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 166
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

33338 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-26 11:08:36 PM  
22 votes:

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.


No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.  He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.
2012-12-26 10:06:07 PM  
15 votes:
Jesus, they're all farking children. Grow up, especially if you own a damn gun.
2012-12-26 10:35:43 PM  
12 votes:
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.
2012-12-26 11:11:52 PM  
10 votes:

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.
2012-12-26 11:43:57 PM  
9 votes:

feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.
2012-12-27 12:12:13 AM  
7 votes:

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

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


No, if I have to carry my gun in the open I become the first target.  Once they shoot me then everyone else is a sitting duck.   If a burglar knows a homeowner has a gun he will kill the homeowner before the burglary rather than simply locking them in a closet or something like that.

Just like the teachers were murdered in Newton before the criminal murdered the children.   They eliminate the greatest threat first.   The element of surprise when the owner pulls his gun from the nightstand or confronts a burglar on the stairs with his shotgun is imperative.  It can often save the life of the homeowner, and in many cases the criminal as they can see that a fight is futile.   I'd much rather have a criminal running out the front door after he sees my gun than have a shoot out in my living room.   If I can surprise the burglar with my gun we can both run different directions and get out of it alive.
2012-12-27 12:45:08 AM  
6 votes:

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


Then why do people shoot at the police?  We all know they are carrying guns.

Your argument is absurd, you make broad sweeping generalizations about gun owners and you want to have it both ways by arguing for what the paper did and then saying you don't agree with it.

This is typical for you.  You never have a cogent argument and you draw conclusions that don't exist nor are they conclusions or argument that anyone else has made.   You could argue with yourself in an empty room and still come out second.
2012-12-27 12:11:28 AM  
6 votes:
Next, they'll be printing huge books of people's addresses and phone numbers.
2012-12-26 11:34:44 PM  
6 votes:

vartian: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!


Damn right. Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger just to make some trumped up political statement and I have absolutely no problem doing the same to you with avarice and absolutely NO regard for your well being.

Hopefully such an overwhelmingly powerful retaliation would be a reminder to other dipshiats in the future that thought for even a second that shiat like this is a good idea.
2012-12-26 11:19:09 PM  
6 votes:

Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

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


You know what else is "public" information? Your criminal records. Every phone number attributed to you. Your occupation. Your employer. Your Driver's License #. Your car titles. Your home's taxable value. Anything you post on facebook. Pictures of your kids. Where your kids go to school. Your utility account numbers. Whether the dry pairs in your home are activated (Hello! THIS guy doesn't have a security system!). Who you've ever been married to. Who you've ever divorced. Your credit rating. Your name changes (say hello to that abusive boyfriend you finally got away from!). I can get to all of that in minutes.

If you don't mind these asshats publishing what they did, you have absolutely NO leg to stand on when I publish all ^^^^^ that on the newspaper's employees either.
2012-12-26 11:59:45 PM  
5 votes:

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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


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.

/not that you can see this since you ignore opinion and facts that differ from your warped world view.   Perhaps someone will quote it so you can ball your little fists up, start frothing at the mouth and post some of your usual nonsense in response.   Or not, either way is fine with me, I find you to be an amusing cog in the huge wheel of liberalism with all the other uninformed cogs.
2012-12-26 11:55:02 PM  
5 votes:

iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger


How?  Isn't the whole argument that if people know you have a gun you're safe?
2012-12-26 10:23:36 PM  
5 votes:
They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.
2012-12-27 12:51:51 AM  
4 votes:

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


There are just as many glaring holes in the half of the arguments anti-gun people make. There's a reason it's called a CONCEALED carry license. When I was on the clock and running around gumshoing, yes I'd be openly carrying, because I'm  alreadya target and carrying it concealed would do absolutely nothing to sway the mind of a guy who thinks it's acceptable to come out the door with a baseball bat because you don't like the guy that just served you a huge garnishment. Nobody in their right mind, however, is going to do that when he knows the guy that just served him can easily perforate him. When I'm out and about, however? Say, taking my girlfriend out for dinner? I still need to have a good tool to defend myself with (when your living involves pissing people off, running into them at a restaurant can turn pear shaped quickly), but I don't want everybody to know I have a gun. Police frown on it, shoot people over it even, even law abiding citizens. People frown on it. Outside of Texas guns just aren't acceptable attire (I still have a wicked Bar-B-Q gun that always wins the gun peen contest).

