the data to the public when there was no public interest served and no outcry. They could even have given the instructions to make an FOIA request to let individuals who were interested know how to find the information. They didn't do that. I could see a private activist group doing something like this, but not someone calling himself a journalist.
 
2012-12-27 08:44:17 AM  

Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?

It's not about crimes it's about the hypocrisy


I'm pretty sure being put on a sex offender registry has a lot to do with crime.
 
2012-12-27 08:44:17 AM  
I am so glad I don't live in the US.
 
2012-12-27 08:44:54 AM  

GratuityIncluded: Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.

I think the journalists are the real dangerous ones and not the registered gun owners. The journalists are also showing they can't pick the correct fights - pissing contest with registered gun owners, what a poor choice.


Meh - it's all publicly available info anyway. I'm pretty sure any loon that had concrete evil intentions toward either group would have already obtained it.
 
2012-12-27 08:45:05 AM  
This seems like as good a place as any to ask my question.

My stepmother - completely right -wing and wacko - handed me a book on Christmas Day and asked me to read it "with an open mind". The book is titled "The Fired The First Shot 2012" and looks like extremist Tea Party insanity. Anyone know about this book or read it?

TIA
 
2012-12-27 08:45:16 AM  

MFK: Thank you, fark gun "enthusiasts" for proving my point.


Which is?
 
2012-12-27 08:45:19 AM  
members.modernvespa.net
 
2012-12-27 08:45:51 AM  

toilet_lolly: I am so glad I don't live in the US.


We're glad you don't either.
 
2012-12-27 08:49:04 AM  
Well now you have a handy map of vindictive gun owners.
 
2012-12-27 08:49:07 AM  

mainstreet62: jso2897: only a fool would think he was safe because he had one

And now that criminals know that I don't have a gun, what do I do? I have a family to protect.

Does it make me a fool if I want a gun in the wake of this BS caused by the Journal News?


Well, I own a gun, and I'm not a fool. I don't think that owning that gun makes me safe, though. And if i did, i would be a fool. But unless it is something utterly absurd like a nuclear-powered turnip twaddler, i'm not going to call a man a fool for wishing to own a mere appliance, especially when I nether know, nor wish to know his reasons for doing so.
 
2012-12-27 08:49:42 AM  
I remember when baggers compiled a public, searchable database of names of people who signed recall petitions. I was told that since it wasn't private information I had nothing to complain about.
 
KIA
2012-12-27 08:50:11 AM  
I particularly enjoyed the comment ftfa about compiling lists of people on welfare and social assistance and publishing those lists.

What? I thought it was okay to use the Press to compile and publish lists of people now.

Next up: fatties, deviants, and potheads.
 
2012-12-27 08:51:35 AM  

feckingmorons: Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.


YOU MEAN LIKE PURCHASE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION AND KEEP THEM IN YOUR HOME???
 
2012-12-27 08:52:57 AM  

KIA: I particularly enjoyed the comment ftfa about compiling lists of people on welfare and social assistance and publishing those lists.

What? I thought it was okay to use the Press to compile and publish lists of people now.

Next up: fatties, deviants, and potheads.


You know who else had lists?
 
2012-12-27 08:53:03 AM  

liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?

It's not about crimes it's about the hypocrisy

I'm pretty sure being put on a sex offender registry has a lot to do with crime.


That wasn't my point. You guys don't want your information posted but have no problem wanting other peoples information posted
 
2012-12-27 08:53:18 AM  

feckingmorons: violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com


The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."

Yes because in NY you can't carry that gun in your car or to work.  It is a premises permit.  The gun stays in the house.   Yes you can get a permit to carry a gun or a permit for a gun at your job, but you can also win the powerball and I think the odds of that are better, someone wins the power ball every few weeks.


I know a few NYers with full carry, I was told it mostly depends on the Judge that approves your permit.
 
2012-12-27 08:55:14 AM  

KIA: I particularly enjoyed the comment ftfa about compiling lists of people on welfare and social assistance and publishing those lists.

What? I thought it was okay to use the Press to compile and publish lists of people now.

Next up: fatties, deviants, and potheads.


If nothing else, maybe these dumbassed media slap-fights will get people to thinking about how much information is available publicly - although I question whether anyone can do much anout it.
 
2012-12-27 08:55:30 AM  

mainstreet62: You know who else had lists?


i46.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-27 08:56:02 AM  

mainstreet62: KIA: I particularly enjoyed the comment ftfa about compiling lists of people on welfare and social assistance and publishing those lists.

What? I thought it was okay to use the Press to compile and publish lists of people now.

Next up: fatties, deviants, and potheads.

You know who else had lists?


Lists full of women? In binders?
 
2012-12-27 08:56:31 AM  

sinschild: Jim_Callahan: That. Nobody's going to go murder a bunch of people just 'cause a gun's handy. They might go and murder a bunch of people because the media forces the entire population of america to pay attention to their bullshiat, though. I mean, it's a pretty reliable way to get your crazy-ass manifesto and so on out, at minimum.

The inevitable result of the "everyone matters" and "everyone gets a trophy" crowd being allowed to educate children for the last 20 years. You build up some losers self esteem to the point where he thinks his pathetic life matters and when he finds out it doesn't he pulls this shiat to make sure he is "remembered".

Perhaps "20 children were killed in a tragic shooting in CT today. We are withholding the name of the shooter and will not give it one second of airtime" would be more appropriate? Deny them the validation they crave.

This will never happen because there is ad revenue to be made by interviewing his farking barber and classmates to drive those clicks and ratings.


It's a sad situation, but the old saying goes "it takes two people to have a conversation". Newspapers can print shiatty stuff but they can't force people to buy/read them, and shutting journalists up is not going to change the fact that 90% of all our neighbors would watch/read it if it was on. If there's an audience, someone will capitalize.

It's as you say, "to drive those clicks and ratings". The media makes it available but people out there are consuming it. Getting people to not be so morbidly curious would also help. It isn't "everyone gets a trophy", it's "here's a guaranteed way to be famous for 15 minutes." Condemning the media is only half the battle, just like yelling at McDonalds for unhealthy food when it's the people choosing to keep eating it every day that get fat. Cutting out the media won't happen until people cut out their urges or whatever you'd call them.

I've wondered before - I hear in history classes the coliseum/gladiatorial system in Rome condemned as animalistic, with a stadium of foaming rabid heathens screaming for blood. But today if a major network like ABC said "next sunday we are having a one-night event, two actual men will go into an arena with machetes and fight to the death. Viewer discretion advised." I wonder what viewing figures it would get (honestly). There'd obviously be a huge backlash from various groups, but when sunday night rolled around I guarantee millions would tune in and watch, horrified maybe but still glued to the screen. And still pretend it's morally different than 2000 years ago. As long as that hunger remains, the media will feed it. That's why I like all the mental evaluation support discussion that recent events have spurned - you have to change the culture of voyeurism so that there wouldn't BE that demand. Whether that's possible to change human nature, not anytime soon.

Basically I don't like "the media forces people to pay attention to their bullshiat." No they don't. They don't force you to turn on your TV or not change the channel when they go to coverage like this. They don't force you go get on Fark or any news website. They don't and can't force you to do anything. But you do. Or at least, most of your neighbors do. They should get whined at just as much for their bad taste.

/don't think I could watch it
//i like violent movies though
 
2012-12-27 08:57:38 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-12-27 08:57:42 AM  

iq_in_binary: Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary:

If you don't mind these asshats publishing what they did, you have absolutely NO leg to stand on when I publish all ^^^^^ that on the newspaper's employees either.


There's currently a debate going on about gun control. Who owns guns and how many is a legitimate point to discuss. We've found that states aren't following laws regarding gun ownership, particularly when it comes to preventing the mentally ill from getting guns. Wouldn't you rather know your neighbor, who has threatened you in the past, owns a gun, etc.

What debate, what public good, what instructional purpose would giving out the private cell phone numbers of journalists serve?

None. You're just a prick.
 
2012-12-27 08:57:48 AM  
Randi Zuckerberg says that this is bad digital ettiquette.
 
2012-12-27 09:00:52 AM  

Cheviot: What debate, what public good, what instructional purpose would giving out the private cell phone numbers of journalists serve?


It will be very easy to help them ensure their stories are accurate and unbiased. Duh.

Clearly it's for the public good that all journalists be placed on a registry. In fact, to ENSURE the freedom of the press, maybe we can put them in some kind of camp with a relaxing environment where they can concentrate....
 
2012-12-27 09:01:24 AM  
If you're not happy that newspapers can legally release the names of gun owners, contact your elected officials.
 
2012-12-27 09:02:33 AM  

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.


So, to prove how not to intimidate people, your plan is to publish all the private details that you have access to.  Are you a cop?   Bill collector with an Intellius account?  What details are you planning on using, and are you legally allowed to use them in the way you plan to?

Cunning plan you have.
 
2012-12-27 09:03:04 AM  

PanicMan: If you're not happy that newspapers can legally release the names of gun owners, contact your elected officials.


If you're not happy newspapers released your name, release THEIR names in turn.

Freedom of speech, baby. It's mine and yourn.
 
2012-12-27 09:03:29 AM  
"The implications are mind-boggling," said Marine Scott F. Williams toThe Journal News, "It's as if gun owners are sex offenders (and) to own a handgun risks exposure as if one is a sex offender. It's, in my mind, crazy."


Gun Owners aren't equivalent to sex-offenders.  From a public health perspective however, they are vectors.  So actually I like knowing who has a gun, so I can keep my kids out of their houses, because thats a risk I choose not to expose them too.

You may now resume fapping in self-righteousness.
 
2012-12-27 09:04:19 AM  

iq_in_binary: Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

You know what else is "public" information? Your criminal records. Every phone number attributed to you. Your occupation. Your employer. Your Driver's License #. Your car titles. Your home's taxable value. Anything you post on facebook. Pictures of your kids. Where your kids go to school. Your utility account numbers. Whether the dry pairs in your home are activated (Hello! THIS guy doesn't have a security system!). Who you've ever been married to. Who you've ever divorced. Your credit rating. Your name changes (say hello to that abusive boyfriend you finally got away from!). I can get to all of that in minutes.

If you don't mind these asshats publishing what they did, you have absolutely NO leg to stand on when I publish all ^^^^^ that on the newspaper's employees either.


You sound a bit butthurt and unhinged.  Let me guess, you own a gun.
 
2012-12-27 09:05:40 AM  
I love gun owners and their tiny little penises.
 
2012-12-27 09:05:46 AM  
Tit for tat but who is to blame? Gun owners.

No facepalm large enough.
 
2012-12-27 09:06:02 AM  

Cheviot: There's currently a debate going on about gun control. Who owns guns and how many is a legitimate point to discuss. We've found that states aren't following laws regarding gun ownership, particularly when it comes to preventing the mentally ill from getting guns. Wouldn't you rather know your neighbor, who has threatened you in the past, owns a gun, etc.

What debate, what public good, what instructional purpose would giving out the private cell phone numbers of journalists serve?


And rather than giving people instructions on how to file their own FIOA, they create a Scarlet Letter database and publish it. That turns the debate into, "What is responsible journalism?" They didn't validate the names on the list, didn't have a story around it -- all they did was see a pile of dead children and say, "how can we get a little more revenue out of this from a local story?"
 
2012-12-27 09:06:12 AM  
Don't make me go all Clerk of Court on yer asses.
 
2012-12-27 09:06:18 AM  

iq_in_binary: vartian: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!

Damn right. Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger just to make some trumped up political statement and I have absolutely no problem doing the same to you with avarice and absolutely NO regard for your well being.

Hopefully such an overwhelmingly powerful retaliation would be a reminder to other dipshiats in the future that thought for even a second that shiat like this is a good idea.


At some point you are going to cross the "clear and present danger" line here.  Probably not a wise move given our dark and stormy times.

But hey, another gun nut takes himself out, all for that.  Just try and do it without murdering more innocent bystanders this time,  Like all the other times a gun nut did just that.
 
2012-12-27 09:06:52 AM  

feckingmorons: Yes because in NY you can't carry that gun in your car or to work. It is a premises permit. The gun stays in the house. Yes you can get a permit to carry a gun or a permit for a gun at your job, but you can also win the powerball and I think the odds of that are better, someone wins the power ball every few weeks.


I don't think this is true. There is no carry in the 5 burroughs of New York City, but in the other counties, you can have concealed carry or open carry (in, for instance, Delaware County).
 
2012-12-27 09:07:55 AM  

PanicMan: If you're not happy that newspapers can legally release the names of gun owners, contact your elected officials.


And if that doesn't work, publish the names and addresses of those officials! That'll show em!

Wait...


/is your name WSP related?
 
2012-12-27 09:08:06 AM  

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x425]

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.


Another internet tough guy gun owner threatening violence when non gun owners follow the law.  Very interesting.
 
2012-12-27 09:08:20 AM  

Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?

What crime did the gun owners commit again?

It's not about crimes it's about the hypocrisy

I'm pretty sure being put on a sex offender registry has a lot to do with crime.

That wasn't my point. You guys don't want your information posted but have no problem wanting other peoples information posted


You're purposely ignoring the significant difference between a convicted criminal and a law-abiding gun owner.

The fact that the people on this list are registered gun owners is prima facie evidence that they are not convicted felons, because convicted felons are not allowed to possess firearms, and would certainly not be licensed to do so in a jurisdiction that requires licensing.

Once a person is a convicted felon, they quite literally have fewer rights than other citizens. The fifth amendment reads, in part, "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." This means that through the due process of law (i.e. prosecution and conviction) a person may be deprived of any one (or all three) of those things. That is why the second amendment does not protect convicted felons, and likewise why convicted felons forfeit some of their privacy rights (criminal proceedings are public record unless specifically sealed by the court).

So, whatever comparison you think you're drawing between sex offenders and gun owners is ridiculous and utterly invalid.

But keep farking that chicken.
 
2012-12-27 09:08:41 AM  

violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com


The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."


What if more than one good marksman or markswoman lives in your house? Half the time, that's the case here.
 
2012-12-27 09:09:49 AM  

kombat_unit: Tit for tat but who is to blame? Gun owners.

No facepalm large enough.


Legal vs. illegal? Public information vs. private information?
Maybe turn that facepalm sideways and administer in a side sweeping motion.
 
2012-12-27 09:10:41 AM  

utharda: "The implications are mind-boggling," said Marine Scott F. Williams toThe Journal News, "It's as if gun owners are sex offenders (and) to own a handgun risks exposure as if one is a sex offender. It's, in my mind, crazy."


