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  
•       •       •

33331 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 | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-27 10:33:01 AM
Information wants to be free, man.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:11 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

That doesn't mean what he did was advisable, or wise. But to accuse him of fomenting violence is idiotic.


Here's the link to his updated list. He makes his statement about thousands of readers and have a nice Christmas Eve on that post along with listing the names of lots of people who had nothing to do with the original wrong committed by the newspaper.

And if you think he wasn't hoping that there would be confrontations between nutjobs and employees of the paper, then you have to ask yourself why he pointed out how many thousands of possible visitors the editor and the others would be having.

You're being very charitable to remove any hint of possible violence. He knew and stated he knew what the outcome and the intent of his publishing this information would be. That's why he said, smarmily, "have a nice Christmas Eve".
 
2012-12-27 10:33:13 AM

Nabb1: RubberBabyBuggyBumpers: I love gun owners and their tiny little penises.

Let's just get right down to the nitty-gritty.


I'm game if you are. *wink*
 
2012-12-27 10:33:31 AM

Phinn: The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT.

The Left taught me that.

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

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

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

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

What it means NOW the right to unlimited weaponry.

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

Suck it, Progs.


I think if that is the interpretation, there will be plenty of support to send the 2nd Amendment the way of the 18th.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:33 AM

Phinn: The Constitution is a LIVING DOCUMENT.

The Left taught me that.

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

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

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

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

What it means NOW the right to unlimited weaponry.

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

Suck it, Progs.


Ummm, could youvdirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.
 
2012-12-27 10:33:36 AM

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

Your assumptions are incorrect.

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

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

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

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


I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country.  Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants.  It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

None of which was the probable intended goal of the Second Amendment.
 
2012-12-27 10:34:08 AM
I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.
 
2012-12-27 10:34:51 AM

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


So make an FOIA request when that becomes an issue. It will only be an issue to those people, on those very rare occasions. You'd have to do it anyway, since this newspaper didn't validate the list. And you'd have to do it regularly, since your neighbor might go out and buy a gun after you move in, forcing you to leave.

That newspaper list does nobody any good.
 
2012-12-27 10:34:57 AM

Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.


How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?
 
2012-12-27 10:35:41 AM

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

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

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

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


As a responsible gun owner, shouldn't your guns already be locked away in a secure location?
 
2012-12-27 10:36:07 AM

Generation_D: I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country. Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants. It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.


Unless you live in Sweden.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:15 AM

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

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

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

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


You could aggregate the data to show rates versus giving out exact names and addresses. Like we do for racial demographics, income, and a number of other factors.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:19 AM

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


Know what else it means? It can still change into something else.

If this is a 'gotcha', it's a pretty weak one.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:37 AM

lexslamman: I do question, though, how either qualifies as news. It sounds more like something Drew would do on a La Fin du Monde binge.


Even Drew has higher standards. Posting those details is against the rules here.
 
2012-12-27 10:36:40 AM

Nabb1: Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?


Gun show loopholes, from which 40% of gun purchases originate.  They don't require background checks, 72 hr wait periods, etc.

It might not be a thing where you are, its a big deal in Washington State.  Gun show loophole is how most of our criminals get armed, that or stolen weapons trafficked through gangs.
 
2012-12-27 10:37:05 AM

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


What is your position on sex offender registration?  Would you like a map showing the race of people in houses so that the presence of minorities doesn't adversely affect your property value?  What about a religion registry so you don't have to live next door to anyone of a particular faith you find offensive?
 
2012-12-27 10:37:12 AM
Of course the readers of the media outlet are a mixed bag and a representative cross section of society. As such, most of the who read about the gun owners are perfectly harmless. Additionally, what the paper did was create a nice big map for criminals of houses to avoid, which is a good thing actually.

The readers of this guys blog however are all bat shiat nuts, are armed, and have the minds of very slow children.

The potential harm of the two events are quite disparate.
 
2012-12-27 10:37:31 AM

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

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

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

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.


Funny I have a gun and have yet to kill anyone.  I like to shoot targets with it.  It is nothing more than an item designed to propel metal pieces at a high speed.  I find that enjoyable like a lot of people like to swim (I like to swim too).  When I decided I wanted one it was because I thought that would be fun, not because I wanted to kill folks.

Pool manufacturers are liable if they are negligent.  They aren't liable if someone dies normally from their product just like if someone gets shot a gun maker isn't liable.  If you go buy a gun and it explodes in your hand without you doing anything stupid they are sure as hell going to be liable for that.