If you think crap like this is OK, and believe contrived nonsense like the argument you just made, you're really performing some mental gymnastics. Would you approve of a public list of everyone who had an STD? You know, for public health reasons? This includes stuff like Herpes, the clap, anything that you could prevent from spreading by letting everybody out there know they have it? If you're not ok with that, why in the hell do you think this is acceptable.
2012-12-27 12:33:43 AM  
4 votes:

violentsalvation: 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?

Not at all. I gave you my answer to this today in a thread that was green and then went red. I don't really feel like reposting it, but among most gun owners, I don't think I'm in the minority.


It's simple. Letting the world know you are carrying a gun is the same as flexing your muscles, declaring you are the baddest mofo to walk the earth, and saying come at me bro. Sooner or later someone is going to take you up on it because they had a bad day and do not like the color of your shirt. Being descrete with your weapons is the responsible thing to do. Publishing lawful gun owners takes that descretion away from them with absolutley zero gain for anyone.
2012-12-27 12:00:43 AM  
4 votes:

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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


It's been my experience - after living for years with relatives on the police force - that gun owners are the ones that live most in fear of others. Hence the need for a gun. So yeah, of course he assumes he's in danger.

//Sure he thinks he's one of the exceptions.
2012-12-26 11:38:09 PM  
4 votes:

vartian: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!


It was done for the Virginia newspaper, it was done for the Memphis, and it will be done again when journalists forget their career and advocate for political causes.    Can you blame them?  If you were a gun owner wouldn't you be mad?  Wouldn't you want a little tit for tat.

I live in a state where there is no list of gun owners, it is expressly forbidden by law.   I live in a state where I don't need permission from the state to buy or keep a gun, it is a right not to be denied except in very limited circumstances based on my ability to safely use a gun, or my prior illegal conduct.   I live in a state where the concealed weapons licensees, who now top one million, are confident that their names and addresses are protected from this sort of journalistic fanning of the flames by the laws our elected representatives passed to stave off just this sort of stupidity.
2012-12-26 11:20:43 PM  
4 votes:

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


Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.
2012-12-27 05:35:08 PM  
3 votes:

Evolution2001: An armed society is a polite society.


This is the stupidest farking thing Heinlein ever said.

(1) Polite != Safe, so it doesn't address the point (feudal Japan was polite, but dangerous)

(2) It implies that the only reason you would be polite is fear of violence (please go argue with the atheists about how they are all criminals because they don't fear Hell)

(3) It's not true (cf. Mogadishu, the Wild West, the Mexican Drug cartels, street gangs anywhere)
2012-12-27 07:28:32 AM  
3 votes:
www.practicaltacticaltraining.com
2012-12-27 07:16:16 AM  
3 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: namatad: would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders

I choose #000 for a few reasons. I'm going to fire a shotgun, so stopping-power/spread is important. I'd either go with #00 buck with 15x pellets or #000 buck with 10 pellets. Personally, the idea of emptying a 10rd magazine of 9mm for every pull of the trigger is appealing to me. Most people are good shots, and I am too, but a high-stress home-invasion is different from the range. So while some prefer handguns for home defense, I prefer shotguns.

Another reason is noise. Dear god, I can't imagine the sound of firing #000 indoors or at close range or worse... standing downrange from it. The sound of a 10x pellet #000 buck round going off sounds like a grenade. It's startling the first time you fire it. If someone was coming into your home and you fired that at them, it would either A) tear them to pieces or B) Make them think you fired a mortar round at them. Either way, that bastard will know he made a big mistake in will rethink his life's choices if he survives.


I knew the shotguns for home invasion and the noise alone. I guess in the end, at close range, the difference between 15 8.4mm and 10 9.1mm is 6 of 1 and half a dozen of the other. In the end, the effect will be pretty much the same thing.

I have to say, shooting at a range with proper protection really ruined a lot/most movies for me.
REALLY?? You are shooting a gun in a hallway, without earplugs and you can hear without shouting??
ROFL
2012-12-27 07:13:41 AM  
3 votes:
I love how everyone says "it's public information, what's the big deal?" How many crack-head burglars or gang bangers looking for guns to steal do you know of that would go to the court house or city hall, file the proper request, then go home and compile it all into a nice, handy map? None? That's what I thought.