Gun Owners aren't equivalent to sex-offenders.  From a public health perspective however, they are vectors.  So actually I like knowing who has a gun, so I can keep my kids out of their houses, because thats a risk I choose not to expose them too.

You may now resume fapping

stroking your gun in self-righteousness.

FTFY.
/ ifunowatimean
 
2012-12-27 09:10:52 AM  

msupf: And until this site stops gawping at the mugshots on TSG, anyone on here decrying either list is likely a hypocrite.

Just because it is public record doesn't mean we should slather it everywhere for people. Even good intentions can have negative consequences, and I'm not even seeing good intentions in any of this.


Good point
 
2012-12-27 09:11:26 AM  

Cheviot: iq_in_binary: Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary:

If you don't mind these asshats publishing what they did, you have absolutely NO leg to stand on when I publish all ^^^^^ that on the newspaper's employees either.

There's currently a debate going on about gun control. Who owns guns and how many is a legitimate point to discuss. We've found that states aren't following laws regarding gun ownership, particularly when it comes to preventing the mentally ill from getting guns. Wouldn't you rather know your neighbor, who has threatened you in the past, owns a gun, etc.

What debate, what public good, what instructional purpose would giving out the private cell phone numbers of journalists serve?

None. You're just a prick.


Yes, there's a debate about firearm ownership - it's odd as it's a Constitutionally-protected right, but whatever. However, publishing a list like this serves no legitimate purpose whatsoever. Sex offender lists are one thing - these folks have committed a crime. Legitimate firearm owners, however, have not.

I'm not arguing to post the addresses of all journalists, however. In this case, however, it's amusing. If, according to those like you arguing that the firearm owners personal information should be made public like this, why would there be harm in publishing the journalist's addresses?
 
2012-12-27 09:12:13 AM  
My dad is a career criminal and he always robbed houses he knew had guns. They bring good money and are easy to move. You just spot a guy with an NRA sticker or a deer decal and follow him home. Watch his schedule for a few days and rob the place when he is gone. The best are people who advertise their home being protected by Smith and Wesson. Those idiots never have alarm systems.
 
2012-12-27 09:12:31 AM  

doglover: PanicMan: If you're not happy that newspapers can legally release the names of gun owners, contact your elected officials.

If you're not happy newspapers released your name, release THEIR names in turn.

Freedom of speech, baby. It's mine and yourn.


Yes you can but that doesn't solve the initial thing you're upset about, or prevent it from happening again.
 
2012-12-27 09:12:43 AM  
cdn.ammoland.com
 
2012-12-27 09:14:11 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: iq_in_binary: Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.

I would support you 100% in that. If you inadvertently violated any laws, I'd even put money on your account in jail and visit you.

Orders of protection are not magical force fields that keep you safe, so I had to go beyond that. I have better tools to protect myself now.  I'm still terrified of my ex. He's out of prison, mentally unstable, doesn't take his meds and has already tried to kill me once - why wouldn't  I be terrified? I'm not real down with people outing those who are trying to hide. I agree the shiat needs to stop.

I still do think everyone should be required to do what I did and take classes and pass tests (which I did for myself), but I do not think gun owners' lives should be put in danger or that they should be demonized simply for owning guns or having a concealed carry permit. That's just sheer douchebaggery right there.


Matter of public record, made public.  Its sure interesting how you gun owners are suddenly unwilling to let the rest of society follow the law.
 
pla
2012-12-27 09:14:21 AM  
Godscrack : So what? All the tough gun people gonna go hunt these people down now?

Nope. The gun owners count as the innocents in this particular situation, mere victims of the so-called "journalists" pushing their anti-gun agenda. Not happy about it, but not also not the sort of psychopaths who would send the worst elements of society to someone's front door just to make a point.

That said, newspapers publish a lot of things some people might not like - And not all of those people have the sanity and responsibility to hold a pistol permit in one of the most restrictive states in the US.

The irony here? Those gun owners actually have the means to defend themselves from a home invader. The pansy gunphobe reporters? Not so much.


jso2897 : Meh - it's all publicly available info anyway. I'm pretty sure any loon that had concrete evil intentions toward either group would have already obtained it.

Can you see the difference between Rocky the Thug going into his town office and requesting the home addresses of all the local permit holders, vs merely zooming in on his neighborhood and discovering that Old Mrs. Crenshaw, in Florida until May, has a permit?
 
2012-12-27 09:15:02 AM  

utharda: So actually I like knowing who has a gun, so I can keep my kids out of their houses, because thats a risk I choose not to expose them too.


(1) The difference between a gun owner and a gun owner that leaves his weapon and ammo out where a visiting kid can get to them is that the latter is, in fact, already a criminal. Like, federal illegal, on the order of letting your kid drive his car or play with power tools. There's a big difference between a gun owner and a gun owner that could potentially harm your children.

(2) You do realize that if you haven't talked to your kid about what to do around an unattended gun (basically, don't touch the damned thing, and tell an adult) then your primary problem is that you're a horrible farking parent, right? You going to not tell them about sex or drugs, either? Just shrug and nod when they tell you about their needle-sharing habit or the fun new game they made up where their friends get together and kick smaller children to death in an alley on the way home form school?

//Seriously, if you need a general list to deal with your kid being just in the general proximity of a gun, you're orders of magnitude less competent a parent than the idiots who can't manage to not buy their kids m-rated games or tickets to r-rated movies and then biatch about it.
 
2012-12-27 09:15:30 AM  

Generation_D: Matter of public record, made public.  Its sure interesting how you gun owners are suddenly unwilling to let the rest of society follow the law.


It's pretty sad when the FARQ has a higher sense of journalistic responsibility than a newspaper.
 
2012-12-27 09:16:12 AM  

violentsalvation: The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."


It DOES present some **ahem** shopping opportunities.
 
2012-12-27 09:16:13 AM  

LarryDan43: My dad is a career criminal and he always robbed houses he knew had guns. They bring good money and are easy to move. You just spot a guy with an NRA sticker or a deer decal and follow him home. Watch his schedule for a few days and rob the place when he is gone. The best are people who advertise their home being protected by Smith and Wesson. Those idiots never have alarm systems.


Real, honest to Jesus hillbillies are a bad bet though - they all have dogs. And while pro burglars actively seek out gun owning homes, they hate and fear the dog above all things.
 
2012-12-27 09:16:19 AM  

Cuchulane: kombat_unit: Tit for tat but who is to blame? Gun owners.

No facepalm large enough.

Legal vs. illegal? Public information vs. private information?
Maybe turn that facepalm sideways and administer in a side sweeping motion.


What's illegal here? Both sets of information are public.
 
2012-12-27 09:17:27 AM  

pla: Godscrack : So what? All the tough gun people gonna go hunt these people down now?

Nope. The gun owners count as the innocents in this particular situation, mere victims of the so-called "journalists" pushing their anti-gun agenda. Not happy about it, but not also not the sort of psychopaths who would send the worst elements of society to someone's front door just to make a point.

That said, newspapers publish a lot of things some people might not like - And not all of those people have the sanity and responsibility to hold a pistol permit in one of the most restrictive states in the US.

The irony here? Those gun owners actually have the means to defend themselves from a home invader. The pansy gunphobe reporters? Not so much.


jso2897 : Meh - it's all publicly available info anyway. I'm pretty sure any loon that had concrete evil intentions toward either group would have already obtained it.

Can you see the difference between Rocky the Thug going into his town office and requesting the home addresses of all the local permit holders, vs merely zooming in on his neighborhood and discovering that Old Mrs. Crenshaw, in Florida until May, has a permit?


I can see the difference, but know of no legal way to prevent either - do you?
 
2012-12-27 09:17:30 AM  

Peter von Nostrand: msupf: And until this site stops gawping at the mugshots on TSG, anyone on here decrying either list is likely a hypocrite.

Just because it is public record doesn't mean we should slather it everywhere for people. Even good intentions can have negative consequences, and I'm not even seeing good intentions in any of this.

Good point


If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.
 
2012-12-27 09:18:55 AM  

Generation_D: They're either public or they aren't.


I think a big part of this issue is how much information is public.
 
2012-12-27 09:19:00 AM  
I couldn't care less about the gun debate.. but I LOVE the follow-up here. I can hear the journalists whining from here.. "but but... how can they do that? That's private information and stuff!!"
 
2012-12-27 09:19:13 AM  

Generation_D: Peter von Nostrand: msupf: And until this site stops gawping at the mugshots on TSG, anyone on here decrying either list is likely a hypocrite.

Just because it is public record doesn't mean we should slather it everywhere for people. Even good intentions can have negative consequences, and I'm not even seeing good intentions in any of this.

Good point

If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.


So you have no problem with them publishing the names and addresses of the journalists? Or, for example, all of the DMV workers?
 
2012-12-27 09:19:58 AM  

Real Women Drink Akvavit: PopularFront: Just what this debate needed, more evidence that gun owners are a vindictive bunch of douches who are eager to escalate a conflict. I'm sure the general public finds this a very reassuring quality in someone who carries a concealed gun.

Not everyone carries a concealed weapon because it's "fun" or "our right". Some do it because we have a valid, demonstrable need to do so to preserve our own lives. When names and addresses are published in an easily accessible format when the people they are trying to hide from wouldn't normally know how to access that information,  public or not, they are putting those people at risk.

My ex has already done prison time for trying to kill me. Not enough of it, IMO. I am armed to the teeth for a reason. If I were trying to hide from him and someone outed my address so he could just be surfing the net one day, find it and say "So THAT'S where that biatch is hiding!" I'd be even more terrified of him than I already am and I'd be beyond upset. My entire family would have to move. I wouldn't put it past him to harm my Grandma, my Mom, my Sister or even our son, just to get to me. The guy is not stable, is determined to "get me" eventually and will not take his meds. Why make things easy for him?

What they did was inexcusable. Do not put this on gun owners. Turnabout is always fair play. The difference is, my life could be on the line, and I'm sure some of the people they outed do have their lives on the line. Where's the justification in making them easy targets? There is NONE. If someone is going to come after you, and you know they will if they can find you, they should at least have to work at it.


Turnabout may be fair play but it's spectacularly dumb in this context. Seriously, think about it. The implied threat of releasing the journalists names and addresses is that a gun owner might seek vengeance. All this does is further bolster the image of gun owners as unbalanced vengeance-seekers. It doesn't help gun-rights advocates at all. If they'd stop fapping to their emotionally retarded revenge fantasies and think about it they might realize this.
 
2012-12-27 09:21:19 AM  

jso2897: LarryDan43: My dad is a career criminal and he always robbed houses he knew had guns. They bring good money and are easy to move. You just spot a guy with an NRA sticker or a deer decal and follow him home. Watch his schedule for a few days and rob the place when he is gone. The best are people who advertise their home being protected by Smith and Wesson. Those idiots never have alarm systems.

Real, honest to Jesus hillbillies are a bad bet though - they all have dogs. And while pro burglars actively seek out gun owning homes, they hate and fear the dog above all things.


True. Those people also tend to have a grandma, cousin or two who is always home.
 
2012-12-27 09:21:24 AM  

PanicMan: doglover: PanicMan: If you're not happy that newspapers can legally release the names of gun owners, contact your elected officials.

If you're not happy newspapers released your name, release THEIR names in turn.

Freedom of speech, baby. It's mine and yourn.

Yes you can but that doesn't solve the initial thing you're upset about, or prevent it from happening again.


Journalistic integrity prevents newspapers from doing shiat like this.

Turning the tables just makes sure you know that when you sow the wind you will reap the whirlwind. You can't just publish lists of people's names in your newspaper when they haven't done anything illegal and expect that to go unchallenged.
 
2012-12-27 09:21:43 AM  

my lip balm addiction: This seems like as good a place as any to ask my question.

My stepmother - completely right -wing and wacko - handed me a book on Christmas Day and asked me to read it "with an open mind". The book is titled "The Fired The First Shot 2012" and looks like extremist Tea Party insanity. Anyone know about this book or read it?

TIA


I take it that you can't read, yet somehow can type.
 
2012-12-27 09:22:08 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Generation_D: Matter of public record, made public.  Its sure interesting how you gun owners are suddenly unwilling to let the rest of society follow the law.

It's pretty sad when the FARQ has a higher sense of journalistic responsibility than a newspaper.


As far as I am aware, the FARQ doesn't involve ownership of guns or property.  Not sure what your point is here.  They disclosed already-available public facts.  Which seems to have stirred the pot among the gun owner contingent as some sort of massive butt hurt inducing violation of privacy.

Why is gun ownership being plotted on a map any different than what Zillow does, or Intellius, or any of the whitepages sites, or reverse area code, etc?  To say nothing of Ancestry.com or some nitwit in your friends of friends on facebook tagging you, or any of the numerous other privacy damaging issues that have come of modern technology?

Why give gun owners a free pass?
 
2012-12-27 09:22:12 AM  

doglover: Cheviot: What debate, what public good, what instructional purpose would giving out the private cell phone numbers of journalists serve?

It will be very easy to help them ensure their stories are accurate and unbiased. Duh.


Journalists haven't exactly been working anonymously. If you have a problem with the way they present a story, you know who they are and where they work, and they probably accept and publish letters of complaint.
 
2012-12-27 09:22:23 AM  
Gun nuts: There's no better crime deterrent than being armed.
Troll Newspaper: Here's all the houses that have guns based on public ally available information.
Gun nuts: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!! All reporters should be dragged out into the street. Their children should be harmed. My rights! My rights! 2nd Amendement says I can have secret guns!!
Normal people: WTF?
 
2012-12-27 09:22:34 AM  

Triumph: feckingmorons: The fourth estate used to be respected, journalism used to be a calling.  Now it is what the kids who can't get into anything else go for in college.

Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.


Data point:
www.washingtonpost.com
 
2012-12-27 09:22:44 AM  

PopularFront: Turnabout may be fair play but it's spectacularly dumb in this context. Seriously, think about it. The implied threat of releasing the journalists names and addresses is that a gun owner might seek vengeance. All this does is further bolster the image of gun owners as unbalanced vengeance-seekers. It doesn't help gun-rights advocates at all. If they'd stop fapping to their emotionally retarded revenge fantasies and think about it they might realize this.


And there was no malicious intent in publishing the lists of the legal firearm owners? Actions can have consequences and just because you're a journalist doesn't mean you get to do stupid shiat and not have to deal with the same issues that the firearm owners now have to.

