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 | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 10:13:13 AM  

utah dude: RexTalionis: For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.

finally somebody smart attacks the map. stars for you. :)

can we compile nationwide geospatial data on registered guns, crime, population density, and income, plz?


It's already compiled. The guns data would have to be FOIA'd like in this article but I make a lot of maps for business consulting/planning and have those other 3 on my hard drive already from 2011. You can get it from the census website down to the census block level (roughly one or two city blocks usually).
 
2012-12-27 10:13:42 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: The lawyer obviously felt what the newspaper did was wrong. He will probably end up being disbarred for what he did out of revenge. Which is a lot less suffering than what some of those named will endure, thanks to the attitude that two wrongs make a right.


I didn't ask that - I asked whether or not you, personally, feel that the newspaper was wrong to publish the list of legal firearm owners. Are you unwilling to answer that simple question? Note that this is the third time I've had to ask the exact same question and each time you've not answered it. I'm beginning to think you've no problem with the journalists doing it...
 
2012-12-27 10:13:45 AM  

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

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

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

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


Except that the element of surprise is really always with the person who is launching an unexpected attack. And without extensive training your chances of being able to respond effectively to a gun attack is virtually zero:

proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world
 
2012-12-27 10:13:56 AM  
Perhaps we could compile a list of everybodys names and addresses and phone numbers and publish it in a book form, and fund it by advertisement.
 
2012-12-27 10:14:09 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.


Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."


The guy who issued the information--not you or me--warned the editor "look out, you had it coming whatever happens". It's a little disingenuous to argue that revenge killings and slayings of large numbers of people are unrelated to this story when the principle actor publishes a list of names and their personal information then tacks on a violent warning about revenge coming to their living rooms.

What inevitably will happen is someone will end up being killed by a nutjob, the lawyer will be disbarred and more gun legislation will be passed, if the attack is gruesome enough to be used to manipulated public fear.

And that is why professionals like this lawyer have no business fomenting violence in response to a wrong. That is what he did, that is what he confessed to doing with his smarmy little comment. I hope he enjoys his handiwork.
 
2012-12-27 10:14:34 AM  

kim jong-un: Generation_D:
So you see kids. Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do. Even if it ruins marriages. Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done. Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago. Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you..

You do know the difference between posting information on the internet of your own free will, and being forced to provide that information by the government right? Trust me, most gun owners would NOT provide that information if they weren't legally compelled to do so.


I guess gun owners need to get the laws changed then.   Not really my concern, I'm not a gun owner.  Though I find it very telling that a gun owner wants less information on themselves available than a car owner, or a property owner, or a marriage license holder, or a business owner all are required to provide.
 
2012-12-27 10:14:35 AM  

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

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

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Do you often drop your child off at a house only to later be surprised that there was a swimming pool hidden somewhere? Perhaps tucked away under a... oh right, no one hides a swimming pool and Google maps satellite view is essentially already a map of pool owners.

Not that I agree with that particular bit of think of the children scaremongering about guns, but it's a bit different of a situation with pools.


But Think of the TVs! Save the Children!
Link

Ban TVs in homes with children!
 
2012-12-27 10:15:11 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: LouDobbsAwaaaay: doglover: That takes time. Best just to call them on their personal cell and make sure they can fix the stories as soon as possible.

[25.media.tumblr.com image 160x160]

Again, you're substituting cheeky, obtuse garbage for actual substance. Even you aren't buying what you're saying.


It's almost like we're on a time wasting website designed by a drunk, or something. Imagine that.
 
MFK
2012-12-27 10:15:33 AM  
Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.
 
2012-12-27 10:17:13 AM  

GoldSpider: DROxINxTHExWIND: We can both play that game. We know what was implied. Don't be obtuse.

You determined from that that he's advocating shooting journalists.


Only he can say what he's advocating but that's exactly how hoplophobes are going to interpret it.
 
2012-12-27 10:17:36 AM  

MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.


Have you actually read the Constitution?
 