Now they can just look at this idiots map and decide which houses in their area they should case and hit when no one is home. Or worse, do a home invasion where they or someone in the house ends up getting killed.
2012-12-27 07:03:41 AM  
3 votes:
It must suck to live in some piece of trash neighborhood where a GED is an accomplishment, you aren't a day's drive from an ocean, turning left is a sport, and God is something other than an obvious attempt of humanity to humor itself about death and morality.

Me, I get up every day in a place where not only is a gun not necessary for anyone, it's not even considered. We are just educated, busy people who just live life without masturbatory fantasies of cowboys and indians. As much as I like to wish you or more realistically your progeny to extract yourselves from this redneck stupor, it really is for the best for all the sooner your genetic line finds a pistol on the seat of the pickup and mercifully smears their nervous tissue harmlessly about the cabin.

Dark ages people with old ways of thinking need to go away so the actual future of humanity can move on.
2012-12-27 05:52:00 AM  
3 votes:

feckingmorons: 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.

No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.   He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


So much this. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. My ex went to prison for trying to kill me. He has been out for a while now and is a hazard to me every day he breathes. If I were actively hiding from him, which I am not because he knows I carry and  knows I will not hesitate to shoot him, and someone posted my address like that, I'd be MAD. I'd be beyond mad. I'm not sure "livid" would even cover it. The word to describe my reaction simply doesn't exist, I don't think.

Those journalists are idiots and should have considered how their actions may impact others, but apparently that is too much to ask from most people anymore.

/feels old and tired now
//and sad for anyone who was trying to hide for their own safety
2012-12-27 04:37:32 AM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


except that there is tons of evidence that it does.
the classic car jacking in floriduh vs carjacking in chicago.
the grannies with their hands in their fannie packs.

The possible increased risk of getting shot does deter some crime.

If you were a thief casing suburban homes and you know these 4 have guns in them and these 4 dont have guns, you will avoid the gun homes, unless you are there to rob guns ... ROFL

on the other hand, I live on the end of the hall on the 20th floor, by the time the thieves/zombies get up the high they will be tired.
2012-12-27 01:48:12 AM  
3 votes:

log_jammin: GAT_00: The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.

strawman.


Seriously.

I have a gun in my house. Only my SO and my cousin that I occasionally go shooting with know it's here. I don't take it with me to work or around while running errands, so no, it doesn't stop crime.

But if some dickwad decides he wants to come in here in the middle of the night, he better have something that will stop a .45. If you aren't supposed to be in my house, I'll shoot to kill and ask questions later.

And don't stay with the "what if it's the cops" crap. I know what entails a no knock warrant execution. If a criminal is ingenious enough to rip through my security and front doors or come in through my backyard with 5 or 6 of his closest friends with flashlights and maybe a helicopter spotlight, we'll then, damn, I'm screwed.

Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.
2012-12-27 01:17:44 AM  
3 votes:

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


That isn't always the case though, it is not that simple. We can't carry a gun everywhere we go. I sure as hell don't want to carry a gun everywhere I go. I should be able to leave it at home and not have advertised on the news that a gun or guns are home alone. There are very very few times I actually bring along a gun for personal protection (Hiking in the mountains near the AZ/ Mexico border and under the arm rest of the car on a road trip within the state are pretty much it, the latter because why not? It can sit there). And personal protection is not always the reason someone owns a pistol, but those people made the news and became a target, too. The outrage makes plenty of sense. I don't want my home broken into, my guns stolen, and people in Mexico to die, shot dead with my guns because some journalist has an anti-gun agenda.

I'm glad we don't have to register our guns here, and I've found my reason for being against that push.
2012-12-27 12:54:44 AM  
3 votes:

R.A.Danny: I would think that any real journalist would respect the privacy of someone not directly making active news. Someone with an actual ax to grind or that wants to take advantage of a tragedy to get themselves noticed for their "work" shouldn't b surprised that they get some push back.


Unfortunately all the real journalists are dead.  Now it is 20 and 30 somethings that think they're going to change the world by exposing law abiding citizens as 'gun owners' as if there is something to be ashamed of in owning a gun.

The absurd excuse the paper gave is 'for the children' , they want to publish the names and addresses so parents know that it may not be safe to send their kids to play in the house where a parent legally owns a registered gun.