Also, what about those folks who have restraining orders and are armed to help protect themselves? Now their information is public and easily accessible. How do you feel about that?
 
2012-12-27 09:22:47 AM  
We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.
 
2012-12-27 09:24:25 AM  

ronaprhys: Generation_D: Peter von Nostrand: msupf: And until this site stops gawping at the mugshots on TSG, anyone on here decrying either list is likely a hypocrite.

Just because it is public record doesn't mean we should slather it everywhere for people. Even good intentions can have negative consequences, and I'm not even seeing good intentions in any of this.

Good point

If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.

So you have no problem with them publishing the names and addresses of the journalists? Or, for example, all of the DMV workers?


None at all, if its public information.  some internet vigilante asswit probably already has done this with DMV workers.  In Washington State some "property rights" vigilante published a list of every public employee cross matched against property records, for your handy one-stop shop to stalk public employees.

The world didn't end, nor was there a run on stalking public employees.

Butt hurt gun owners, why do you think using public records should not apply to you, when it applies to every other form of public record out there -- someone aggregates it and sells it, or uses it to prove a point.  Thats what public records DO.

If you want a secret society with no records available, China is probably your better bet.
 
2012-12-27 09:24:36 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: Cheviot: What debate, what public good, what instructional purpose would giving out the private cell phone numbers of journalists serve?

It will be very easy to help them ensure their stories are accurate and unbiased. Duh.

Journalists haven't exactly been working anonymously. If you have a problem with the way they present a story, you know who they are and where they work, and they probably accept and publish letters of complaint.


That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.
 
2012-12-27 09:24:53 AM  

ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.


Are you smart enough to realize the difference between publishing the names of someone who's actually committed a felony vs publishing the names of those who've not?
 
2012-12-27 09:25:06 AM  
I think it will be a very interesting bet that when a journalist is shot the shooter will be a farker

specially considering some of the vitriol here
 
2012-12-27 09:25:42 AM  

LarryDan43: jso2897: LarryDan43: My dad is a career criminal and he always robbed houses he knew had guns. They bring good money and are easy to move. You just spot a guy with an NRA sticker or a deer decal and follow him home. Watch his schedule for a few days and rob the place when he is gone. The best are people who advertise their home being protected by Smith and Wesson. Those idiots never have alarm systems.

Real, honest to Jesus hillbillies are a bad bet though - they all have dogs. And while pro burglars actively seek out gun owning homes, they hate and fear the dog above all things.

True. Those people also tend to have a grandma, cousin or two who is always home.


True - although a good hot-prowler can get in and out of your home with your shiat without you ever knowing he was there. Dogs pretty much ruin everything for boosters.
 
2012-12-27 09:25:57 AM  

Uranus Is Huge!: Gun nuts: There's no better crime deterrent than being armed.
Troll Newspaper: Here's all the houses that have guns based on public ally available information.
Gun nuts: THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!! All reporters should be dragged out into the street. Their children should be harmed. My rights! My rights! 2nd Amendement says I can have secret guns!!
Normal people: WTF?


Well stated and succinctly put, Uranus Is Huge!.  One internet to you.
 
2012-12-27 09:26:10 AM  

ronaprhys: Also, what about those folks who have restraining orders and are armed to help protect themselves? Now their information is public and easily accessible. How do you feel about that?


A more interesting map would people with both misdemeanor sexual assault convictions and guns.
 
2012-12-27 09:26:42 AM  
Fascinating. And when some crazed idiot goes to the editor's house with several thousand rounds of ammo and turns her into a puddle of pink cottage cheese, the gun control crowd will have more power than ever before.

You nutcases have a nice Christmas. All you're going to do is kill innocent people and bring down the wrath of gun legislation upon people who have nothing in common with you except they responsibly own one or two guns.

I don't think the lawyer thought his cunning plan through.
 
2012-12-27 09:26:56 AM  

Generation_D: None at all, if its public information.  some internet vigilante asswit probably already has done this with DMV workers.  In Washington State some "property rights" vigilante published a list of every public employee cross matched against property records, for your handy one-stop shop to stalk public employees.

The world didn't end, nor was there a run on stalking public employees.

Butt hurt gun owners, why do you think using public records should not apply to you, when it applies to every other form of public record out there -- someone aggregates it and sells it, or uses it to prove a point.  Thats what public records DO.

If you want a secret society with no records available, China is probably your better bet.


Then why don't you join us in making fun of the butt hurt journalists? Or is it just your bias showing?
 
2012-12-27 09:27:06 AM  
Two questions:

Has anyone studied whether the medications the shooter was on have a history of causing mental side effects that could have been the trigger for his behavior? I've watched anti-depression drugs induce very destructive paranoia in a friend along with chemical addiction to the drug. It's a very insidious combination.

Does New York make gun ownership information public in a effort to deter gun ownership? Why aren't all of the complaints against the journalist also leveled at the state?
 
2012-12-27 09:27:55 AM  

feckingmorons: R.A.Danny: I would think that any real journalist would respect the privacy of someone not directly making active news. Someone with an actual ax to grind or that wants to take advantage of a tragedy to get themselves noticed for their "work" shouldn't b surprised that they get some push back.

Unfortunately all the real journalists are dead.  Now it is 20 and 30 somethings that think they're going to change the world by exposing law abiding citizens as 'gun owners' as if there is something to be ashamed of in owning a gun.

The absurd excuse the paper gave is 'for the children' , they want to publish the names and addresses so parents know that it may not be safe to send their kids to play in the house where a parent legally owns a registered gun.

The paper is being used politically by those who want to encroach further on our freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.  They are but willing dupes who sincerely believe they are doing good by being so stupid.   Absolutely no gain, no civic betterment, no benefit, can be gained from what they did and their reason is laughable.  If your children go over to a neighbors to play you as a parent should know the neighbors and you should have visited their house so you could see if they have guns lying about where a child might access them.   No newspaper list of gun owners is going to help anyone be a better parent.


I just wanted to say good luck, we are all counting on you....

Oh, & welcome to favorites.
 
2012-12-27 09:28:10 AM  

Generation_D: Lenny_da_Hog: Generation_D: Matter of public record, made public.  Its sure interesting how you gun owners are suddenly unwilling to let the rest of society follow the law.

It's pretty sad when the FARQ has a higher sense of journalistic responsibility than a newspaper.

As far as I am aware, the FARQ doesn't involve ownership of guns or property.  Not sure what your point is here.  They disclosed already-available public facts.  Which seems to have stirred the pot among the gun owner contingent as some sort of massive butt hurt inducing violation of privacy.

Why is gun ownership being plotted on a map any different than what Zillow does, or Intellius, or any of the whitepages sites, or reverse area code, etc?  To say nothing of Ancestry.com or some nitwit in your friends of friends on facebook tagging you, or any of the numerous other privacy damaging issues that have come of modern technology?

Why give gun owners a free pass?


You can't post personal information on this website, no matter how easy it is to come by.

Where in journalism history do you find names and addresses of criminals or victims? Local advocates/activists? Union or party leaders? Addresses are published by news agencies when they are integral to the story -- such as having a crime or fire occurring at a given address -- because most news agencies realize that pushing that data to the public, instead of having them go ask for it on a case-by-case basis, can have repercussions for innocent people.
 
2012-12-27 09:28:23 AM  

GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?


No, if for no other reason than you don't want someone breaking into your home to steal the gun. Thugs that buy black market weapons LOVE guns that are registered to others, so a list of CC permit owners is a stack of Glengarry leads for thieves.

Having a CC permit doesn't mean being armed 24/7. One may feel safe at work but live in a crime ridden neighborhood, so they leave the gun at home most days. They may work in a bad part of town but have to keep their gun in their car because of their employer's policies.

Point is: you want criminals to assume you're armed rather than know for sure, and you never want to publicize how many guns you own or where you keep them; doing so is *asking* for trouble.
 
2012-12-27 09:29:18 AM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.


iq_in_binary: No, because thieves like stealing firearms. Now you're just exposing my girlfriend to a dipshiat trying to break in when he thinks no one is home. I may be willing to shoot somebody, she's not.


People without guns are targets, people with guns are targets.

You gun owners are so afraid of your own shadow you can't even make a consolidated arguement.
 
2012-12-27 09:30:00 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Fascinating. And when some crazed idiot goes to the editor's house with several thousand rounds of ammo and turns her into a puddle of pink cottage cheese, the gun control crowd will have more power than ever before.

You nutcases have a nice Christmas. All you're going to do is kill innocent people and bring down the wrath of gun legislation upon people who have nothing in common with you except they responsibly own one or two guns.

I don't think the lawyer thought his cunning plan through.


hopefully that doesn't happen as I don't think any sane and reasonable person wants to see that. Those that do are on par with those who salivate over any massacre as a chance to push for firearm restrictions. Both exist and both are detestable.

However, I do think the lawyer thought this through. Tit for tat. Actions have consequences.
 
2012-12-27 09:30:12 AM  

ronaprhys: Generation_D: None at all, if its public information.  some internet vigilante asswit probably already has done this with DMV workers.  In Washington State some "property rights" vigilante published a list of every public employee cross matched against property records, for your handy one-stop shop to stalk public employees.

The world didn't end, nor was there a run on stalking public employees.

Butt hurt gun owners, why do you think using public records should not apply to you, when it applies to every other form of public record out there -- someone aggregates it and sells it, or uses it to prove a point.  Thats what public records DO.

If you want a secret society with no records available, China is probably your better bet.

Then why don't you join us in making fun of the butt hurt journalists? Or is it just your bias showing?


As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I highly doubt a journalist is not already intimately familiar with the ins and outs of having their private lives made public.  They put their real name in the media daily.  Which is more than any of us does.
 
2012-12-27 09:30:31 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Fascinating. And when some crazed idiot goes to the editor's house with several thousand rounds of ammo and turns her into a puddle of pink cottage cheese, the gun control crowd will have more power than ever before.

You nutcases have a nice Christmas. All you're going to do is kill innocent people and bring down the wrath of gun legislation upon people who have nothing in common with you except they responsibly own one or two guns.

I don't think the lawyer thought his cunning plan through.


Yes. Pushing public information via the media was a bad idea that put innocent people at risk.

Oh, wait....
 
2012-12-27 09:30:33 AM  
Always loaded, and by my door. Not afraid to use it either.

thewondrous.com

//My world is a happy place...
 
2012-12-27 09:31:32 AM  

ronaprhys: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

Are you smart enough to realize the difference between publishing the names of someone who's actually committed a felony vs publishing the names of those who've not?


It is public information.  It was already "published."

The media is making use of public information.

I am already on many lists on the internet!  So are you!  zomg!
 
2012-12-27 09:31:38 AM  

namatad: Cubansaltyballs: Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.

#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.

you know, I dont have a shot gun and well, I know nothing
so wikipedia .....
WTF, you werent even close to making that shiat up!
nice

would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


In Floriduh, you can be sued by a surviving home invader for pain, & suffering... in addition to the medical bills... seems like a good incentive to use #000 to me.
 
2012-12-27 09:31:39 AM  
I give this a vote as the most troll driven thread of the week..that Ferpderp is such a joker
 
2012-12-27 09:31:39 AM  

Generation_D: As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.


And "gun owners" have?
 
2012-12-27 09:31:44 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Next, they'll be printing huge books of people's addresses and phone numbers.


I think I love you.
 
2012-12-27 09:34:07 AM  
You know what would be hilarious?

If- instead of having a sober (and entirely-necessary/long-overdue) discussion about not only Gun Control, but Mental Health and even (dare I say) School Architecture- we descended into an infantile whargarbling debate where the left myopically concentrated on a mere fraction of the total problem while the right stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed 'LALALALALALA!' because the total conversation even included mentions of gun control in the first place.

And I think it would be just precious if both sides would resort to stupid tactics to provoke the other side. Anything to circumvent productive discourse, amirite?
 
2012-12-27 09:35:33 AM  

cajunns: I think it will be a very interesting bet that when a journalist is shot the shooter will be a farker

specially considering some of the vitriol here


My gut feeling is none of these p*ssies has it in them to actually take action based on their words.  Its the quiet ones you have to watch out for.  The ITG's in here are actually helping vent steam that would otherwise be pent up.

So I'm doing my civic duty to help the pent up little gun nut vent some of his anger, so that he might not be as likely to snap and go on a killing spree today.

You're welcome.  For Great Justice.
 
KIA
2012-12-27 09:35:34 AM  

PopularFront: Turnabout may be fair play but it's spectacularly dumb in this context. Seriously, think about it. The implied threat of releasing the journalists gun owners names and addresses is that a gun owner mob might seek vengeance. All this does is further bolster the image of gun owners mobs as unbalanced vengeance-seekers. It doesn't help gun-rights advocates the public at all. If they'd stop fapping to their emotionally retarded revenge disarmament fantasies and think about it they might realize this.

 
2012-12-27 09:36:12 AM  

Frederf: It must suck to live in some piece of trash neighborhood where a GED is an accomplishment, you aren't a day's drive from an ocean, turning left is a sport, and God is something other than an obvious attempt of humanity to humor itself about death and morality.

Me, I get up every day in a place where not only is a gun not necessary for anyone, it's not even considered. We are just educated, busy people who just live life without masturbatory fantasies of cowboys and indians. As much as I like to wish you or more realistically your progeny to extract yourselves from this redneck stupor, it really is for the best for all the sooner your genetic line finds a pistol on the seat of the pickup and mercifully smears their nervous tissue harmlessly about the cabin.

Dark ages people with old ways of thinking need to go away so the actual future of humanity can move on.


Don't kid us, you live under a bridge and the reason you don't like guns is that troll fingers don't fit into the trigger guard.
 
2012-12-27 09:36:52 AM  
Can we all just agree that we shouldn't use public information to try to shame others we disagree with?  I don't care if it is guns, reporters addresses, people who sign recall petitions, or whatever.  If your views are so god damn brilliant then try to make arguments to gain supporters to your cause and don't waste time trying to intimidate anyone who dares disagree with you.
 
2012-12-27 09:37:18 AM  

Generation_D:
As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I highly doubt a journalist is not already intimately familiar with the ins and outs of having their private lives made public.  They put their real name in the media daily.  Which is more than any of us does.


I'm unaware that any of these people shot anyone. Gods, you're a douchebag.

Generation_D:
It is public information.  It was already "published."

The media is making use of public information.