2012-12-27 10:17:45 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."


The Journal News brags daily circulation of 84K, over 100K on Sundays. That doesn't include website hits. Should that be taken as a threat?
 
2012-12-27 10:17:52 AM  

MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.


If you can get a kid to swallow an AR-15, could you make one out of broccoli please?
 
2012-12-27 10:18:04 AM  

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

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


Please post your address here so we know where a mentally unstable festering boil on the ass of America resides. You know, so we cam avoid contact with a dangerous mentally ill scumbag lives.
 
2012-12-27 10:18:37 AM  

RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: I love gun owners and their tiny little penises.


Let's just get right down to the nitty-gritty.
 
2012-12-27 10:19:34 AM  

Zasteva: Kimothy:
iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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

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

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

Except that the element of surprise is really always with the person who is launching an unexpected attack. And without extensive training your chances of being able to respond effectively to a gun attack is virtually zero:

proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world


That's not proof at all - that ABC "study" has a few flaws:

1. They put relatively untrained individuals/students up against well trained police officers acting like the bad guys.
2. The cops/bad guys knew they were on the lookout for someone with a concealed weapon.

It was biased to begin with. However, I will concede that sometimes the bad guys have the upper hand (such as the Seattle shooting of 4 cops in the coffee shop) but many times the perp goes in there with no training and no idea of what to expect.
 
2012-12-27 10:20:08 AM  

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


Yea!! Grow the fark up up all you stupid gun owners who helped write that article that..um...er... wait.....huh?
 
2012-12-27 10:20:24 AM  

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

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

Please post your address here so we know where a mentally unstable festering boil on the ass of America resides. You know, so we can avoid a state who allows normal people to have contact with a dangerous mentally ill scumbag lives.


The computer ate part of my sentence.
 
2012-12-27 10:20:54 AM  
Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself. The least you can do is allow me to know how many of you there are, and where you live.  Though this map is only confirming what we non gun owners already knew -- we're surrounded by gun owners....

Tell me more about the gun owner's delusional fantasies. You seem to know a thing or two about the subject.
 
2012-12-27 10:20:57 AM  

doglover: It's almost like we're on a time wasting website designed by a drunk, or something. Imagine that.


"HURRRRR just being snarky!" Worthless.
 
2012-12-27 10:21:13 AM  

ronaprhys: MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.

Guns, on the other hand are used to take over 30,000 lives in the US every year and they kill way more kids than Bucky Balls could ever hope to Despite the fact that they are used far more for intimidation than they are for protection and kids die all the farking time, we can't even TALK about whether or not our existing gun laws are even a good idea or not without the gun "enthusiasts" swooping in and screaming like ninnys. It farking sucks that the rest of us have to deal with this shiat.

These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.

Have you actually read the Constitution?


Every Amendment counts except the 2nd. Oh, and its just a goddamned piece of paper.
 
2012-12-27 10:23:06 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Jim_Callahan: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.

Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."

The guy who issued the information--not you or me--warned the editor "look out, you had it coming whatever happens". It's a little disingenuous to argue that revenge killings and slayings of large numbers of people are unrelated to this story when the principle actor publishes a list of names and their personal information then tacks on a violent warning about revenge coming to their living rooms.

What inevitably will happen is someone will end up being killed by a nutjob, the lawyer will be disbarred and more gun legislation will be passed, if the attack is gruesome enough to be used to manipulated public fear.

And that is why professionals like this lawyer have no business fomenting violence in response to a wrong. That is what he did, that is what he confessed to doing with his smarmy little comment. I hope he enjoys his handiwork.


I thought what the newspaper did was reprehensible, but I was surprised by that comment too. When they said it was posted on the Lawyers website I was expecting a standard legal page. Turned out t
 
2012-12-27 10:23:23 AM  

jayhawk88: feckingmorons: Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.

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

YOU MEAN LIKE PURCHASE WEAPONS OF DESTRUCTION AND KEEP THEM IN YOUR HOME???


