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  
•       •       •

33343 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1060 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report