I am already on many lists on the internet!  So are you!  zomg!


That's actually a lie. It wasn't published. It was available to search if you filed an FOIA. There's a difference between that and an interactive map. To ignore that difference shows that you're not even willing to have an honest discussion on the subject.

As for many lists, no, I'm not. A very small amount of my personal information is publicly available. Any other lists that I might be on (due to forum memberships, online shopping, etc) aren't publicly-available and if they were made so I could sue.
 
2012-12-27 09:38:12 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Boudica's War Tampon: Fascinating. And when some crazed idiot goes to the editor's house with several thousand rounds of ammo and turns her into a puddle of pink cottage cheese, the gun control crowd will have more power than ever before.

You nutcases have a nice Christmas. All you're going to do is kill innocent people and bring down the wrath of gun legislation upon people who have nothing in common with you except they responsibly own one or two guns.

I don't think the lawyer thought his cunning plan through.

Yes. Pushing public information via the media was a bad idea that put innocent people at risk.

Oh, wait....


But Mom everybody else is playing in the freeway! Why can't I???

Let me quote the lawyer and see if you can see the difference between the first publication of information--public information on file available to anyone--and the second publication of information.

"Hundreds of thousands of readers; Janet, you have a great Christmas Eve"


It's this lawyer's bloodlust that will get some people slaughtered and the result will not be a loosening of gun legislation. He published this information out of revenge, expecting it to cause serious, violent consequences.

All it's going to do is get people killed and probably result in him gaining lots of business trying to overturn gun legislation he helped create.
 
2012-12-27 09:38:45 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Rather than letting individuals *pull* data by request, a corporation with resources compiled and *pushed* the data to the public when there was no public interest served and no outcry.


This ^

This situation makes as much sense as publishing the names & addresses of all homosexual couples who have a marriage / civil union on record at the town hall (public information) just because someone out there, somewhere, might "need" to know so they can make a choice not to live in that neighborhood. It serves no legitimate purpose, even though the individual records are public if an individual wishes to go seek the information themselves - the risk of misuse far outweighs any perceived public good to make a searchable database / map.

Was interesting to see the overall map which looks like an army massing on the border to NYC / NJ though.
 
2012-12-27 09:39:22 AM  
Semi-relevant, this site is fun to play around with if you're interested:

CrimeReports

Lenny_da_Hog:
Where in journalism history do you find names and addresses of criminals or victims?.


I guess yours is different, but our local paper prints names and addresses of criminals in their reports, not just where the crime took place:

e.g. Man Arrested for Carjacking

My hometown paper did this as well, figured it was typical practice.
 
2012-12-27 09:39:27 AM  

Generation_D: As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.


I immediately went to google, typed in "children", and then hit "news", and I got a hit third link down, from the Toronto Sun, posted 13hrs ago. On the actual TFA, it was worse.

This is the caption to a pic of lovable young Artie: One-year-old Artur lies on his bed at a ward of the children's department of a local hospital in Russia's Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk March 23, 2011. Artur and his two-year-old brother Mark were brought to the hospital by the police

Journalists are not only shooting unarmed children, but also presenting their names and current locations!
 
2012-12-27 09:40:02 AM  
Good point:

Jim_Callahan: (1) The difference between a gun owner and a gun owner that leaves his weapon and ammo out where a visiting kid can get to them is that the latter is, in fact, already a criminal. Like, federal illegal, on the order of letting your kid drive his car or play with power tools. There's a big difference between a gun owner and a gun owner that could potentially harm your children.


Full shiathead:

Jim_Callahan: (2) You do realize that if you haven't talked to your kid about what to do around an unattended gun (basically, don't touch the damned thing, and tell an adult) then your primary problem is that you're a horrible farking parent, right? You going to not tell them about sex or drugs, either? Just shrug and nod when they tell you about their needle-sharing habit or the fun new game they made up where their friends get together and kick smaller children to death in an alley on the way home form school?


Had you stopped at "(1)", you'd be fine. You didn't, so, please, DIAF.
 
2012-12-27 09:40:14 AM  

HighlanderRPI: This situation makes as much sense as publishing the names & addresses of all homosexual couples who have a marriage / civil union on record at the town hall (public information) just because someone out there, somewhere, might "need" to know so they can make a choice not to live in that neighborhood. It serves no legitimate purpose, even though the individual records are public if an individual wishes to go seek the information themselves - the risk of misuse far outweighs any perceived public good to make a searchable database / map.


I was looking for an apt comparison that the "other side" would not like so much. Mission accomplished.
 
2012-12-27 09:40:27 AM  

feckingmorons: Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.


The Second Amendment has already made that abundantly clear.
 
2012-12-27 09:40:43 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed


I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.
 
2012-12-27 09:41:22 AM  

NickelP: Can we all just agree that we shouldn't use public information to try to shame others we disagree with?  I don't care if it is guns, reporters addresses, people who sign recall petitions, or whatever.  If your views are so god damn brilliant then try to make arguments to gain supporters to your cause and don't waste time trying to intimidate anyone who dares disagree with you.


If you're a petty activist, goal-oriented and biased group, go for it. Democrats, Republicans, PACs, local lobbyists, whatever, are supposed to be sleazy mud-slingers. Once they have their information together, they still have to find a way to make it public through a media conduit.

If you *are* the public media conduit -- journalists -- have some responsibility. Irresponsible use of the First Amendment isn't and acceptable counter to irresponsible use of the Second.
 
2012-12-27 09:41:27 AM  

ronaprhys: Generation_D:
As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I highly doubt a journalist is not already intimately familiar with the ins and outs of having their private lives made public.  They put their real name in the media daily.  Which is more than any of us does.

I'm unaware that any of these people shot anyone. Gods, you're a douchebag.

Generation_D:
It is public information.  It was already "published."

The media is making use of public information.

I am already on many lists on the internet!  So are you!  zomg!

That's actually a lie. It wasn't published. It was available to search if you filed an FOIA. There's a difference between that and an interactive map. To ignore that difference shows that you're not even willing to have an honest discussion on the subject.

As for many lists, no, I'm not. A very small amount of my personal information is publicly available. Any other lists that I might be on (due to forum memberships, online shopping, etc) aren't publicly-available and if they were made so I could sue.


At least you arent threatening to shoot them with your Bushmaster.  Thats a start.

Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.

As for disclosing journalists whereabouts, that sounds remarkably like something they used to do in the old USSR.  Comrade.
 
2012-12-27 09:41:34 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Oh, wait....

But Mom everybody else is playing in the freeway! Why can't I???

Let me quote the lawyer and see if you can see the difference between the first publication of information--public information on file available to anyone--and the second publication of information.

"Hundreds of thousands of readers; Janet, you have a great Christmas Eve"

It's this lawyer's bloodlust that will get some people slaughtered and the result will not be a loosening of gun legislation. He published this information out of revenge, expecting it to cause serious, violent consequences.

All it's going to do is get people killed and probably result in him gaining lots of business trying to overturn gun legislation he helped create.


You're assuming that the journalists had an intent that was different than the lawyers. You don't think they were pushing a personal agenda by publishing a list of citizen's engaging in a Constitutionally-protected right? Especially one that does absolutely nothing to do in order to actually advance the public debate in any way, shape, or form?
 
2012-12-27 09:42:19 AM  

iq_in_binary: You know what else is "public" information? Your criminal records. Every phone number attributed to you. Your occupation. Your employer. Your Driver's License #. Your car titles ...


Not in California. Google REBECCA SCHAEFER

investigation.discovery.com
 
2012-12-27 09:42:29 AM  

starsrift: Generation_D: As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I immediately went to google, typed in "children", and then hit "news", and I got a hit third link down, from the Toronto Sun, posted 13hrs ago. On the actual TFA, it was worse.

This is the caption to a pic of lovable young Artie: One-year-old Artur lies on his bed at a ward of the children's department of a local hospital in Russia's Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk March 23, 2011. Artur and his two-year-old brother Mark were brought to the hospital by the police

Journalists are not only shooting unarmed children, but also presenting their names and current locations!


How drunk are you right now? Be honest.
 
2012-12-27 09:42:35 AM  

Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x425]

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.


You're not really helping the image of "responsible" gun owners by threatening to shoot someone who made you angry. It's kinda the point those journalists were making.


/ijs
 
2012-12-27 09:43:08 AM  

The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.


About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...
 
2012-12-27 09:43:21 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2012-12-27 09:43:45 AM  
I'd like to see a "map of the week" from these guys. Let's start with Muslim homes and then millionaires.
 
2012-12-27 09:43:48 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x425]

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.

You're not really helping the image of "responsible" gun owners by threatening to shoot someone who made you angry. It's kinda the point those journalists were making.

/ijs

 
2012-12-27 09:44:24 AM  

ronaprhys: And there was no malicious intent in publishing the lists of the legal firearm owners? Actions can have consequences and just because you're a journalist doesn't mean you get to do stupid shiat and not have to deal with the same issues that the firearm owners now have to.

Also, what about those folks who have restraining orders and are armed to help protect themselves? Now their information is public and easily accessible. How do you feel about that?


This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.
 
2012-12-27 09:44:58 AM  

SkunkWerks: You know what would be hilarious?

If- instead of having a sober (and entirely-necessary/long-overdue) discussion about not only Gun Control, but Mental Health and even (dare I say) School Architecture- we descended into an infantile whargarbling debate where the left myopically concentrated on a mere fraction of the total problem while the right stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed 'LALALALALALA!' because the total conversation even included mentions of gun control in the first place.

And I think it would be just precious if both sides would resort to stupid tactics to provoke the other side. Anything to circumvent productive discourse, amirite?


Wait, productive means something other than getting the other side mad?
 
2012-12-27 09:45:16 AM  
The AP tried this bullshiat in Illinois with FOID (Firearm Owners ID - needed to buy any firearm or ammo). The AG wanted to release the data, but luckily we had the Illinois State Police on our side. They were able to tie things up in the courts for a while until the legislature and governor were able to sign a bill making FOID data un-FOIA-able.
 
2012-12-27 09:45:20 AM  

Generation_D: Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.


The point is that making the map was an awful thing to do and those "journalists" should be fired for it. No, they didn't do anything illegal, but what they did was unethical in the extreme and their should be some level of professional consequence for that.

The same should be true of the asshat who posted their info, but that's considerably less likely to happen.
 
2012-12-27 09:45:30 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...


Rhetorically weak, and patently unrelated.
 
2012-12-27 09:46:12 AM  
we should ban newspapers
 
2012-12-27 09:46:16 AM  

Generation_D:
At least you arent threatening to shoot them with your Bushmaster.  Thats a start.


And I wouldn't as that's illegal. I realize it's difficult for you to comprehend, but the vast majority of legal firearm owners (north of 99%) will never, ever commit anything more serious than a traffic violation. Again, you're a douche.

Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.

I believe an FOIA request could be denied, if the person had a restraining order or something to that effect. So, yes, there's a good reason to not publish the information so that it's publicly available like this.

As for disclosing journalists whereabouts, that sounds remarkably like something they used to do in the old USSR.  Comrade.

I advocate publishing neither - however, if one group decides to do something, I've got no problem with the tit for tat.

Nice job of throwing the loaded insult in there, asshat.
 
2012-12-27 09:46:32 AM  

thurstonxhowell: How drunk are you right now? Be honest.


Not at all.
A little sillyness never hurt anyone...
 
2012-12-27 09:46:51 AM  

ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: Oh, wait....

But Mom everybody else is playing in the freeway! Why can't I???

Let me quote the lawyer and see if you can see the difference between the first publication of information--public information on file available to anyone--and the second publication of information.

"Hundreds of thousands of readers; Janet, you have a great Christmas Eve"

It's this lawyer's bloodlust that will get some people slaughtered and the result will not be a loosening of gun legislation. He published this information out of revenge, expecting it to cause serious, violent consequences.

All it's going to do is get people killed and probably result in him gaining lots of business trying to overturn gun legislation he helped create.

You're assuming that the journalists had an intent that was different than the lawyers. You don't think they were pushing a personal agenda by publishing a list of citizen's engaging in a Constitutionally-protected right? Especially one that does absolutely nothing to do in order to actually advance the public debate in any way, shape, or form?


So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.
 
2012-12-27 09:47:08 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x425]

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.

You're not really helping the image of "responsible" gun owners by threatening to shoot someone who made you angry. It's kinda the point those journalists were making.


/ijs


About 40-50% of us households own a gun.  Want to stop blocking nearly half the us population together?  Hell I am sure some black people, some gays, some people with big feet etc were involved in this.  Let's broaden our scope a little and we can probably make EVERYONE responsible for this.
 
2012-12-27 09:47:20 AM  

joness0154: The AP tried this bullshiat in Illinois with FOID (Firearm Owners ID - needed to buy any firearm or ammo). The AG wanted to release the data, but luckily we had the Illinois State Police on our side. They were able to tie things up in the courts for a while until the legislature and governor were able to sign a bill making FOID data un-FOIA-able.


So, you sought increased regulations.
 
2012-12-27 09:47:24 AM  

doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.


You should be aware that the only point you're managing to make is "when someone makes a retarded post, it's best to stop digging deeper".
 
2012-12-27 09:47:38 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: NickelP: Can we all just agree that we shouldn't use public information to try to shame others we disagree with?  I don't care if it is guns, reporters addresses, people who sign recall petitions, or whatever.  If your views are so god damn brilliant then try to make arguments to gain supporters to your cause and don't waste time trying to intimidate anyone who dares disagree with you.

If you're a petty activist, goal-oriented and biased group, go for it. Democrats, Republicans, PACs, local lobbyists, whatever, are supposed to be sleazy mud-slingers. Once they have their information together, they still have to find a way to make it public through a media conduit.

If you *are* the public media conduit -- journalists -- have some responsibility. Irresponsible use of the First Amendment isn't and acceptable counter to irresponsible use of the Second.


Publishing information doesn't kill people.

Raging asswits with guns kill people.

See the difference?  I can say pretty much most things out there, with limited exceptions like telling TSA I have a bomb, and have it be protected speech.

Journalism, even journalism you disagree with, is also woven heavily into the US Constitution.  Its in that Amendment right above the one you are so in love with about being in a well-regulated militia.
 
2012-12-27 09:47:43 AM  

Generation_D: If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.


As I said upthread, the problem is not that this information is publicly available. I could have compiled all of the same information that was published in the newspaper. But I could not have published it in a newspaper, because I don't own a newspaper. What the paper did was make the information readily available to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to compile it themselves.