When the criminals come knocking, we all know a strongly worded letter is equal in effective deterrance to a gun.

/this message brought to you by the letter derp
//not a gun owner
 
2012-12-27 10:23:35 AM  

Generation_D: Why is gun ownership indexable any different?  Why do gun owners get special rights?  Deciding to be a gun owner is already telling the world that your own private imagined need to own supercedes anyone else's right to being safe around you, that I must now be concerned with your mental health and your mental well being -- and my only defense, I am told, is to join you in your paranoid fantasy and own a gun myself.


Your assumptions are incorrect.

First, it should be treated like a driver's license. You can't just troll for private information on the DMV website, and in fact, New York State limits the amount of data that is available to the general public.

That is to prevent people from learning the new location of their estranged spouse, etc.

Why should pistol permit records be any different? In fact, a person might get a pistol permit specifically because they are legitimately afraid of a stalker. By publishing those records, the newspaper could very well be opening itself up for legal liability if someone gets killed because a stalker was able to get that information in an anonymous fashion by looking it up there instead of going to the local government to get it. You can argue those are "public records", but you have to apply to the local government to get them, which puts you on notice to the local police.

New York State still treats pistol permits as a legal privilege, when in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that handgun ownership is a right. New York State law hasn't caught up with federal requirements, but it's being worked on. It just takes time.
 
2012-12-27 10:23:44 AM  

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

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


Are you kidding? Guns are almost as good as cash, and you usually get more for them then jewelry. In my misspent youth when I was doing B&E I purposefully targeted houses with guns. All you have to do is wait for the homeowner and their family to go out for the night, or hell just wait until they leave the door unlocked, search the bedroom closet and bingo you hit the jackpot.

If someone published a list of gun owners in my area I would be really pissed, but I would also move move my guns to a secure location for six to eight months.
 
2012-12-27 10:23:58 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: ronaprhys: Boudica's War Tampon: So two wrongs do make a right. Got it. I'm sure someone out there believes three wrongs make an even righter right. Can I hear four? Who'll give me four wrongs?

Had the lawyer wanted to do the proper thing, he could have organized a class-action against the paper. Would they have been successful? Probably the case would have dismissed very quickly. But a legal solution would have been far more attractive than what the lawyer did out of revenge and retaliation.

So you agree that the journalists had no good reason to publish this information? And that doing so neither advanced the debate nor contributed to the public good in any way?

Did I defend the newspaper? Nope. But trying to foment violence against someone who has wronged you is barbaric and a lawyer, a person trained to advance the rule of law, is the last person who should pull a violent, cheap, attack like that.


I read the lawyer's original blog post, and he was no more trying to foment violence than the newspaper was trying to foment the robbery of gun owners' homes. This was a tit-for-tat, sauce-for-the-goose situation, done to make a point.

There was no advocacy, exhortation, or incitement to violence. There was no mention of violence of any kind. Any inference that you draw about the fomenting of violence is coming from your own mind, not from anything that the lawyer wrote.

That doesn't mean what he did was advisable, or wise. But to accuse him of fomenting violence is idiotic.
 
2012-12-27 10:24:07 AM  

Boudica's War Tampon: Jim_Callahan: Boudica's War Tampon: The Muthaship: Boudica's War Tampon: All it's going to do is get people killed

I think it's highly unlikely that any of these journalists will be harmed as a result of this.

About as unlikely as 20+ school children being slaughter in their classrooms...

Mass shootings: 0-20 deaths per year
Defensive gun uses: about 1 million per year
A stranger (i.e. someone you didn't know beforehand) murdering someone in general: a bit over 2000 (14% of murders, roughly) deaths a year
Someone the victim knew previously murdering them in general: 15000 ish deaths a year

Yes, clearly framing the issue of legal gun ownership risks versus benefits entirely in terms of mass shootings is a totally rational thing that someone entirely capable of outsmarting a doorknob might do, and not the province of gibbering retards with nothing meaningful to contribute to life in general, much less policy discussions.