The paper is being used politically by those who want to encroach further on our freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.  They are but willing dupes who sincerely believe they are doing good by being so stupid.   Absolutely no gain, no civic betterment, no benefit, can be gained from what they did and their reason is laughable.  If your children go over to a neighbors to play you as a parent should know the neighbors and you should have visited their house so you could see if they have guns lying about where a child might access them.   No newspaper list of gun owners is going to help anyone be a better parent.
2012-12-26 11:56:32 PM  
3 votes:

Triumph: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.


The shooter was his brother, his mom was a teacher, there were 2 shooters, he murdered his father in NJ first, all crap the journalists told us.   The fourth estate used to be respected, journalism used to be a calling.  Now it is what the kids who can't get into anything else go for in college.

Breaking the law by bringing illegal magazines on TV to make a baseless argument, attempting to interview families the day after their children were murdered, journalists are less respected than used car salesmen and deservedly so.

When news stations interview someone on the scene, unless it is someone paid to talk to the media, the PIO of the police or fire department everyone scatters save the few toothless unwashed who want a chance to be seen on Eyewitness sort of made up facts at 11.   Normal people know that journalists will manipulate what they say, edit what they say to serve the journalist's purpose, or simply lie.   Why involve yourself in that.  If a journalist wants to interview you tell them to fark off, you can't be misquoted that way.
2012-12-26 11:28:02 PM  
3 votes:
iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Congratulations - you're the biggest ashole. Yay!
2012-12-26 10:10:27 PM  
3 votes:
What's good for the goose, et al...

www.marriottsbutchers.co.uk
2012-12-27 11:19:51 AM  
2 votes:

AurizenDarkstar: Of course they do! Just like someone needs the ability to walk around with a Desert Eagle .50 strapped to their waist. For personal protection, of course. (and yes, it IS legal to carry a DE .50...go figure).


cdn.pjmedia.com
2012-12-27 11:19:13 AM  
2 votes:

Aigoo: there is absolutely no logical reason for you to require a .223 carbine/assault rifle such as an AR-15 or an assault rifle such as an AK-47. None whatsoever. They are not hunting rifles unless you are hunting men


Actually, the AK-style semiauto, and especially it's predecessor the SKS carbine (same caliber: 7.62x39mm) are starting to replace the venerable lever action .30-30 as the deep woods/swamp deer rifle of choice.

That's because they are accurate enough out to 100 yards, which is a *LONG* distance in thick brush, short and handy (walking through thick brush, you don't want a long gun), they allow a rapid follow-up shot if it's necessary, they are inexpensive so that if you scratch up the stock or the finish you aren't crying about a marring a $1,000 rifle/scope combo, and they work in all kinds of weather.

The only required modification in most states is that you can't use a standard capacity magazine for them, you have to use a 5 round magazine in most states. When I used an SKS to hunt deer, I put a whittled block of wood in the magazine to reduce the 10 round capacity to 5 rounds, but you can buy 5 round flush magazines for the SKS, and you can buy 5 round "hunting magazines" for the AK.

Similarly, AR-style rifles are also becoming popular with hunters. Part of that is because they are familiar to anyone who has been in the military. Also, they are amazingly adaptable: You can replace the upper receiver/barrel combination and have a totally different rifle. I have a friend who built an AR-15 with a .50 Beowulf upper: It's his deer rifle. You can also get them in a bunch of different standard hunting calibers, including .243 Winchester, .30 Remington, and you can even get them in "Soviet .30-30", the aforementioned 7.62x39mm.
2012-12-27 09:12:43 AM  
2 votes:
cdn.ammoland.com
2012-12-27 08:44:17 AM  
2 votes:
I am so glad I don't live in the US.
2012-12-27 08:08:50 AM  
2 votes:

PopularFront: Just what this debate needed, more evidence that gun owners are a vindictive bunch of douches who are eager to escalate a conflict. I'm sure the general public finds this a very reassuring quality in someone who carries a concealed gun.


Not everyone carries a concealed weapon because it's "fun" or "our right". Some do it because we have a valid, demonstrable need to do so to preserve our own lives. When names and addresses are published in an easily accessible format when the people they are trying to hide from wouldn't normally know how to access that information,  public or not, they are putting those people at risk.

My ex has already done prison time for trying to kill me. Not enough of it, IMO. I am armed to the teeth for a reason. If I were trying to hide from him and someone outed my address so he could just be surfing the net one day, find it and say "So THAT'S where that biatch is hiding!" I'd be even more terrified of him than I already am and I'd be beyond upset. My entire family would have to move. I wouldn't put it past him to harm my Grandma, my Mom, my Sister or even our son, just to get to me. The guy is not stable, is determined to "get me" eventually and will not take his meds. Why make things easy for him?