If you anti-gun people would take a deep breath and figure out that the half of the country that owns at least 1 gun isn't going to snap any second and kill everyone it would do you a lot of good.
 
2012-12-27 10:38:21 AM

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

I love how people equate gun ownership into their left/right constructed worldview.


Here ya go! Bonus; Nate Silver.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership -s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/?gwh=BE87B665DCEFB6DBF85DB0021264F2 41
 
2012-12-27 10:38:22 AM

probesport: Generation_D: I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country. Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants. It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

Unless you live in Sweden.


I would be strongly in favor of adopting a northern european country's attitude and laws on gun ownership, training, registration etc.

The USA is the outlier in world legal opinion regarding gun ownership among so called Westernized countries.

Our gun laws more resemble Somalia or Ethiopia.   Much freedom loving going on there.
 
2012-12-27 10:38:40 AM

AurizenDarkstar: I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.


I dunno, you sound much more frightened to me.
 
2012-12-27 10:39:07 AM

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


Fewer and fewer "LOL GUN OWNERS HAVE TEH TINY PENISES!!!" references on these threads it seems. Most fantasizers have started keeping it on the down-low lately because they've realized it really makes them sound childish.

More power to you for bucking the trend, kiddo! Keep that penis fantasy going in your mind! There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking about the penis size of other people based on their ownership of certain things. Nope. Nothing at all wrong with it.
 
2012-12-27 10:39:45 AM

Generation_D: It might not be a thing where you are, its a big deal in Washington State. Gun show loophole is how most of our criminals get armed, that or stolen weapons trafficked through gangs.


Interesting.  Do you have some statistics on that?  In this area, most guns involved in crimes are stolen or obtained from other criminals, often with the serial numbers filed down to make them difficult to trace.  Some criminals use girlfriends to buy them if their girlfriends have clean records.
 
2012-12-27 10:40:15 AM

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


Strangely enough, it was like that when it was written. Civilians and soldiers alike used smooth-bore muskets and long rifles.
 
2012-12-27 10:40:49 AM

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

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

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

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

That actually didn't answer the question. Was the newspaper wrong for doing this? Not did you defend them, but were they wrong.

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

So it's okay for a newspaper to release the names of innocent people, but it's not okay for a lawyer to release the names of another, smaller group of innocent people; keeping in mind ALL of this information is public already.

I don't get it.


Bear in mind that we're talking about different levels of "okay" here... Is it legal for the newspaper to release the names of gun owners? Sure. Is it legal for the lawyer to release the names of journalists? Yes (although he might have some right of publicity, false light, and invasion of privacy lawsuits coming).
But does that mean that there's not a potential  ethical issue? That what he's done doesn't reflect well on the New York Bar or raise questions about his conduct? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's "okay", and it doesn't mean that the Bar couldn't discipline or disbar him.
 
2012-12-27 10:40:54 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: Ummm, could you dirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.


There's no need for a court ruling. The Constitution is a LIVING document. Get it?

One of the things that has evolved is the part where the Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

It may SAY that, but that's not what it means.

The penumbras and emanations of Article III provide that the judicial power of the United States also rests with each citizen. And that includes me.

You keep trying to refer to the text like it's some kind of authority. You keep relying on fixed meanings of words and historical sources for legal interpretation.

That's all out of date. Get with the times. Get it through your thick skull -- L.I.V.I.N.G. D.O.C.U.M.E.N.T.

It's right there in the penumbras.
 
2012-12-27 10:41:11 AM

Generation_D: Our gun laws more resemble Somalia or Ethiopia. Much freedom loving going on there.


Can you provide some links to some Ethiopian or Somalian gun laws? How did you become familiar with the laws of those countries? It sounds very fascinating. I would be interested in actually making that comparison.
 
2012-12-27 10:41:17 AM

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

I love how people equate gun ownership into their left/right constructed worldview.

Here ya go! Bonus; Nate Silver.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-ownership -s tatistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/?gwh=BE87B665DCEFB6DBF85DB0021264F2 41


Wow, so you're cool with throwing a third of your fellow democrats under the bus?
 
2012-12-27 10:41:45 AM

ChuDogg: AurizenDarkstar: I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.

I dunno, you sound much more frightened to me.


Now why would you say that? I walk down the street every day, without a weapon, and don't really feel scared. Of course, I tend to stay out of areas where crime might be higher or where I might feel in any way threatened. Never have I felt the need to carry a weapon on my person, as I know that there are police out there.