Totally a useful perspective we should all pay attention to when making decision that impact the execution of basic civil rights for decades.

You see, what the discussion around changing the law to allow interracial marriage needed, for instance, was more hysterical anecdotes about black men who murdered their white wives. The discussion on gay marriage? Only examples from actual sex clubs, polygamist cults, and Haloween on the Castro allowed. And I heard a story that one time, someone voted for someone without even knowing anything beyond the candidate's party affiliation! Can't allow single statistical anomalies to happen, I think we need to start having a discussion on vote control, but the media's only allowed to use stories about people engaged in actual fraud for examples, not anything statistically likely to be impacted by a change in law. We're not doing that shiat anymore.

Again. Let me quote the lawyer who posted personal information of many people out of revenge.

"Thousands of readers, Janet, have a nice Christmas Eve."

The guy who issued the information--not you or me--warned the editor "look out, you had it coming whatever happens". It's a little disingenuous to argue that revenge killings and slayings of large numbers of people are unrelated to this story when the principle actor publishes a list of names and their personal information then tacks on a violent warning about revenge coming to their living rooms.

What inevitably will happen is someone will end up being killed by a nutjob, the lawyer will be disbarred and more gun legislation will be passed, if the attack is gruesome enough to be used to manipulated public fear.

And that is why professionals like this lawyer have no business fomenting violence in response to a wrong. That is what he did, that is what he confessed to doing with his smarmy little comment. I hope he enjoys his handiwork.


I thought what the newspaper did was reprehensible, but I was surprised by that comment too. When they said it was posted on the Lawyers website I was expecting a standard legal page. Turned out it was a shiatty blog ranting and raving like an internet troll.

Just goes to show that any idiot can be a lawyer.
 
2012-12-27 10:25:27 AM  
Conservatives in Wisconsin fell all over themselves to set up a web site to publish the names of those that had signed the recall Scott Walker petition. I see this as just  more of what we were told was fair use of public information.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:00 AM  

MFK: These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.


You do realize there is no functional difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle like a Ruger mini 14. You could cause just as much devastation with the Ruger. You are basically making the argument of "we need to ban scary looking guns." If you want to argue for outlawing all semi automatic rifles then you might have a valid argument point. But saying "yes dumbasses, you can kill a deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too" doesn't really MEAN anything.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:14 AM  
As a public employee my name and yearly salary were published in the local paper. Anyone who wanted to know could find out how much I made that year. My address was just a couple of clicks away as well.

Pardon me while I don't care about this.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:15 AM  

Generation_D: I guess gun owners need to get the laws changed then. Not really my concern, I'm not a gun owner. Though I find it very telling that a gun owner wants less information on themselves available than a car owner, or a property owner, or a marriage license holder, or a business owner all are required to provide.


Well, if they did this sort of thing everywhere, burglars would know that you DON'T have a gun in your house.  And, I guess you wouldn't mind someone posting your driving record online, or a copy of your driver's license, with the social security number, or maybe your tax returns.  Just because you filled out a form with the state doesn't mean it should be public record.  Many people buy guns for different reasons.  Some people just enjoy shooting paper targets.  Some people buy them because there are very real threats in their lives, like women fleeing abusive husbands.  There's no legitimate reason to do this to people who have done absolutely nothing wrong and have exercised a legal right and complied fully with all applicable laws.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:25 AM  
http://www.fark.com/farq/posting/

Posting Rules

Don't post private/contact information no matter how easily obtained.


Ban submitter!
 
2012-12-27 10:26:27 AM  

MFK: Ever hear of Bucky Balls? They are these tiny magnetic balls that you can play with at your desk and it's insanely addicting. However, they have been recently banned for sale in the US because a couple of kids swallowed the balls and the magnets pinched off their intestines and they died. So immediately, they were pulled from the shelves because of the danger to kids, even for people who didn't have kids.


And this is what's wrong with America today. One or two people do something wrong and they slap a ban on it. It's retarding the advance of our society. It's also retarded, which is what you'd have to be to support these kinds of actions.