What they did was inexcusable. Do not put this on gun owners. Turnabout is always fair play. The difference is, my life could be on the line, and I'm sure some of the people they outed do have their lives on the line. Where's the justification in making them easy targets? There is NONE. If someone is going to come after you, and you know they will if they can find you, they should at least have to work at it.
2012-12-27 07:32:58 AM  
2 votes:
What should be published is a list of those who are not allowed to own a weapon.
2012-12-27 07:12:45 AM  
2 votes:
Internet detectives getting the same done unto them? noproblemwiththis.jpg.
2012-12-27 07:11:22 AM  
2 votes:

ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!


So the newspaper staff shouldn't feel at all uncomfortable or intimidated about their information being put out on the internet, right?
2012-12-27 07:04:18 AM  
2 votes:
it was rude to publish information about the gun owners.
but I'm surprisingly okay with like-retaliation
 the media isn't (for the most part) on the side of the gun owner, policeman etc.
The mainstream news is about sensationalism, doomsaying, personal agenda
so if it gets people bent, but isn't truly against the law, they're in.
Though I certainly hope that nobody is targeted of either group from the information published
This includes women who are armed to avoid crazy/abusive former spouses

on a happy note, I got a mare's leg for christmas!
2012-12-27 06:58:09 AM  
2 votes:
I'm surprised no one has posted the #1 derp from the comment section.

i.imgur.com
2012-12-27 06:48:55 AM  
2 votes:

ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!


No, public records are public but most don't know or think of ways to use them nefariously because they are NOT published in the GODDAMN NEWSPAPER (or on the Internet, or wherever).

It was a bad idea to out gun owners, its a bad idea to out the papers staff.
People need to grow up.
2012-12-27 06:35:20 AM  
2 votes:

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.


Nah - thieves are greedy and willing to take calculated risks. Guns are the single most valuable commodity on the black market, and are the best burglar-bait there is. A gun in a empty house is a threat to no one but the victim of the criminal who will eventually buy it from the fence a thief sells it to.
2012-12-27 06:25:16 AM  
2 votes:

iq_in_binary: Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.


I would support you 100% in that. If you inadvertently violated any laws, I'd even put money on your account in jail and visit you.

Orders of protection are not magical force fields that keep you safe, so I had to go beyond that. I have better tools to protect myself now.  I'm still terrified of my ex. He's out of prison, mentally unstable, doesn't take his meds and has already tried to kill me once - why wouldn't  I be terrified? I'm not real down with people outing those who are trying to hide. I agree the shiat needs to stop.

I still do think everyone should be required to do what I did and take classes and pass tests (which I did for myself), but I do not think gun owners' lives should be put in danger or that they should be demonized simply for owning guns or having a concealed carry permit. That's just sheer douchebaggery right there.
2012-12-27 04:58:29 AM  
2 votes:

namatad: the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


Headshots are for movies and swordplay.

Projectiles should go towards the center of mass. If you get a shot right in the solar plexus area, even if you're off by an inch or five, you'll still do some harm. Zombies aren't real and even if they were you'll miss more heads than torsos.
2012-12-27 04:55:35 AM  
2 votes:

namatad: Cubansaltyballs: Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.

#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.

you know, I dont have a shot gun and well, I know nothing
so wikipedia .....
WTF, you werent even close to making that shiat up!
nice

would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


Shotguns are nice because your intruder will most likely be leaving a steaming pile of whatever he had for lunch on the porch as he melts his soles trying to get the hell out of there.

Thieves have been known to defenestrate themselves at the mere sound of Mossberg 500 or Remington 870 racking a shell into the chamber. It's pretty much the most recognizable sound on earth. Next to a gun clearing a leather holster, and a hammer being cocked on a semi-auto or revolver. My favorite fight is one I never have to participate in, I hear someone who shouldn't be wandering around and the first thing on the checklist aside from pulling it out of the closet is racking my Reminton 870. Chances are I won't even have to leave the room, I'll hear pants filling noises and someone beating feet.

But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.
2012-12-27 04:25:23 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


I would have thought you would be getting smarter as you get older, but your derp instead grows stronger.
2012-12-27 03:46:09 AM  
2 votes:
I don't see anyone blaming the State of New York for making the names and addresses of gun owners public information.