I doubt that you expect all of that information on your property ownership, marital status and car ownership to end up on the front page of The Journal News. It could, but I'd wager that you'd be surprised if it did, and possibly uncomfortable.

Were the author and editor and publisher of the paper within their rights to print the map? Yes. Just as they would have been within their rights to publish photos of the dead bodies from Sandy Hook Elementary. Part of their job is to exercise editorial discretion--to draw the line that separates what they can do from what they should do. That line is subjective, and opinions will differ as to whether what they did was appropriate.

I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based in any real understanding of the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are just as peaceful and law-abiding as the editorial board of The Journal News.
 
2012-12-27 09:48:39 AM  

utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]


Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.
 
2012-12-27 09:49:09 AM  

I drunk what: we should ban newspapers


Limit them to 30 pages. And the ink can't be sticky so you can't turn more than one page at a time. Every fifth page has to be printed in phosphorous, too.
 
2012-12-27 09:49:34 AM  

Jumpedthefark: I'd like to see a "map of the week" from these guys. Let's start with Muslim homes and then millionaires.


I bet you could get this funded!   Great start-up idea...
 
2012-12-27 09:49:52 AM  

someonelse: joness0154: The AP tried this bullshiat in Illinois with FOID (Firearm Owners ID - needed to buy any firearm or ammo). The AG wanted to release the data, but luckily we had the Illinois State Police on our side. They were able to tie things up in the courts for a while until the legislature and governor were able to sign a bill making FOID data un-FOIA-able.

So, you sought increased regulations.


I'm not sure how that's construed as an increase in regulations (I assume you're trying to tie that to more stringent gun control laws) rather than an increase in privacy.
 
2012-12-27 09:50:31 AM  

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x425]

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.

You're not really helping the image of "responsible" gun owners by threatening to shoot someone who made you angry. It's kinda the point those journalists were making.

/ijs


We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.
 
2012-12-27 09:50:36 AM  

PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.


I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.
 
2012-12-27 09:51:10 AM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.



When a similar list was published in FL years ago, there was a rash of gun thefts from the owners' houses.  That's why FL no longer makes gun permit data public.
 
2012-12-27 09:51:23 AM  

KIA: PopularFront: Turnabout may be fair play but it's spectacularly dumb in this context. Seriously, think about it. The implied threat of releasing the journalists gun owners names and addresses is that a gun owner mob might seek vengeance. All this does is further bolster the image of gun owners mobs as unbalanced vengeance-seekers. It doesn't help gun-rights advocates the public at all. If they'd stop fapping to their emotionally retarded revenge disarmament fantasies and think about it they might realize this.


Sounds like your goal is to lower yourself to the level of the douchebags rather than to improve the public image of firearms owners.
 
2012-12-27 09:51:32 AM  

Generation_D: Publishing information doesn't kill people.

Raging asswits with guns kill people.

See the difference?  I can say pretty much most things out there, with limited exceptions like telling TSA I have a bomb, and have it be protected speech.


That means I can equate you with Westboro Baptist Church. Nice to meet you, Fred. I'm glad you feel that protesting the funeral of murdered children is a responsible use of your First Amendment rights, because free speech never hurt anyone.
 
2012-12-27 09:51:44 AM  
I live smack-dab in the middle of this graph.

The fact that almost none of my (non-Italian) neighbors own guns now makes me feel compelled to explore the option, as we are an out-of-the-way tony neighborhood bordering on some sketchy areas with a small history of break-ins.

This map is ringing the dinnerbell on all the thieves who have or will target our area.

Thanks Journal News, love an ex-employee (paperboy in early 80s back when it was The Reporter Dispatch)
 
2012-12-27 09:51:50 AM  

The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Rhetorically weak, and patently unrelated.


Unrelated? Why did the lawyer tell the editor "Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve" if he didn't anticipate nutjobs showing up at her door and lots of other doors heavily armed with their Constitutional rights locked and loaded? Very much related.
 
2012-12-27 09:52:02 AM  
So, a bunch of public information is still public information? Is it really news, if nothing has changed?

\by all means, don't let that stop you 'tards from furiously pressing that 'Add Comment' button, ad nauseum...
 
2012-12-27 09:52:25 AM  

RexTalionis: utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.


Actually, he's wronger than you thought. The map doesn't even account for Staten Island in homicide stats.
 
2012-12-27 09:52:35 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.


So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?
 
2012-12-27 09:52:40 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Wait, productive means something other than getting the other side mad?


Possibly a bad choice of words. I guess it depends on what you want to produce, exactly. But since both sides purport that they're fighting for the public good here, well yeah. You'd expect "public good" wouldn't be terribly well-served by a pot-shotting competition like this.

I keep hearing all this "Newtown will be the final straw" nonsense. And it's nonsense precisely because the 'final straw' will never fall till we can have a productive discussion.

Sure as hell haven't seen significant signs of that yet, from either camp. There's the odd voice of reason here or there, sure. And I suppose maybe there's a case to be made that sane and rational discourse doesn't make for thrilling media coverage...
 
2012-12-27 09:53:01 AM  

Generation_D: Jumpedthefark: I'd like to see a "map of the week" from these guys. Let's start with Muslim homes and then millionaires.

I bet you could get this funded!   Great start-up idea...


Could you post homes of women with low self-esteem and poor eye-sight? Thanx!
 
2012-12-27 09:53:08 AM  

ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.


And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?
 
2012-12-27 09:53:14 AM  

Cybernetic: I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based in any real understanding of the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are just as peaceful and law-abiding as the editorial board of The Journal News.


This is the difference between "We need to get these guns off the streets!" and the "We need to do a better job teaching our kids that killing is wrong!".
 
2012-12-27 09:54:34 AM  
I thought gun owners were safer. Isn't this a case where the non-gun owners should complain that they are marked as easy targets?
 
2012-12-27 09:55:08 AM  

thurstonxhowell: RexTalionis: utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.

Actually, he's wronger than you thought. The map doesn't even account for Staten Island in homicide stats.


For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.
 
2012-12-27 09:55:16 AM  

namatad: I have a hypocritical sister. She is actively against abortion. But she had an abortion.
I wonder how things might change if some private things all of a sudden became public.
Santorum and Rmoney's wives both had abortions. WBush's drug rehab record. Clinton's paternity tests.
Every politicians exact income, including all the bribes and insider info.
this could make for an interesting change in society


So would she be upset that you just made it public Peter?
 
2012-12-27 09:56:35 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.


You determined from that that he's advocating shooting journalists.
 
2012-12-27 09:56:45 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.

25.media.tumblr.com

 
2012-12-27 09:56:45 AM  

italie: Always loaded, and by my door. Not afraid to use it either.

[thewondrous.com image 628x334]

//My world is a happy place...


image.guardian.co.uk
 
2012-12-27 09:57:01 AM  

namatad: S

antorum and Rmoney's wives both had abortions.

I'm fairly sure neither of these are true.
 
2012-12-27 09:57:28 AM  

xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?


Do you often drop your child off at a house only to later be surprised that there was a swimming pool hidden somewhere? Perhaps tucked away under a... oh right, no one hides a swimming pool and Google maps satellite view is essentially already a map of pool owners.

Not that I agree with that particular bit of think of the children scaremongering about guns, but it's a bit different of a situation with pools.
 
2012-12-27 09:58:28 AM  

DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.


So that's your angle
 
2012-12-27 09:58:36 AM  

ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?


Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.
 
2012-12-27 09:59:00 AM  

RexTalionis: For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.


finally somebody smart attacks the map. stars for you. :)

can we compile nationwide geospatial data on registered guns, crime, population density, and income, plz?
 
2012-12-27 09:59:18 AM  

Generation_D: ronaprhys: Generation_D:
As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I highly doubt a journalist is not already intimately familiar with the ins and outs of having their private lives made public.  They put their real name in the media daily.  Which is more than any of us does.

I'm unaware that any of these people shot anyone. Gods, you're a douchebag.

Generation_D:
It is public information.  It was already "published."

The media is making use of public information.

I am already on many lists on the internet!  So are you!  zomg!

That's actually a lie. It wasn't published. It was available to search if you filed an FOIA. There's a difference between that and an interactive map. To ignore that difference shows that you're not even willing to have an honest discussion on the subject.

As for many lists, no, I'm not. A very small amount of my personal information is publicly available. Any other lists that I might be on (due to forum memberships, online shopping, etc) aren't publicly-available and if they were made so I could sue.

At least you arent threatening to shoot them with your Bushmaster.  Thats a start.

Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.

As for disclosing journalists whereabouts, that sounds remarkably like something they used to do in the old USSR.  Comrade.


Why is that? Do journalists deserve additional protections from their information being released for some reason? If I can find someones information without resorting to illegal means then isn't that information public anyway? The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?
 
2012-12-27 09:59:39 AM  

thurstonxhowell: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Do you often drop your child off at a house only to later be surprised that there was a swimming pool hidden somewhere? Perhaps tucked away under a... oh right, no one hides a swimming pool and Google maps satellite view is essentially already a map of pool owners.

Not that I agree with that particular bit of think of the children scaremongering about guns, but it's a bit different of a situation with pools.


I dunno bout you but gangers around here always walk around with pools hidden shoved down their pants.

Its a rough town.
 
2012-12-27 09:59:41 AM  

monoski: I thought gun owners were safer. Isn't this a case where the non-gun owners should complain that they are marked as easy targets?


I could see doing that. It'd be amusing. Basically, anyone with half a brain should be calling to complain. Either you've made me a target (by the logic that I'm unarmed) or you've made me a target (by the logic that a criminal might want to try and steal my firearm) - with neither instance serving any public good.
 
2012-12-27 09:59:42 AM  

xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?


Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.
 
2012-12-27 10:00:45 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.


That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.
 
2012-12-27 10:01:14 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.


Have you ever met a lawyer?
 
2012-12-27 10:01:25 AM  

rocinante721: I live smack-dab in the middle of this graph.

The fact that almost none of my (non-Italian) neighbors own guns now makes me feel compelled to explore the option, as we are an out-of-the-way tony neighborhood bordering on some sketchy areas with a small history of break-ins.

This map is ringing the dinnerbell on all the thieves who have or will target our area.

Thanks Journal News, love an ex-employee (paperboy in early 80s back when it was The Reporter Dispatch)


That's exactly how I feel here in Rockland County.

Are you getting a gun? I'd love to hear your reasoning.
 
2012-12-27 10:01:48 AM  

fonebone77: The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?


So you agree that the journalist was in the right to make the map of gun owners, yes?
 
2012-12-27 10:02:20 AM  

ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.


It was a gimmick that has paid off for them by giving them a huge amount of publicity. It will happen again as it has happened before.

I would have preferred repercussions take the form of sympathy from the public towards gun owners. We can use all we can get after Newtown.
 
2012-12-27 10:02:38 AM  

probesport: DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.

So that's your angle


pokerfraudalert.com
 
2012-12-27 10:03:48 AM  

Triumph: 1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?


So very, very late to the thread. I'm sure this has been addressed several times, but it struck me so here it is:

Hmmmm... let's try to suss this one out. Late fall, a man dressed in camo, armed, coming out of the woods...

I don't know but it seems to be happening all over the country!! There are THOUSANDS of them! They show up every year! And some of them are dragging... *gasp* The carcases of DEAD ANIMALS!

Oh the horror.

Really??
 
2012-12-27 10:04:15 AM  

ArgusRun: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.


I don't see anyone shouting how their is no reason to have a pull more than 4` deep or diving boards are just for fun and no one using a pool to cool down would ever need one.
 
2012-12-27 10:04:31 AM  

Kimothy: GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

It's been my experience - after living for years with relatives on the police force - that gun owners are the ones that live most in fear of others. Hence the need for a gun. So yeah, of course he assumes he's in danger.

//Sure he thinks he's one of the exceptions.


Are both of you intentionally ignorant?

It's the same thing as removing the GPS from your car dashboard when you park. You don't try to invite thieves.
 
2012-12-27 10:05:15 AM  

PopularFront: ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.

It was a gimmick that has paid off for them by giving them a huge amount of publicity. It will happen again as it has happened before.

I would have preferred repercussions take the form of sympathy from the public towards gun owners. We can use all we can get after Newtown.


No disagreement, but has anyone published the names of the journalists before? Now that I think about it, this probably won't stop idiots from doing this again. If something goes wrong, they'll act like martyrs when really they're just idiots.
 
2012-12-27 10:05:29 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...


Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.
 
2012-12-27 10:06:19 AM  

ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.

That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.


The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.
 
2012-12-27 10:07:12 AM  

Cybernetic: Generation_D: If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.

As I said upthread, the problem is not that this information is publicly available. I could have compiled all of the same information that was published in the newspaper. But I could not have published it in a newspaper, because I don't own a newspaper. What the paper did was make the information readily available to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to compile it themselves.

I doubt that you expect all of that information on your property ownership, marital status and car ownership to end up on the front page of The Journal News. It could, but I'd wager that you'd be surprised if it did, and possibly uncomfortable.

Were the author and editor and publisher of the paper within their rights to print the map? Yes. Just as they would have been within their rights to publish photos of the dead bodies from Sandy Hook Elementary. Part of their job is to exercise editorial discretion--to draw the line that separates what they can do from what they should do. That line is subjective, and opinions will differ as to whether what they did was appropriate.

I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based in any re ...


20 years ago, a whole bunch of rules changed on the internet when the Wayback machine / archive.org, and dejanews came into being.  Up until that time, if you had posted something on a BBS or usenet site, or put up a web site, you could rest assured that in a few weeks it would be expired away, filling up space in some un-indexed archive or going off to live out its days on a tape archive as some college, never to be seen again.

And then google bought dejanews.

Every internet usenet post going back to the mid 1980s was suddenly available on line, free, indexable, searchable.

I know of at least one marriage this helped to break up, as long forgotten information was suddenly public.  The rules changed.

I am telling you this tale now to hopefully show you how computers that are networked together work: Sooner or later someone figures out there's a trove of data someplace, and they come up with a new and (for them) exciting use.

Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself.

The least you can do is allow me to know how many of you there are, and where you live.  Though this map is only confirming what we non gun owners already knew -- we're surrounded by gun owners.

Two points:  1) There is no privacy, the rules change, get used to it, and 2) You chose to own a gun, just like I chose to own property or own a car or buy things with a credit card, or have a phone number, or sign a legal document that is on file, or get married, or any numbers of other activities that at any moment the rules could change for and could be made available to all, and under less than optimal circumstances.