You wanna save kids? Ban swimming pools. More kids drown than just about anything else killing kids these days. If you really want to save the children, start big and work down to small like bucky balls and mass shootings. Anything else and you're just being silly.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:36 AM  

gadian: Eh, I don't see the newspaper's action as that douchebaggy. After all, gun owners are all so damn proud of their babies. They want everyone to know that they're armed so that no one messes with them. The newspaper was doing them a favor, really. Besides, publishing a list of gun owners is no different than publishing a list of pedophiles or government employees. They're people you should get to know. In this case, either so that you don't get shot by the overzealous or that you use the overzealous to shoot.

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

/Wanted a handgun but nooooo according to the nutjob, handguns are something you use only to shoot your way back to the shotgun you should have never left behind to start with. Ass.


Umm...no. My guns are not for intruders, they are for the authorities. As we learned with Oklahoma City bombing the fastest way to get the governments jack booted thugs to stop stomping on people is to kill the mother farkers.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:46 AM  

Slaves2Darkness: Triumph: Personally, I would think that a map of gun permit holders would be useful in helping burglars figure out which homes to avoid, not target.
No matter how you look at it, no public good is served by publishing that.

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

Are you kidding? Guns are almost as good as cash, and you usually get more for them then jewelry. In my misspent youth when I was doing B&E I purposefully targeted houses with guns. All you have to do is wait for the homeowner and their family to go out for the night, or hell just wait until they leave the door unlocked, search the bedroom closet and bingo you hit the jackpot.

If someone published a list of gun owners in my area I would be really pissed, but I would also move move my guns to a secure location for six to eight months.


The journal also wanted to publish a LIST of firearms owned, but that was denied during a FOIA. Imagine that, that would be a grocery shopping list for criminals looking for firearms.
 
2012-12-27 10:26:52 AM  

Generation_D: kim jong-un: Generation_D:
So you see kids. Publishing on the internet does not meet the "clear and present danger" standard, so it is OK to do. Even if it ruins marriages. Which your damn gun owner list hasn't even done. Much less threaten to murder anyone by putting a big red X and blood dripping animated gifs on their name.

The internet screwed with privacy a long time ago. Sorry this is just now becoming news to some of you..

You do know the difference between posting information on the internet of your own free will, and being forced to provide that information by the government right? Trust me, most gun owners would NOT provide that information if they weren't legally compelled to do so.

I guess gun owners need to get the laws changed then.   Not really my concern, I'm not a gun owner.  Though I find it very telling that a gun owner wants less information on themselves available than a car owner, or a property owner, or a marriage license holder, or a business owner all are required to provide.


I think all of those people want as little information available about them as possible.  If they did something like publish a map of everyone who had purchased a 100k+ car in the last 6 months, inherited more than $200k, or any other telling things that may make them a good robbery victim I would expect them to be pissed.
 
2012-12-27 10:27:06 AM  

ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.


I disagree with that.  Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have.  I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.
 
2012-12-27 10:28:45 AM  

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

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

And a child is even more likely to die in house that has a swimming pool. Where's your outrage and map of pool owners?

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

Also, pools need permits and fences. There are more regulations regarding the building and keeping of pools than there are guns.

I don't see anyone shouting how their is no reason to have a pull more than 4` deep or diving boards are just for fun and no one using a pool to cool down would ever need one.


Guns have no other purpose than to kill. None. Zero. They are designed to kill. They do it well.

No other consumer good out there has that distinction. Including pools.

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.
 
2012-12-27 10:28:49 AM  

Cybernetic:
I read the lawyer's original blog post, and he was no more trying to foment violence than the newspaper was trying to foment the robbery of gun owners' homes. This was a tit-for-tat, sauce-for-the-goose situation, done to make a point.

There was no advocacy, exhortation, or incitement to violence. There was no mention of violence of any kind. Any inference that you draw about the fomenting of violence is coming from your own mind, not from anything that the lawyer wrote.