Which is really a pity.
2012-12-27 02:16:09 AM  
2 votes:

dickfreckle: This whole discussion is farking retarded, on both sides


can't argue with that.
2012-12-27 02:13:31 AM  
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Who knew this would end badly? Oh yeah.

Have fun with this, both sides of this crap.


IIRC, you were in the service at some point. Firearms are sort of what you all do ( I grew up in the service, but never actually served). Guns were around me all the damned time, so you could say that I'm sort of accustomed to them.

 I'm a staunch, fire-spitting liberal, but I'm pro-gun for pragmatic reasons. No one is coming for the sidearm I keep in the bedroom. This whole discussion is farking retarded, on both sides (both sides are bad so vote [insert] in case you haven't heard].

 Remember, this is America, and we'll soon forget about all this. You and I will continue having a pistol. Ralph over there will still be able to hunt. This is just hysteria, and nothing more.
2012-12-27 01:32:58 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.


strawman.
2012-12-27 12:45:44 AM  
2 votes:

Kimothy: Jesus, they're all farking children.


Done in one/came to say this.

All of you grow the f*ck up.
2012-12-27 12:36:08 AM  
2 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Triumph: William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard - he just wouldn't hire reporters who did, because he didn't pay them enough.

So, you're referring to, like, 90 years ago when none of us were alive?


Kind of - the Ivy League really moved into newspapers in the 70s and 80s. The greatest newspaper reporter ever, H.L. Mencken, never even went to college.
2012-12-27 12:32:57 AM  
2 votes:
On a different note, is now a good time to start talking about the state of mental health care in this country, or are we still dead set on the whole 'gun' thing?
2012-12-27 12:23:13 AM  
2 votes:

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?


Not at all. I gave you my answer to this today in a thread that was green and then went red. I don't really feel like reposting it, but among most gun owners, I don't think I'm in the minority.
2012-12-27 12:15:53 AM  
2 votes:

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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


No, because thieves like stealing firearms. Now you're just exposing my girlfriend to a dipshiat trying to break in when he thinks no one is home. I may be willing to shoot somebody, she's not.
2012-12-27 12:03:16 AM  
2 votes:

Triumph: 3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?


His mom trained him.

Don't know what blog you got the rest of that from but it sucks.
2012-12-26 10:29:29 PM  
2 votes:
Who knew this would end badly? Oh yeah.

Have fun with this, both sides of this crap.
2012-12-28 02:29:33 AM  
1 votes:

thiefofdreams: iq_in_binary:

Last time almost got a woman killed. This time who knows how many people are going to get hurt and killed by this crap.

But you don't care, you want gun owners hurt and killed. And I'm the dangerous one, right.

Link to your story? Because again gun nut fiction doesn't suit me. I deal in facts. And the fact is non-gun owners are tired of burying our dead so you can have your murder porn addiction.


It's from back in 2007. Good luck finding it with the googlebomb around the The Journal News publication. I gave up after an hour.

Here's a mental exercise for you. Go to the interactive map, specifically the Handgun one, and start clicking on dots. Tell me, after say 20 minutes, how many women you've found. Women who have actively kept their handgun permits up to speed. How many reasons can you think of for a woman in that part of the country to own a pistol and maintain the registration for it?

Here's the biggest, and most common: abusive ex. I know, because I've worked with them, it was kinda my pro bono thing as an investigator. Those bastards don't like to let go, and it takes a lot of work to get somebody away from people like that successfully. This publishing could unravel all of that. PIs are smart enough to stay away from assholes like that, and 99.99% of the people in this country couldn't figure out how to track somebody down with resources available to civilians. This list? Blows all the out of the water.

Oh yeah, in the first 10 minutes of browsing? I found over 30 women. With their address online for all to see, some of them have worked pretty hard to keep info like that from being readily available but because some dipshiat with a FOIA request was on a vendetta they have to go through all that shiat over again, and those are the ones who don't get a visit from the guy looking for them.
2012-12-27 08:25:22 PM  
1 votes:
To those who keep repeating that it was publicly available info...

...make an interactive map with the names and addresses of all married gay couples in those counties. Marriage license records there are publicly available, so nobody should have a problem with this, right?