I bet you don't remember Neal Horsley.  He was a fun fellow, liked to exercise his free speech rights on the internet.  One fine day Neal decided he would publish a list of doctors that provided abortions.  Names, addresses, phones, cities.  Not content to do that, Neal also put a big X on every doctor's name who had been murdered already by a freedom-loving 2nd amendment supporting patriot.  Big red X, with blood dripping animated gif.

The court said he had a free speech right to do it.  And we had to leave it up for months til his court case wound through the legal system.

And the moment it was declared it was a "clear and present danger" and met certain legal standards as being a personal threat, I got the privilege of deleting that scumbag's sh*t from the ISP's server where I worked.

So you see kids.  Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do.  Even if it ruins marriages.  Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done.  Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago.  Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you.
 
2012-12-27 10:07:41 AM  
In this area of the country, a map should be published showing those who don't have a gun permit. The majority of which own arsenals, really. You actually need a permit to buy a NY Times here.
 
2012-12-27 10:08:05 AM  

feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


Did it ever really exist except in the minds of so called "professional" journalists?

www.thecanadiancharger.com
 
2012-12-27 10:09:07 AM  

ktybear: Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.

Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.


Funny how the world screams for those toys every time it gets in trouble. How'd that lend-lease work out for you? Still not speaking German, eh?

You've got your own media. If you're so sick of US news, don't cover it. We don't force you.

/old world idiots. And the "UK" of all countries shouldn't talk about hearing its drone around the world. Because your (one-time) empire was so well-loved and enlightened?
 
2012-12-27 10:09:12 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.

That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.

The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.


So it's okay for a newspaper to release the names of innocent people, but it's not okay for a lawyer to release the names of another, smaller group of innocent people; keeping in mind ALL of this information is public already.

I don't get it.
 
2012-12-27 10:09:36 AM  

thurstonxhowell: fonebone77: The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?

So you agree that the journalist was in the right to make the map of gun owners, yes?


In the right legally, yes. I am still free to think he was a jerk for doing it. The lawyer was also a jerk for doing what he did. That doesn't mean we are approaching a KGBish system because someone knows where a journalist lives and can personally tell him what they think of him.
 
2012-12-27 10:10:37 AM  
So what has the staff had to say?

I would expect them to be happy and invite everyone to stop by for a beer and a discussion about gun control.
 
2012-12-27 10:10:53 AM  

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.

You determined from that that he's advocating shooting journalists.


Yes. You seem to be shocked that ITGs exist. Lets not start acting like Farkers are above wishing folks dead. The guy went to all of the trouble to type the sound that is made when you clear your throat. But, I'm sure he meant *ahem* nothing by it.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:03 AM  

hasty ambush: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

Did it ever really exist except in the minds of so called "professional" journalists?

[www.thecanadiancharger.com image 425x319]


Well, good journalism used to exist - it has never predominiated or been representative of the industry.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:05 AM  

doglover: LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 160x160]


Again, you're substituting cheeky, obtuse garbage for actual substance. Even you aren't buying what you're saying.
 
2012-12-27 10:11:47 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.


I'd expect advocates and activists to be dicks. All of these websites linking to the blog -- which would have gone unnoticed otherwise -- are just as irresponsible as the newspaper.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:32 AM  

Generation_D: Cybernetic: Generation_D: If the records were not intended to be made public, why have them in the first place.  Is there a new class of record called "public but not really good to let anyone know about" ?

They're either public or they aren't.

Amazing that you can trace my property ownership, my marriage status, my car ownership etc all on line now, with little controversy, with plenty of "good" reasons to do so.

But using existing law to trace gun ownership, and holy crap the gun nuts flip out.  Which is interesting, since gun nuts flipping out is what got us here in the first place.

Perhaps you gun owners need to work on your not flipping out skills, and do it without resorting to threats about what you'd like to do with your guns.

As I said upthread, the problem is not that this information is publicly available. I could have compiled all of the same information that was published in the newspaper. But I could not have published it in a newspaper, because I don't own a newspaper. What the paper did was make the information readily available to those who have neither the time nor the inclination to compile it themselves.

I doubt that you expect all of that information on your property ownership, marital status and car ownership to end up on the front page of The Journal News. It could, but I'd wager that you'd be surprised if it did, and possibly uncomfortable.

Were the author and editor and publisher of the paper within their rights to print the map? Yes. Just as they would have been within their rights to publish photos of the dead bodies from Sandy Hook Elementary. Part of their job is to exercise editorial discretion--to draw the line that separates what they can do from what they should do. That line is subjective, and opinions will differ as to whether what they did was appropriate.

I think publishing the map was silly and stupid and childish, and indicative of an emotional, knee-jerk reaction of hatred toward guns and gun owners that is not based i ...


So you'd be okay with an index of all non-gun owners being published with a searchable map with a big happy smiley face over their house? It's public information, after all. No threat implied.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:41 AM  

Generation_D:
So you see kids. Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do. Even if it ruins marriages. Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done. Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago. Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you..


You do know the difference between posting information on the internet of your own free will, and being forced to provide that information by the government right? Trust me, most gun owners would NOT provide that information if they weren't legally compelled to do so.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:48 AM  

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


Personally I don't think home invasion robbery types check the internet and do their research before they go on a robbery spree. To that end, this information war stuff is a non starter.

But I do enjoy media comeuppance. Someone was trying to stir up some shenanigans, and they have to face the backlash.
 
2012-12-27 10:12:58 AM  
Clearly, the best solution would be for these journalists to buy guns. When approached for a discussion by a gun owner, they should shoot them. If I'm understanding the various motivations of the people involved correctly, at that point, everyone should be happy.
 
2012-12-27 10:13:13 AM  

utah dude: RexTalionis: For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.

finally somebody smart attacks the map. stars for you. :)

can we compile nationwide geospatial data on registered guns, crime, population density, and income, plz?


It's already compiled. The guns data would have to be FOIA'd like in this article but I make a lot of maps for business consulting/planning and have those other 3 on my hard drive already from 2011. You can get it from the census website down to the census block level (roughly one or two city blocks usually).
 
2012-12-27 10:13:42 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.


I didn't ask that - I asked whether or not you, personally, feel that the newspaper was wrong to publish the list of legal firearm owners. Are you unwilling to answer that simple question? Note that this is the third time I've had to ask the exact same question and each time you've not answered it. I'm beginning to think you've no problem with the journalists doing it...
 
2012-12-27 10:13:45 AM  

Kimothy:
iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

GAT_00: How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

feckingmorons: Nobody wants to shoot someone else.  That is what people have permits to carry a concealed gun - they don't want to be a target and they don't want the criminals to know they have a gun.   The element of surprise should be on the side of the law abiding citizen, not the criminal.

Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.


Except that the element of surprise is really always with the person who is launching an unexpected attack. And without extensive training your chances of being able to respond effectively to a gun attack is virtually zero:

proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world
 
2012-12-27 10:13:56 AM  
Perhaps we could compile a list of everybodys names and addresses and phone numbers and publish it in a book form, and fund it by advertisement.
 
2012-12-27 10:14:09 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.


Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."


The guy who issued the information--not you or me--warned the editor "look out, you had it coming whatever happens". It's a little disingenuous to argue that revenge killings and slayings of large numbers of people are unrelated to this story when the principle actor publishes a list of names and their personal information then tacks on a violent warning about revenge coming to their living rooms.

What inevitably will happen is someone will end up being killed by a nutjob, the lawyer will be disbarred and more gun legislation will be passed, if the attack is gruesome enough to be used to manipulated public fear.

And that is why professionals like this lawyer have no business fomenting violence in response to a wrong. That is what he did, that is what he confessed to doing with his smarmy little comment. I hope he enjoys his handiwork.
 
2012-12-27 10:14:34 AM  

kim jong-un: Generation_D:
So you see kids. Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do. Even if it ruins marriages. Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done. Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago. Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you..

You do know the difference between posting information on the internet of your own free will, and being forced to provide that information by the government right? Trust me, most gun owners would NOT provide that information if they weren't legally compelled to do so.


I guess gun owners need to get the laws changed then.   Not really my concern, I'm not a gun owner.  Though I find it very telling that a gun owner wants less information on themselves available than a car owner, or a property owner, or a marriage license holder, or a business owner all are required to provide.
 
2012-12-27 10:14:35 AM  

thurstonxhowell: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Do you often drop your child off at a house only to later be surprised that there was a swimming pool hidden somewhere? Perhaps tucked away under a... oh right, no one hides a swimming pool and Google maps satellite view is essentially already a map of pool owners.

Not that I agree with that particular bit of think of the children scaremongering about guns, but it's a bit different of a situation with pools.


But Think of the TVs! Save the Children!
Link

Ban TVs in homes with children!
 
2012-12-27 10:15:11 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 160x160]

Again, you're substituting cheeky, obtuse garbage for actual substance. Even you aren't buying what you're saying.


It's almost like we're on a time wasting website designed by a drunk, or something. Imagine that.
 
MFK
2012-12-27 10:15:33 AM  
Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.
 
2012-12-27 10:17:13 AM  

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.

You determined from that that he's advocating shooting journalists.


Only he can say what he's advocating but that's exactly how hoplophobes are going to interpret it.
 
2012-12-27 10:17:36 AM  

MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.


Have you actually read the Constitution?
 
2012-12-27 10:17:45 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."


The Journal News brags daily circulation of 84K, over 100K on Sundays. That doesn't include website hits. Should that be taken as a threat?
 
2012-12-27 10:17:52 AM  

MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.


If you can get a kid to swallow an AR-15, could you make one out of broccoli please?
 
2012-12-27 10:18:04 AM  

GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?


Please post your address here so we know where a mentally unstable festering boil on the ass of America resides. You know, so we cam avoid contact with a dangerous mentally ill scumbag lives.
 
2012-12-27 10:18:37 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: I love gun owners and their tiny little penises.


Let's just get right down to the nitty-gritty.
 
2012-12-27 10:19:34 AM  

Zasteva: Kimothy:
iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

GAT_00: How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

feckingmorons: Nobody wants to shoot someone else.  That is what people have permits to carry a concealed gun - they don't want to be a target and they don't want the criminals to know they have a gun.   The element of surprise should be on the side of the law abiding citizen, not the criminal.

Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

Except that the element of surprise is really always with the person who is launching an unexpected attack. And without extensive training your chances of being able to respond effectively to a gun attack is virtually zero:

proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world


That's not proof at all - that ABC "study" has a few flaws:

1. They put relatively untrained individuals/students up against well trained police officers acting like the bad guys.
2. The cops/bad guys knew they were on the lookout for someone with a concealed weapon.

It was biased to begin with. However, I will concede that sometimes the bad guys have the upper hand (such as the Seattle shooting of 4 cops in the coffee shop) but many times the perp goes in there with no training and no idea of what to expect.
 
2012-12-27 10:20:08 AM  

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.


Yea!! Grow the fark up up all you stupid gun owners who helped write that article that..um...er... wait.....huh?
 
2012-12-27 10:20:24 AM  

jehovahs witness protection: GAT_00: Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

And so if you carry to prevent being shot, isn't making everyone aware that you have a gun making that less likely?  Isn't publishing the names of everyone who owns a gun something gun owners would want?

Please post your address here so we know where a mentally unstable festering boil on the ass of America resides. You know, so we can avoid a state who allows normal people to have contact with a dangerous mentally ill scumbag lives.


The computer ate part of my sentence.
 
2012-12-27 10:20:54 AM  
Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself. The least you can do is allow me to know how many of you there are, and where you live.  Though this map is only confirming what we non gun owners already knew -- we're surrounded by gun owners....

Tell me more about the gun owner's delusional fantasies. You seem to know a thing or two about the subject.
 
2012-12-27 10:20:57 AM  

doglover: It's almost like we're on a time wasting website designed by a drunk, or something. Imagine that.


"HURRRRR just being snarky!" Worthless.
 
2012-12-27 10:21:13 AM  

ronaprhys: MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.

Have you actually read the Constitution?


Every Amendment counts except the 2nd. Oh, and its just a goddamned piece of paper.
 
2012-12-27 10:23:06 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Jim_Callahan: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.

Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."

The guy who issued the information--not you or me--warned the editor "look out, you had it coming whatever happens". It's a little disingenuous to argue that revenge killings and slayings of large numbers of people are unrelated to this story when the principle actor publishes a list of names and their personal information then tacks on a violent warning about revenge coming to their living rooms.

What inevitably will happen is someone will end up being killed by a nutjob, the lawyer will be disbarred and more gun legislation will be passed, if the attack is gruesome enough to be used to manipulated public fear.

And that is why professionals like this lawyer have no business fomenting violence in response to a wrong. That is what he did, that is what he confessed to doing with his smarmy little comment. I hope he enjoys his handiwork.


I thought what the newspaper did was reprehensible, but I was surprised by that comment too. When they said it was posted on the Lawyers website I was expecting a standard legal page. Turned out t
 
2012-12-27 10:23:23 AM  

jayhawk88: feckingmorons: Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.

YOU MEAN LIKE PURCHASE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION AND KEEP THEM IN YOUR HOME???


When the criminals come knocking, we all know a strongly worded letter is equal in effective deterrance to a gun.

/this message brought to you by the letter derp
//not a gun owner
 
2012-12-27 10:23:35 AM  

Generation_D: Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself.


Your assumptions are incorrect.

First, it should be treated like a driver's license. You can't just troll for private information on the DMV website, and in fact, New York State limits the amount of data that is available to the general public.

That is to prevent people from learning the new location of their estranged spouse, etc.

Why should pistol permit records be any different? In fact, a person might get a pistol permit specifically because they are legitimately afraid of a stalker. By publishing those records, the newspaper could very well be opening itself up for legal liability if someone gets killed because a stalker was able to get that information in an anonymous fashion by looking it up there instead of going to the local government to get it. You can argue those are "public records", but you have to apply to the local government to get them, which puts you on notice to the local police.

New York State still treats pistol permits as a legal privilege, when in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that handgun ownership is a right. New York State law hasn't caught up with federal requirements, but it's being worked on. It just takes time.
 
2012-12-27 10:23:44 AM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.


Are you kidding? Guns are almost as good as cash, and you usually get more for them then jewelry. In my misspent youth when I was doing B&E I purposefully targeted houses with guns. All you have to do is wait for the homeowner and their family to go out for the night, or hell just wait until they leave the door unlocked, search the bedroom closet and bingo you hit the jackpot.