I really don't have any problem with a person wants a gun in their house for protection, or one that they use for target shooting or hunting. But I do have a problem with the Rambos out there that feel they need to be armed 24/7. They make me more nervous than the thought of a criminal with a weapon.
 
2012-12-27 10:42:52 AM

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


A lot of CCW holders feel this way. It's better not to advertise. We don't want to get in situations, we just want to be prepared if something happens. Of course, if you open carry, all kinds of 'fun' stuff can happen:

My brother in law is a Sheriff's Deputy in Maricopa County. He's not a patrolling deputy, he's just a detention guard at the county jails, but he still carries his gun to work(Has to lock it up there, which is fine). Open carry is completely 100% legal in Az, and he carries openly. One day, on the way to work, he stopped for a soda at CircleK, and was standing in line , when suddenly the parking lot was flooded with cop cars, the doors opened, and cops took up positions behind the door and started barking commands. Everybody hit the floor, and nobody knew what was going on.

Later, after this was all cleared up, he asked one of the responding officers what exactly had happened, and it turned out that a woman from out of state(He tells it as New York, but I don't know if that's an embellishment) pulled up to the store, looked in the window, and saw my brother in law standing in line with his soda and jerky, gun on his hip. She freaked out, left the parking lot, and called the cops to say that there was an armed gunman ready to take hostages in the store.

Sometimes it's easier to go thru the hassle of carrying concealed so that people don't piss their pants and imagine shiat that never really happened.
 
2012-12-27 10:42:55 AM

Phinn: Holocaust Agnostic: Ummm, could you dirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.

There's no need for a court ruling. The Constitution is a LIVING document. Get it?

One of the things that has evolved is the part where the Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

It may SAY that, but that's not what it means.

The penumbras and emanations of Article III provide that the judicial power of the United States also rests with each citizen. And that includes me.

You keep trying to refer to the text like it's some kind of authority. You keep relying on fixed meanings of words and historical sources for legal interpretation.

That's all out of date. Get with the times. Get it through your thick skull -- L.I.V.I.N.G. D.O.C.U.M.E.N.T.

It's right there in the penumbras.


Exellent. 10/10.
Harkens me back to my pre-law days.
 
2012-12-27 10:43:14 AM

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

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

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

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.

Funny I have a gun and have yet to kill anyone.  I like to shoot targets with it.  It is nothing more than an item designed to propel metal pieces at a high speed.  I find that enjoyable like a lot of people like to swim (I like to swim too).  When I decided I wanted one it was because I thought that would be fun, not because I wanted to kill folks.

Pool manufacturers are liable if they are negligent.  They aren't liable if someone dies normally from their product just like if someone gets shot a gun maker isn't liable.  If you go buy a gun and it explodes in your hand without you doing anything stupid they are sure as hell going to be liable for that.

If you anti-gun people would take a deep breath and figure out that the half of the cou ...


Most of that half of the people don't keep their gun under lock and key, so the 1/100th of the country that is batshiat, homocidally-insane can steal their guns and shoot up elementary schools.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:24 AM

Generation_D: Which is another thing I find amusing about this whole deal, a gun owner is a hell of a lot more of a threat to more people than a sex offender is.


Stating your opinion as if it were fact doesn't help your argument.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:29 AM

joness0154: Kimothy:
iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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

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

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

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

proof that concealed carry permit holders live in a dream world

joness0154: That's not proof at all - that ABC "study" has a few flaws:

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

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


That's a reasonable argument. I agree that it was likely biased in the way you mentioned. However, I don't think it's relevant. The expectations of the bad guy are to kill a bunch of people indiscriminately and then get mowed down in a hail of gunfire or kill themselves.

So, all they have to do is put bullets into bodies. They aren't concerned about their own safety since they are expecting to die. As such, they aren't affected by any of the factors that disadvantage an untrained person -- no panic, no reaction delay, and no concern about hitting bystanders.
The best case for this kind of a thing is for the defender to be in another room, hear the gunfire, and have time to prepare. However this is still fraught with danger. Multiple defenders are as likely to shoot each other as they are the attacker.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:29 AM
Thread TL;DNR

Has anyone mentioned the following?

THIEVES TYPICALLY:
- do not like confrontation
- burglarize homes when no one is there
- search out guns and ammo because of black market demand
- know the most common places in a home to find a gun
- get information

Stolen Guns from home robberies:
- have a high street value
- are easily sold
- wind up on the streets
- wind up in Criminals possession (felony criminals)
- are used frequently to commit violent crimes


So is it illegal to publish "public information"? Probably not. Is it unethical to do so? Given the risk, absolutely.

