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 09:31:39 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.
 
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