If someone published a list of gun owners in my area I would be really pissed, but I would also move move my guns to a secure location for six to eight months.
 
2012-12-27 10:23:58 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.


I read the lawyer's original blog post, and he was no more trying to foment violence than the newspaper was trying to foment the robbery of gun owners' homes. This was a tit-for-tat, sauce-for-the-goose situation, done to make a point.

There was no advocacy, exhortation, or incitement to violence. There was no mention of violence of any kind. Any inference that you draw about the fomenting of violence is coming from your own mind, not from anything that the lawyer wrote.

That doesn't mean what he did was advisable, or wise. But to accuse him of fomenting violence is idiotic.
 
2012-12-27 10:24:07 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Jim_Callahan: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.

Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."

The guy who issued the information--not you or me--warned the editor "look out, you had it coming whatever happens". It's a little disingenuous to argue that revenge killings and slayings of large numbers of people are unrelated to this story when the principle actor publishes a list of names and their personal information then tacks on a violent warning about revenge coming to their living rooms.

What inevitably will happen is someone will end up being killed by a nutjob, the lawyer will be disbarred and more gun legislation will be passed, if the attack is gruesome enough to be used to manipulated public fear.

And that is why professionals like this lawyer have no business fomenting violence in response to a wrong. That is what he did, that is what he confessed to doing with his smarmy little comment. I hope he enjoys his handiwork.


I thought what the newspaper did was reprehensible, but I was surprised by that comment too. When they said it was posted on the Lawyers website I was expecting a standard legal page. Turned out it was a shiatty blog ranting and raving like an internet troll.

Just goes to show that any idiot can be a lawyer.
 
2012-12-27 10:25:27 AM  
Conservatives in Wisconsin fell all over themselves to set up a web site to publish the names of those that had signed the recall Scott Walker petition. I see this as just  more of what we were told was fair use of public information.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:00 AM  

MFK: These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.


You do realize there is no functional difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle like a Ruger mini 14. You could cause just as much devastation with the Ruger. You are basically making the argument of "we need to ban scary looking guns." If you want to argue for outlawing all semi automatic rifles then you might have a valid argument point. But saying "yes dumbasses, you can kill a deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too" doesn't really MEAN anything.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:14 AM  
As a public employee my name and yearly salary were published in the local paper. Anyone who wanted to know could find out how much I made that year. My address was just a couple of clicks away as well.

Pardon me while I don't care about this.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:15 AM  

Generation_D: I guess gun owners need to get the laws changed then. Not really my concern, I'm not a gun owner. Though I find it very telling that a gun owner wants less information on themselves available than a car owner, or a property owner, or a marriage license holder, or a business owner all are required to provide.


Well, if they did this sort of thing everywhere, burglars would know that you DON'T have a gun in your house.  And, I guess you wouldn't mind someone posting your driving record online, or a copy of your driver's license, with the social security number, or maybe your tax returns.  Just because you filled out a form with the state doesn't mean it should be public record.  Many people buy guns for different reasons.  Some people just enjoy shooting paper targets.  Some people buy them because there are very real threats in their lives, like women fleeing abusive husbands.  There's no legitimate reason to do this to people who have done absolutely nothing wrong and have exercised a legal right and complied fully with all applicable laws.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:25 AM  
http://www.fark.com/farq/posting/

Posting Rules

Don't post private/contact information no matter how easily obtained.


Ban submitter!
 
2012-12-27 10:26:27 AM  

MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.


And this is what's wrong with America today. One or two people do something wrong and they slap a ban on it. It's retarding the advance of our society. It's also retarded, which is what you'd have to be to support these kinds of actions.

You wanna save kids? Ban swimming pools. More kids drown than just about anything else killing kids these days. If you really want to save the children, start big and work down to small like bucky balls and mass shootings. Anything else and you're just being silly.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:36 AM  

gadian: Eh, I don't see the newspaper's action as that douchebaggy. After all, gun owners are all so damn proud of their babies. They want everyone to know that they're armed so that no one messes with them. The newspaper was doing them a favor, really. Besides, publishing a list of gun owners is no different than publishing a list of pedophiles or government employees. They're people you should get to know. In this case, either so that you don't get shot by the overzealous or that you use the overzealous to shoot.

Couldn't get away with that here without just listing the phonebook. Hell, I "own" three shotguns myself. I shot one of them once, but all three are in my name because of the overzealous nutjob I live with. But I'm already on other lists, so this one would be no different.

/Wanted a handgun but nooooo according to the nutjob, handguns are something you use only to shoot your way back to the shotgun you should have never left behind to start with. Ass.


Umm...no. My guns are not for intruders, they are for the authorities. As we learned with Oklahoma City bombing the fastest way to get the governments jack booted thugs to stop stomping on people is to kill the mother farkers.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:46 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.

Are you kidding? Guns are almost as good as cash, and you usually get more for them then jewelry. In my misspent youth when I was doing B&E I purposefully targeted houses with guns. All you have to do is wait for the homeowner and their family to go out for the night, or hell just wait until they leave the door unlocked, search the bedroom closet and bingo you hit the jackpot.

If someone published a list of gun owners in my area I would be really pissed, but I would also move move my guns to a secure location for six to eight months.


The journal also wanted to publish a LIST of firearms owned, but that was denied during a FOIA. Imagine that, that would be a grocery shopping list for criminals looking for firearms.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:52 AM  

Generation_D: kim jong-un: Generation_D:
So you see kids. Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do. Even if it ruins marriages. Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done. Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago. Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you..

You do know the difference between posting information on the internet of your own free will, and being forced to provide that information by the government right? Trust me, most gun owners would NOT provide that information if they weren't legally compelled to do so.

I guess gun owners need to get the laws changed then.   Not really my concern, I'm not a gun owner.  Though I find it very telling that a gun owner wants less information on themselves available than a car owner, or a property owner, or a marriage license holder, or a business owner all are required to provide.


I think all of those people want as little information available about them as possible.  If they did something like publish a map of everyone who had purchased a 100k+ car in the last 6 months, inherited more than $200k, or any other telling things that may make them a good robbery victim I would expect them to be pissed.
 
2012-12-27 10:27:06 AM  

ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.


I disagree with that.  Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have.  I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.
 
2012-12-27 10:28:45 AM  

NickelP: ArgusRun: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.

I don't see anyone shouting how their is no reason to have a pull more than 4` deep or diving boards are just for fun and no one using a pool to cool down would ever need one.


Guns have no other purpose than to kill. None. Zero. They are designed to kill. They do it well.

No other consumer good out there has that distinction. Including pools.

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.
 
2012-12-27 10:28:49 AM  

Cybernetic:
I read the lawyer's original blog post, and he was no more trying to foment violence than the newspaper was trying to foment the robbery of gun owners' homes. This was a tit-for-tat, sauce-for-the-goose situation, done to make a point.

There was no advocacy, exhortation, or incitement to violence. There was no mention of violence of any kind. Any inference that you draw about the fomenting of violence is coming from your own mind, not from anything that the lawyer wrote.


Yeah, right.
 
2012-12-27 10:28:55 AM  

Generation_D: ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.

I disagree with that.  Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have.  I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.


I suppose you want to know where all the black people live, too, so you can make property owning decisions based on that....right?
 
2012-12-27 10:29:08 AM  

feckingmorons: Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

Just because you can do something does not mean you should do that thing.


Yes it is frowned upon; kinda like masturbating on a plane.
 
2012-12-27 10:29:35 AM  
The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT.

The Left taught me that.

The Second Amendment has "evolved" into allowing all citizens to own whatever weaponry the government has.

The right is not just for a "well-regulated militia." The penumbras and emanations from the Second Amendment also include the right to own tanks and bombs and nukes.

The State acknowledges no limit on its power to keep and bear arms. Therefore, there is no limit to that right under the Second Amendment.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution actually says, and even less what it meant at the time of its enactment.

What it means NOW the right to unlimited weaponry.

That's what it means to have a LIVING Constitution.

Suck it, Progs.
 
2012-12-27 10:30:11 AM  

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.


I hope that you had the same statement on the story about the gun owners' personal info getting published. Especially if you're going around telling people to grow up.
 
2012-12-27 10:30:53 AM  

fonebone77: MFK: These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.

You do realize there is no functional difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle like a Ruger mini 14. You could cause just as much devastation with the Ruger. You are basically making the argument of "we need to ban scary looking guns." If you want to argue for outlawing all semi automatic rifles then you might have a valid argument point. But saying "yes dumbasses, you can kill a deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too" doesn't really MEAN anything.


I'd rather we banned removable magazines, and limited internal ones to no more then 10 rounds.
 
2012-12-27 10:31:51 AM  

Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.


I was thinking the same thing. I wonder what the percentage of those houses had burglaries last month, compared with next month. Of course, this assumes that burglars are smart enough to check this map.
 
2012-12-27 10:31:55 AM  
I'm a reporter. I don't see anything wrong with publishing the names of gun owners. I don't see anything wrong with publishing the addresses of journalists.

I do question, though, how either qualifies as news. It sounds more like something Drew would do on a La Fin du Monde binge.
 
2012-12-27 10:31:56 AM  

Generation_D: Zeno-25: [i.imgur.com image 600x425]

Fark those journalists who published the list of gun owners. Two can play at that game, don't be surprised when someone, ahem, shoots back, figuratively speaking.

Another internet tough guy gun owner threatening violence when non gun owners follow the law.  Very interesting.


Somone else with reading comprehension problems...

/not surprised
 
2012-12-27 10:32:27 AM  

KarmicDisaster: Conservatives in Wisconsin fell all over themselves to set up a web site to publish the names of those that had signed the recall Scott Walker petition. I see this as just  more of what we were told was fair use of public information.


I love how people equate gun ownership into their left/right constructed worldview.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:00 AM  
My father used to live in upper Westchester, so when I looked on the map I was not to see the two homes that were listed by him. Just what I had expected. What was interesting were the homes omitted. A couple of police officers, a body guard, and a couple of security people I knew who carried.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:01 AM  
Information wants to be free, man.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:11 AM  

Cybernetic: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.

I read the lawyer's original blog post, and he was no more trying to foment violence than the newspaper was trying to foment the robbery of gun owners' homes. This was a tit-for-tat, sauce-for-the-goose situation, done to make a point.

There was no advocacy, exhortation, or incitement to violence. There was no mention of violence of any kind. Any inference that you draw about the fomenting of violence is coming from your own mind, not from anything that the lawyer wrote.

That doesn't mean what he did was advisable, or wise. But to accuse him of fomenting violence is idiotic.


Here's the link to his updated list. He makes his statement about thousands of readers and have a nice Christmas Eve on that post along with listing the names of lots of people who had nothing to do with the original wrong committed by the newspaper.

And if you think he wasn't hoping that there would be confrontations between nutjobs and employees of the paper, then you have to ask yourself why he pointed out how many thousands of possible visitors the editor and the others would be having.

You're being very charitable to remove any hint of possible violence. He knew and stated he knew what the outcome and the intent of his publishing this information would be. That's why he said, smarmily, "have a nice Christmas Eve".
 
2012-12-27 10:33:13 AM  

Nabb1: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: I love gun owners and their tiny little penises.

Let's just get right down to the nitty-gritty.


I'm game if you are. *wink*
 
2012-12-27 10:33:31 AM  

Phinn: The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT.

The Left taught me that.

The Second Amendment has "evolved" into allowing all citizens to own whatever weaponry the government has.

The right is not just for a "well-regulated militia." The penumbras and emanations from the Second Amendment also include the right to own tanks and bombs and nukes.

The State acknowledges no limit on its power to keep and bear arms. Therefore, there is no limit to that right under the Second Amendment.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution actually says, and even less what it meant at the time of its enactment.

What it means NOW the right to unlimited weaponry.

That's what it means to have a LIVING Constitution.

Suck it, Progs.


I think if that is the interpretation, there will be plenty of support to send the 2nd Amendment the way of the 18th.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:33 AM  

Phinn: The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT.

The Left taught me that.

The Second Amendment has "evolved" into allowing all citizens to own whatever weaponry the government has.

The right is not just for a "well-regulated militia." The penumbras and emanations from the Second Amendment also include the right to own tanks and bombs and nukes.

The State acknowledges no limit on its power to keep and bear arms. Therefore, there is no limit to that right under the Second Amendment.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution actually says, and even less what it meant at the time of its enactment.

What it means NOW the right to unlimited weaponry.

That's what it means to have a LIVING Constitution.

Suck it, Progs.


Ummm, could youvdirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:36 AM  

dittybopper: Generation_D: Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself.

Your assumptions are incorrect.

First, it should be treated like a driver's license. You can't just troll for private information on the DMV website, and in fact, New York State limits the amount of data that is available to the general public.

That is to prevent people from learning the new location of their estranged spouse, etc.

Why should pistol permit records be any different? In fact, a person might get a pistol permit specifically because they are legitimately afraid of a stalker. By publishing those records, the newspaper could very well be opening itself up for legal liability if someone gets killed because a stalker was able to get that information in an anonymous fashion by looking it up there instead of going to the local government to get it. You can argue those are "public records", but you have to apply to the local government to get them, which puts you on notice to the local police.

New York State still treats pistol permits as a legal privilege, when in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that handgun ownership is a right. New York State law hasn't caught up with federal requirements, but it's being worked on. It just takes time.


I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country.  Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants.  It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

None of which was the probable intended goal of the Second Amendment.
 
2012-12-27 10:34:08 AM  
I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.
 
2012-12-27 10:34:51 AM  

Generation_D: I disagree with that.  Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have.  I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.


So make an FOIA request when that becomes an issue. It will only be an issue to those people, on those very rare occasions. You'd have to do it anyway, since this newspaper didn't validate the list. And you'd have to do it regularly, since your neighbor might go out and buy a gun after you move in, forcing you to leave.

That newspaper list does nobody any good.
 
2012-12-27 10:34:57 AM  

Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.


How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?
 
2012-12-27 10:35:41 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

Ironically, this incident is about freedom and the irresponsible use of technology, which is all that the gun debate is really about also.

Are you kidding? Guns are almost as good as cash, and you usually get more for them then jewelry. In my misspent youth when I was doing B&E I purposefully targeted houses with guns. All you have to do is wait for the homeowner and their family to go out for the night, or hell just wait until they leave the door unlocked, search the bedroom closet and bingo you hit the jackpot.