/gun owner
//keeps them locked up
 
2012-12-27 10:44:39 AM

GoldSpider: Strangely enough, it was like that when it was written. Civilians and soldiers alike used smooth-bore muskets and long rifles.


It's almost as though the Constitution reflects the idea that a citizen army is a necessary component for the security of a free society.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:42 AM

Generation_D: probesport: Generation_D: I argue that this legal opinion is probably going to eventually doom the country. Most civilized societies have moved past our 18th century based knowledge of allowing gun ownership as an element to overthrow governments and topple tyrants. It was a great idea -- then.

Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

Unless you live in Sweden.

I would be strongly in favor of adopting a northern european country's attitude and laws on gun ownership, training, registration etc.

The USA is the outlier in world legal opinion regarding gun ownership among so called Westernized countries.

Our gun laws more resemble Somalia or Ethiopia.   Much freedom loving going on there.


Yup, that's why my truck has twin DSHK's mounted in the bed. farking Freedom!!!!

BTW, can you enlighten us on Somalia's gun laws? Ya, didn't think so but you heard Maher mention it and thought it clever.
 
2012-12-27 10:44:55 AM

Generation_D: For sex offenders, doesn't really matter what I think, I think its a huge privacy violation but the majority has spoken. Which is another thing I find amusing about this whole deal, a gun owner is a hell of a lot more of a threat to more people than a sex offender is.


Well, a criminal conviction is a matter of court record.  Why is that a privacy violation, but lawfully exercising a Constitutional right not private?  How is a gun owner more of a threat to people than a sex offender?  Are you saying all gun owners threaten people?  Have you ever actually known gun owners?  Why are you equating a lawful gun owner who has never harmed or threatened someone with a gun to, say, a convicted rapist?
 
2012-12-27 10:45:53 AM

AurizenDarkstar: ChuDogg: AurizenDarkstar: I said it before, that I personally feel that if anyone outside of a LEO or soldier feels the need to carry a weapon on their person at all times, they are nothing more than frightened children. While what the paper did was asinine, so was the reply by the other side. It's a bunch of adults acting like 10 year olds.

Yet we feel safe in allowing the 10 year olds on one side to not only own a weapon, but to carry it on their person at all times. Which goes back to my original comment. Yeah, I feel SO much safer knowing that.

I dunno, you sound much more frightened to me.

Now why would you say that? I walk down the street every day, without a weapon, and don't really feel scared. Of course, I tend to stay out of areas where crime might be higher or where I might feel in any way threatened. Never have I felt the need to carry a weapon on my person, as I know that there are police out there.

I really don't have any problem with a person wants a gun in their house for protection, or one that they use for target shooting or hunting. But I do have a problem with the Rambos out there that feel they need to be armed 24/7. They make me more nervous than the thought of a criminal with a weapon.


You're afraid of things you dont understand. You pretty much admit it yourself.

Take some time to learn about them. That would be the adult thing to do.
 
2012-12-27 10:46:28 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.


Your guns should be in a secure location already. At very least locked in a gun safe.
 
2012-12-27 10:46:32 AM

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


You could already get that via the FOIA. Again, nothing good nor useful could've come from publishing that and you've demonstrated nothing to show that it could.
 
2012-12-27 10:46:39 AM

Nabb1: Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?


Because they are living in fear that as a gun owner, you will start posting your paper targets on all of their windows, as well as practicing your quick draw in their living room. It's what listening to propaganda 24/7 does to you.
 
2012-12-27 10:47:22 AM

Phinn: Holocaust Agnostic: Ummm, could you dirext me to that court ruling? I must have slot through it. Last one I recall mentioned no rights being absolute. Even set a standard for where the line should be.

There's no need for a court ruling. The Constitution is a LIVING document. Get it?

One of the things that has evolved is the part where the Constitution says, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

It may SAY that, but that's not what it means.

The penumbras and emanations of Article III provide that the judicial power of the United States also rests with each citizen. And that includes me.

You keep trying to refer to the text like it's some kind of authority. You keep relying on fixed meanings of words and historical sources for legal interpretation.

That's all out of date. Get with the times. Get it through your thick skull -- L.I.V.I.N.G. D.O.C.U.M.E.N.T.

It's right there in the penumbras.


Well, that's certainly a philosophically interesting reading of the document, but if want the police to stop arresting you, yes a court ruling can be handy.

