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 1061
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

33333 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Dec 2012 at 6:30 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1061 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 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.
 
Displayed 50 of 1061 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 »






Report