Oh wait.
2012-12-27 08:08:43 PM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: Personally, I'd be willing try registration


I wouldn't.  A list of gun owners has been used before to confiscate guns, what makes you think it won't be used again?
2012-12-27 07:13:42 PM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: In addition, it's all well and good to say that existing laws that prohibit felons from owning guns need to be enforced, but how?


Charging every felon in possession of a firearm with a federal crime 18USC922(g) (it is indeed a federal crime as well as a state crime).  Fund the federal prosecutors, federal courts, and federal prisons so we can incarcerate these felons for the 10 years they deserve.   Stop bundling it with state charges and pleading them out.   Vigirous prosecution and incarceration in federal prison which allows little if any gain time is the answer.  These laws exist, we can enforce them, we just let the DOJ do other pointless political stunts like Fast and Furious when they should be in Chicago and Detroit and Baltimore working hand in hand with local police to make these arrests and file federal charges.   It has been done before in targeted operations for short periods and it worked remarkably well.  Miami is much safer after the joint ATF/FBI/Dade SO operation of a decade ago.   Many of those criminals are still in federal prison where they belong.

Sen Feinstein wants to give the ATF more money to add magazines that hold 11 or more rounds to the NFA weapons list and require registration, fingerprinting, and a tax for guns that are already legally owned.  Of course she provides funding for this intrusion into lawful gun owners private lives.  How about using that money Senator Feinstein proposes to enforce existing laws against criminals.   Put more ATF agents on the street with local police so they can work hand in hand to remove violent felons, and their guns from the streets.   Don't burden lawful gun owners with new, expensive requirements.

Criminals are the problem, our elected leaders have not made enforcement of existing laws a priority.  They want feel good legislation in place of prison for felons.   The wool is being pulled over your eyes and you're paying no attention.
2012-12-27 05:14:10 PM  
1 votes:

jafiwam: There's no way that 40% of guns are trafficked through gun shows


That claim is partially correct. While 40% of guns are probably not trafficked through gun shows, it is a reasonable estimate of private sales:

Surveys find that from 25% to 60% of all firearm sales took place through people other than licensed dealers.

The NRA refused to comment and has blocked attempts for more recent studies
2012-12-27 04:53:24 PM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: Cybernetic: Have you ever read the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban? It had a list of criteria that were essentially cosmetic: pistol grips, folding stocks, barrel shrouds--criteria that contribute nothing to the lethality of the weapon. So how exactly is it a bullshiat argument? Calling it one doesn't make it one.

Why do people buy those for their guns? Do they have no functional purpose?

I thought folding stocks and pistol grips were designed to make the weapon more easily maneuvered and aimed for close-in military actions, especially inside buildings. Thus improving the lethality in those conditions.

And barrel shrouds are used to keep someone from burning themselves on a barrel that has gotten hot from repeated firing. Admittedly this seems like it could be just as useful on the gun range as in a massacre, but I've never fired a weapon fast enough to really heat up the barrel so I don't know what that takes.

Here's what purely cosmetic alteration of a weapon may look like ;-)

[www.horsenation.com image 600x465]


The fact that they serve a functional purpose does not mean that they alter the operation or the lethality of the weapon in any meaningful way. When they are added to a rifle, they serve the same purpose as the components they replace--hence their description as "cosmetic".

The benefits of these items are often subjective in terms of the comfort or maneuverability that they lend to a given rifle. As an example, collapsible (as opposed to folding) stocks can allow the same rifle to be used comfortably by two people of different stature. An actual folding stock is often useful mostly for being able to store the rifle in a smaller space; or for ease of carrying the rifle when slung.

Pistol grips are also a comfort item; there is no functional difference between a rifle with a pistol grip and one with a traditional one-piece stock that includes the forend, grip, and buttstock.

Barrel shrouds serve the same purpose as the forend on a traditional rifle stock--they give the forward hand something to grip while protecting it from the heat of the barrel.

As for your "purely" cosmetic modifications, my taste runs more toward this:

i159.photobucket.com
2012-12-27 04:13:30 PM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: iq_in_binary: RexTalionis: Between

iq_in_binary: I'm not a redneck, BTW, I own suits worth more than most women's wedding dresses. Idiot.

and

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

You sound like quite a winner.

Let me guess, you're the little social reject that sent me a death threat?

No. Sorry, guess again.


So, then, you wouldn't be upset at all if I published every bit of personal information I could find on you? Including where your children went to school, whether or not you had a security system, your personal phone numbers, etc.?