Also, you might not have the right to nuclear weapons anyway. Are private US citizens party to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty sine they are citizens of a member state?
 
2012-12-27 10:48:27 AM

Generation_D: Nabb1: Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?

Gun show loopholes, from which 40% of gun purchases originate.  They don't require background checks, 72 hr wait periods, etc.

It might not be a thing where you are, its a big deal in Washington State.  Gun show loophole is how most of our criminals get armed, that or stolen weapons trafficked through gangs.


So once again, how does the other poster owning a gun threaten his neighbors' safety? Not how can you get a gun at a gun show, how does his owning a gun threaten YOU as his neighbor?
 
2012-12-27 10:48:53 AM

Phinn: GoldSpider: Strangely enough, it was like that when it was written. Civilians and soldiers alike used smooth-bore muskets and long rifles.

It's almost as though the Constitution reflects the idea that a citizen army is a necessary component for the security of a free society.


We already have a citizen army, five branches of it, in fact. There's no need for private citizens to own guns for the national defense, there hasn't been for over a century.
 
2012-12-27 10:49:21 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.


It's actually kind of funny: Deer generally weigh between 100 and 300 lbs. People generally weigh between 100 and 300 lbs. The kind of gun you would use to kill a person should be fine for deer, and vice-versa.

Yet somehow, a .223 Remington that has 1,300 ft/lbs of muzzle energy is somehow more powerful then the .30-30 Winchester that has 1,900 ft/lbs of muzzle energy, simply because it came out of a scary black rifle instead of a lever action carbine.

And they wonder why we mock them so.
 
2012-12-27 10:49:31 AM

Holocaust Agnostic: if want the police to stop arresting you, yes a court ruling can be handy


So are armored vehicles and automatic weapons.

/See what I did there?
 
2012-12-27 10:49:59 AM

Generation_D: Nabb1: Generation_D: Now, owning a gun mainly threatens your neighbors or makes your kids more likely to die, or helps arm criminals because there's so many loopholes in obtaining a gun.

How does my owning a gun threaten my neighbor?  What "loopholes" are you talking about?  Can you cite some specific loopholes to me?

Gun show loopholes, from which 40% of gun purchases originate.  They don't require background checks, 72 hr wait periods, etc.

It might not be a thing where you are, its a big deal in Washington State.  Gun show loophole is how most of our criminals get armed, that or stolen weapons trafficked through gangs.


I am sure you have some reputable (not previously debunked) source for this 40% claim?
 
2012-12-27 10:51:12 AM

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

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

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

Google earth has easily viewed aerials of pools.

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

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

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

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

Furthermore, pool manufacturers are liable for improperly designed or overly dangerous pools. They get sued when one of their designs proves to be unreasonable dangerous. Gun manufacturers win awards and generate sales when their products become more dangerous.

Funny I have a gun and have yet to kill anyone.  I like to shoot targets with it.  It is nothing more than an item designed to propel metal pieces at a high speed.  I find that enjoyable like a lot of people like to swim (I like to swim too).  When I decided I wanted one it was because I thought that would be fun, not because I wanted to kill folks.

Pool manufacturers are liable if they are negligent.  They aren't liable if someone dies normally from their product just like if someone gets shot a gun maker isn't liable.  If you go buy a gun and it explodes in your hand without you doing anything stupid they are sure as hell going to be liable for that.

If you anti-gun people would take a deep breath and figure out that the half o ...


Oh please he stole it from his mom who he lived with.  Guns are kind of expensive if you haven't noticed, the vast majority of people who own them do keep them locked up.  You can also walk into 1000 different places and get free trigger locks.  If you want to talk about legislation requiring these be sold with guns then you will find a lot of owners that agree with you.  If he had driven his mom's car into a crowded places killing the same amount of people would you be spouting bullshiat about banning cars because the crazy people can steal them, from their own homes?  I don't even see your point, if you are trying to argue against guns because they get stolen too easy then posting a list of people who own them is a super shiatty idea.
 
2012-12-27 10:51:15 AM

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

Fewer and fewer "LOL GUN OWNERS HAVE TEH TINY PENISES!!!" references on these threads it seems. Most fantasizers have started keeping it on the down-low lately because they've realized it really makes them sound childish.

More power to you for bucking the trend, kiddo! Keep that penis fantasy going in your mind! There's absolutely nothing wrong with thinking about the penis size of other people based on their ownership of certain things. Nope. Nothing at all wrong with it.


So you are saying they DON'T have tiny penises?
 
Displayed 50 of 1061 comments

First | « | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report