If someone published a list of gun owners in my area I would be really pissed, but I would also move move my guns to a secure location for six to eight months.


As a responsible gun owner, shouldn't your guns already be locked away in a secure location?
 
2012-12-27 10:36:07 AM  

Generation_D: I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country. Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants. It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.


Unless you live in Sweden.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:15 AM  

Generation_D: ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.

I disagree with that.  Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have.  I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.


You could aggregate the data to show rates versus giving out exact names and addresses. Like we do for racial demographics, income, and a number of other factors.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:19 AM  

Phinn: That's what it means to have a LIVING Constitution.


Know what else it means? It can still change into something else.

If this is a 'gotcha', it's a pretty weak one.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:37 AM  

lexslamman: I do question, though, how either qualifies as news. It sounds more like something Drew would do on a La Fin du Monde binge.


Even Drew has higher standards. Posting those details is against the rules here.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:40 AM  

Nabb1: Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?


Gun show loopholes, from which 40% of gun purchases originate.  They don't require background checks, 72 hr wait periods, etc.

It might not be a thing where you are, its a big deal in Washington State.  Gun show loophole is how most of our criminals get armed, that or stolen weapons trafficked through gangs.
 
2012-12-27 10:37:05 AM  

Generation_D: I disagree with that. Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have. I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.


What is your position on sex offender registration?  Would you like a map showing the race of people in houses so that the presence of minorities doesn't adversely affect your property value?  What about a religion registry so you don't have to live next door to anyone of a particular faith you find offensive?
 
2012-12-27 10:37:12 AM  
Of course the readers of the media outlet are a mixed bag and a representative cross section of society. As such, most of the who read about the gun owners are perfectly harmless. Additionally, what the paper did was create a nice big map for criminals of houses to avoid, which is a good thing actually.

The readers of this guys blog however are all bat shiat nuts, are armed, and have the minds of very slow children.

The potential harm of the two events are quite disparate.
 
2012-12-27 10:37:31 AM  

ArgusRun: NickelP: ArgusRun: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.

I don't see anyone shouting how their is no reason to have a pull more than 4` deep or diving boards are just for fun and no one using a pool to cool down would ever need one.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. None. Zero. They are designed to kill. They do it well.

No other consumer good out there has that distinction. Including pools.

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.


Funny I have a gun and have yet to kill anyone.  I like to shoot targets with it.  It is nothing more than an item designed to propel metal pieces at a high speed.  I find that enjoyable like a lot of people like to swim (I like to swim too).  When I decided I wanted one it was because I thought that would be fun, not because I wanted to kill folks.

Pool manufacturers are liable if they are negligent.  They aren't liable if someone dies normally from their product just like if someone gets shot a gun maker isn't liable.  If you go buy a gun and it explodes in your hand without you doing anything stupid they are sure as hell going to be liable for that.

If you anti-gun people would take a deep breath and figure out that the half of the country that owns at least 1 gun isn't going to snap any second and kill everyone it would do you a lot of good.
 
2012-12-27 10:38:21 AM  

ChuDogg: KarmicDisaster: Conservatives in Wisconsin fell all over themselves to set up a web site to publish the names of those that had signed the recall Scott Walker petition. I see this as just  more of what we were told was fair use of public information.

I love how people equate gun ownership into their left/right constructed worldview.


Here ya go! Bonus; Nate Silver.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership -s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/?gwh=BE87B665DCEFB6DBF85DB0021264F2 41
 
2012-12-27 10:38:22 AM  

probesport: Generation_D: I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country. Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants. It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

Unless you live in Sweden.


I would be strongly in favor of adopting a northern european country's attitude and laws on gun ownership, training, registration etc.

The USA is the outlier in world legal opinion regarding gun ownership among so called Westernized countries.

Our gun laws more resemble Somalia or Ethiopia.   Much freedom loving going on there.
 
2012-12-27 10:38:40 AM  

AurizenDarkstar: I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.


I dunno, you sound much more frightened to me.
 
2012-12-27 10:39:07 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: I love gun owners and their tiny little penises.


Fewer and fewer "LOL GUN OWNERS HAVE TEH TINY PENISES!!!" references on these threads it seems. Most fantasizers have started keeping it on the down-low lately because they've realized it really makes them sound childish.

More power to you for bucking the trend, kiddo! Keep that penis fantasy going in your mind! There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking about the penis size of other people based on their ownership of certain things. Nope. Nothing at all wrong with it.
 
2012-12-27 10:39:45 AM  

Generation_D: It might not be a thing where you are, its a big deal in Washington State. Gun show loophole is how most of our criminals get armed, that or stolen weapons trafficked through gangs.


Interesting.  Do you have some statistics on that?  In this area, most guns involved in crimes are stolen or obtained from other criminals, often with the serial numbers filed down to make them difficult to trace.  Some criminals use girlfriends to buy them if their girlfriends have clean records.
 
2012-12-27 10:40:15 AM  

Phinn: The Second Amendment has "evolved" into allowing all citizens to own whatever weaponry the government has.


Strangely enough, it was like that when it was written. Civilians and soldiers alike used smooth-bore muskets and long rifles.
 
2012-12-27 10:40:49 AM  

doglover: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.

That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.

The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.

So it's okay for a newspaper to release the names of innocent people, but it's not okay for a lawyer to release the names of another, smaller group of innocent people; keeping in mind ALL of this information is public already.

I don't get it.


Bear in mind that we're talking about different levels of "okay" here... Is it legal for the newspaper to release the names of gun owners? Sure. Is it legal for the lawyer to release the names of journalists? Yes (although he might have some right of publicity, false light, and invasion of privacy lawsuits coming).
But does that mean that there's not a potential  ethical issue? That what he's done doesn't reflect well on the New York Bar or raise questions about his conduct? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's "okay", and it doesn't mean that the Bar couldn't discipline or disbar him.
 
2012-12-27 10:40:54 AM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Ummm, could you dirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.


There's no need for a court ruling. The Constitution is a LIVING document. Get it?

One of the things that has evolved is the part where the Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

It may SAY that, but that's not what it means.

The penumbras and emanations of Article III provide that the judicial power of the United States also rests with each citizen. And that includes me.

You keep trying to refer to the text like it's some kind of authority. You keep relying on fixed meanings of words and historical sources for legal interpretation.

That's all out of date. Get with the times. Get it through your thick skull -- L.I.V.I.N.G. D.O.C.U.M.E.N.T.

It's right there in the penumbras.
 
2012-12-27 10:41:11 AM  

Generation_D: Our gun laws more resemble Somalia or Ethiopia. Much freedom loving going on there.


Can you provide some links to some Ethiopian or Somalian gun laws? How did you become familiar with the laws of those countries? It sounds very fascinating. I would be interested in actually making that comparison.
 
2012-12-27 10:41:17 AM  

KarmicDisaster: ChuDogg: KarmicDisaster: Conservatives in Wisconsin fell all over themselves to set up a web site to publish the names of those that had signed the recall Scott Walker petition. I see this as just  more of what we were told was fair use of public information.

I love how people equate gun ownership into their left/right constructed worldview.

Here ya go! Bonus; Nate Silver.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership -s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/?gwh=BE87B665DCEFB6DBF85DB0021264F2 41


Wow, so you're cool with throwing a third of your fellow democrats under the bus?
 
2012-12-27 10:41:45 AM  

ChuDogg: AurizenDarkstar: I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.

I dunno, you sound much more frightened to me.


Now why would you say that? I walk down the street every day, without a weapon, and don't really feel scared. Of course, I tend to stay out of areas where crime might be higher or where I might feel in any way threatened. Never have I felt the need to carry a weapon on my person, as I know that there are police out there.

I really don't have any problem with a person wants a gun in their house for protection, or one that they use for target shooting or hunting. But I do have a problem with the Rambos out there that feel they need to be armed 24/7. They make me more nervous than the thought of a criminal with a weapon.
 
2012-12-27 10:42:52 AM  

Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.


A lot of CCW holders feel this way. It's better not to advertise. We don't want to get in situations, we just want to be prepared if something happens. Of course, if you open carry, all kinds of 'fun' stuff can happen:

My brother in law is a Sheriff's Deputy in Maricopa County. He's not a patrolling deputy, he's just a detention guard at the county jails, but he still carries his gun to work(Has to lock it up there, which is fine). Open carry is completely 100% legal in Az, and he carries openly. One day, on the way to work, he stopped for a soda at CircleK, and was standing in line , when suddenly the parking lot was flooded with cop cars, the doors opened, and cops took up positions behind the door and started barking commands. Everybody hit the floor, and nobody knew what was going on.

Later, after this was all cleared up, he asked one of the responding officers what exactly had happened, and it turned out that a woman from out of state(He tells it as New York, but I don't know if that's an embellishment) pulled up to the store, looked in the window, and saw my brother in law standing in line with his soda and jerky, gun on his hip. She freaked out, left the parking lot, and called the cops to say that there was an armed gunman ready to take hostages in the store.

Sometimes it's easier to go thru the hassle of carrying concealed so that people don't piss their pants and imagine shiat that never really happened.
 
2012-12-27 10:42:55 AM  

Phinn: Holocaust Agnostic: Ummm, could you dirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.

There's no need for a court ruling. The Constitution is a LIVING document. Get it?

One of the things that has evolved is the part where the Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

It may SAY that, but that's not what it means.

The penumbras and emanations of Article III provide that the judicial power of the United States also rests with each citizen. And that includes me.

You keep trying to refer to the text like it's some kind of authority. You keep relying on fixed meanings of words and historical sources for legal interpretation.

That's all out of date. Get with the times. Get it through your thick skull -- L.I.V.I.N.G. D.O.C.U.M.E.N.T.

It's right there in the penumbras.


Exellent. 10/10.
Harkens me back to my pre-law days.
 
2012-12-27 10:43:14 AM  

NickelP: ArgusRun: NickelP: ArgusRun: xmasbaby: ArgusRun: We publish the names and addresses of sex offenders.

A child is more likely to be killed in a house with a gun than in one without a gun. The map of gun owners seems like useful information for a parent to have.
/Also, for the record, this is handgun map. Other firearms aren't included.

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.

I don't see anyone shouting how their is no reason to have a pull more than 4` deep or diving boards are just for fun and no one using a pool to cool down would ever need one.

Guns have no other purpose than to kill. None. Zero. They are designed to kill. They do it well.

No other consumer good out there has that distinction. Including pools.

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.

Funny I have a gun and have yet to kill anyone.  I like to shoot targets with it.  It is nothing more than an item designed to propel metal pieces at a high speed.  I find that enjoyable like a lot of people like to swim (I like to swim too).  When I decided I wanted one it was because I thought that would be fun, not because I wanted to kill folks.

Pool manufacturers are liable if they are negligent.  They aren't liable if someone dies normally from their product just like if someone gets shot a gun maker isn't liable.  If you go buy a gun and it explodes in your hand without you doing anything stupid they are sure as hell going to be liable for that.

If you anti-gun people would take a deep breath and figure out that the half of the cou ...


Most of that half of the people don't keep their gun under lock and key, so the 1/100th of the country that is batshiat, homocidally-insane can steal their guns and shoot up elementary schools.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:24 AM  

Generation_D: Which is another thing I find amusing about this whole deal, a gun owner is a hell of a lot more of a threat to more people than a sex offender is.


Stating your opinion as if it were fact doesn't help your argument.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:29 AM  

joness0154: Kimothy:
iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

GAT_00: How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?

feckingmorons: Nobody wants to shoot someone else.  That is what people have permits to carry a concealed gun - they don't want to be a target and they don't want the criminals to know they have a gun.   The element of surprise should be on the side of the law abiding citizen, not the criminal.

Kimothy: Have to admit that's one of the best arguments I've heard in favor of concealed carry. I know several people with CC's and they've never explained it this way. It's always been "if I have to kill someone..." arguments, which really suck.

Zasteva: Except that the element of surprise is really always with the person who is launching an unexpected attack. And without extensive training your chances of being able to respond effectively to a gun attack is virtually zero:

proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world

joness0154: That's not proof at all - that ABC "study" has a few flaws:

1. They put relatively untrained individuals/students up against well trained police officers acting like the bad guys.
2. The cops/bad guys knew they were on the lookout for someone with a concealed weapon.

It was biased to begin with. However, I will concede that sometimes the bad guys have the upper hand (such as the Seattle shooting of 4 cops in the coffee shop) but many times the perp goes in there with no training and no idea of what to expect.


That's a reasonable argument. I agree that it was likely biased in the way you mentioned. However, I don't think it's relevant. The expectations of the bad guy are to kill a bunch of people indiscriminately and then get mowed down in a hail of gunfire or kill themselves.

So, all they have to do is put bullets into bodies. They aren't concerned about their own safety since they are expecting to die. As such, they aren't affected by any of the factors that disadvantage an untrained person -- no panic, no reaction delay, and no concern about hitting bystanders.
The best case for this kind of a thing is for the defender to be in another room, hear the gunfire, and have time to prepare. However this is still fraught with danger. Multiple defenders are as likely to shoot each other as they are the attacker.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:29 AM  
Thread TL;DNR

Has anyone mentioned the following?

THIEVES TYPICALLY:
- do not like confrontation
- burglarize homes when no one is there
- search out guns and ammo because of black market demand
- know the most common places in a home to find a gun
- get information

Stolen Guns from home robberies:
- have a high street value
- are easily sold
- wind up on the streets
- wind up in Criminals possession (felony criminals)
- are used frequently to commit violent crimes


So is it illegal to publish "public information"? Probably not. Is it unethical to do so? Given the risk, absolutely.

/gun owner
//keeps them locked up
 
2012-12-27 10:44:39 AM  

GoldSpider: Strangely enough, it was like that when it was written. Civilians and soldiers alike used smooth-bore muskets and long rifles.


It's almost as though the Constitution reflects the idea that a citizen army is a necessary component for the security of a free society.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:42 AM  

Generation_D: probesport: Generation_D: I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country. Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants. It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

Unless you live in Sweden.

I would be strongly in favor of adopting a northern european country's attitude and laws on gun ownership, training, registration etc.

The USA is the outlier in world legal opinion regarding gun ownership among so called Westernized countries.

Our gun laws more resemble Somalia or Ethiopia.   Much freedom loving going on there.


Yup, that's why my truck has twin DSHK's mounted in the bed. farking Freedom!!!!

BTW, can you enlighten us on Somalia's gun laws? Ya, didn't think so but you heard Maher mention it and thought it clever.