Yeah, right.
 
2012-12-27 10:28:55 AM  

Generation_D: ronaprhys: PopularFront: This was the perfect opportunity for gun owners to gain a modicum of sympathy for being the victims of douchbaggery and deal with it by taking the high road (thus demonstrating the maturity and restraint that everyone wants gun owners to have). The ITG schtick is about the worst response. It just reinforces peoples view that gun owners are angry, combative, and violent.

I agree - there were plenty of other ways to handle this, up to an including legal action. I would've preferred they took that. However, if this happens and journalists learn to never do something stupid like this again, it won't be all bad.

Seriously - there was absolutely no good nor useful reason to publish this information. It neither advances the debate nor serves in public good. There should be repercussions for doing idiotic things.

I disagree with that.  Informing the public who owns guns in the area is a useful detail to have.  I might want to make property owning decisions based on it, for instance.


I suppose you want to know where all the black people live, too, so you can make property owning decisions based on that....right?
 
2012-12-27 10:29:08 AM  

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

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


Yes it is frowned upon; kinda like masturbating on a plane.
 
2012-12-27 10:29:35 AM  
The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT.

The Left taught me that.

The Second Amendment has "evolved" into allowing all citizens to own whatever weaponry the government has.

The right is not just for a "well-regulated militia." The penumbras and emanations from the Second Amendment also include the right to own tanks and bombs and nukes.

The State acknowledges no limit on its power to keep and bear arms. Therefore, there is no limit to that right under the Second Amendment.

It doesn't matter what the Constitution actually says, and even less what it meant at the time of its enactment.

What it means NOW the right to unlimited weaponry.

That's what it means to have a LIVING Constitution.

Suck it, Progs.
 
2012-12-27 10:30:11 AM  

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


I hope that you had the same statement on the story about the gun owners' personal info getting published. Especially if you're going around telling people to grow up.
 
2012-12-27 10:30:53 AM  

fonebone77: MFK: These things are designed to kill people. The AR-15 is an anti-personnel weapon designed to effectively eliminate human targets. And yes, dumbasses, you can kill a farking deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too.

You do realize there is no functional difference between an AR-15 and a hunting rifle like a Ruger mini 14. You could cause just as much devastation with the Ruger. You are basically making the argument of "we need to ban scary looking guns." If you want to argue for outlawing all semi automatic rifles then you might have a valid argument point. But saying "yes dumbasses, you can kill a deer with a gun meant to kill a man, too" doesn't really MEAN anything.


I'd rather we banned removable magazines, and limited internal ones to no more then 10 rounds.
 
2012-12-27 10:31:51 AM  

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

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


I was thinking the same thing. I wonder what the percentage of those houses had burglaries last month, compared with next month. Of course, this assumes that burglars are smart enough to check this map.
 
2012-12-27 10:31:55 AM  
I'm a reporter. I don't see anything wrong with publishing the names of gun owners. I don't see anything wrong with publishing the addresses of journalists.

I do question, though, how either qualifies as news. It sounds more like something Drew would do on a La Fin du Monde binge.
 
2012-12-27 10:31:56 AM  

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

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

Another internet tough guy gun owner threatening violence when non gun owners follow the law.  Very interesting.


Somone else with reading comprehension problems...

/not surprised
 
2012-12-27 10:32:27 AM  

KarmicDisaster: Conservatives in Wisconsin fell all over themselves to set up a web site to publish the names of those that had signed the recall Scott Walker petition. I see this as just  more of what we were told was fair use of public information.


I love how people equate gun ownership into their left/right constructed worldview.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:00 AM  
My father used to live in upper Westchester, so when I looked on the map I was not to see the two homes that were listed by him. Just what I had expected. What was interesting were the homes omitted. A couple of police officers, a body guard, and a couple of security people I knew who carried.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:01 AM  
Information wants to be free, man.
 
Displayed 50 of 1060 comments

First | « | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | » | 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