It's all public information, no reason to biatch, right?
2012-12-27 03:47:47 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: RexTalionis: Well, they also didn't really stop Loughner by being armed, did they, as the pro-gun proponents constantly added to the debate? Loughner was stopped by a woman who took his ammo away while he was reload, then another bystander who smacked him in the head with a chair, and then a 74 year old Colonel (who was also unarmed and shot) tackled him to the ground.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.   Your argument too is a fallacy.    Their being armed or not is immaterial to how he was stopped.  The fact that they were armed and didn't shoot the place up is material to my argument that lawfully armed citizens are not the crazed killers as which the newspaper paints them.


But isn't this a bit of a strawman itself? The newspaper didn't present lawfully armed citizens as "crazed killers" (your words, not mine). This is what the newspaper said about people with Gun Permits:

"Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun - a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns - rifles or shotguns - which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.
Data for all permit categories, unrestricted carry, premises, business, employment, target and hunting, is included, but permit information is not available on an individual basis.
To create the map, The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record.
Putnam is still putting together its records and could not immediately provide any data. The map will be updated when that data is released.
"

The newspaper neither implied, nor stated that gunowners are "crazed killers."
2012-12-27 03:45:53 PM  
1 votes:
This better?adminpilot.s3.amazonaws.comT
2012-12-27 03:01:38 PM  
1 votes:

HindiDiscoMonster: Zasteva: dittybopper: Zasteva: Your guns should be in a secure location already. At very least locked in a gun safe.

If you want to do that voluntarily, that's fine. Requiring it to be done by law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled specifically on that matter:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. DC v. Heller.

That covers trigger locks and disassembly. It says nothing about gun safes, particularly if that safe is easily accessible to the lawful owner. As long as the mechanism doesn't provide an undue burden to the lawful own it should pass constitutional muster.

so how do you fire a gun from within a safe?


Well, first, you have to be inside the safe...
2012-12-27 02:52:39 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Zasteva: My position is that gun ownership should be legal, but gun owners must have a license and receive regular training in order to renew it annually. You must pass a background check in order to receive a license. Guns must be stored in an approved gun safe in your home or apartment or at a gun range or armory.
You would probably like the UK

Any gun sale, private or public, would have to be verified and reported. A responsible gun owner will verify his buyer and maintain proof of sale for liability purposes. I won't sell a gun except through a licensed FFL dealer (who charges a fee) simply because I don't want to transfer a gun to someone who shouldn't have one. All of my friends who own guns share the same thoughts. I don't know of a lawful gun owner who would do otherwise.

Concealed carry licenses would require regular police level training.
Do you know what 'police level training' is? When I was a police officer it was 40 hours and 2 semi-annual recertification. Yes, you could certainly do more if you wished, but the minmum standards were not a high bar.

You would pay fines and loose your license if you fail to verify a sale or report a lost or stolen weapon to the authorities. This is the law in many (if not all) jurisdictions. A lost or stolen firearm must be reported promptly even if not required by law. I don't know of a lawful gun owner who would do otherwise.

Possession of an unregistered weapon would result in fines and loss of license. Again the UK seems like the place you should be, perhaps Canada? There should be no registration of firearms, what purpose would it serve, it simply deprives those who cannot afford the tax associated with registration of their rights. The gun registeries were used in Canada to notify gun owners to turn in their guns. Canada had a firearms registry costing hundreds of millions of dollars. It was scrapped it as useless and expensive

Unlicensed concealed carry would be treated pretty much like DUI. You suggest they take away your driving license and make you do to AA? Now it is a crime in the jurisdiction in which it is specifically enumerated in the criminal code. Some states like Vermont and Alaska require no permit to carry a concealed weapon. Have you heard about the mass murders in Vermont, or those in Alaska. Hmmm, it seems an armed society is a polite society.

Perhaps it's a fantasy, but eventually, if these policies succeed in significantly reduced the number of guns in the hands of ordinary criminals,
We have federal laws to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, we should enforce those before we enact others.

I would like to see regular police armed with tazers and other non-lethal means rather than guns
I think the police might have a different opinion.

Penalties for committing a crime while armed would be significantly higher than committing the same crime unarmed.
They are in every jurisdiction in the country.

I'd also like to see most (probably all) drugs legalized, so that this major cause of armed conflict in our society would be cease to be a factor.Finally, we need to give the mentally ill and poor access to resources to keep them from resorting to crime, and especially violent crime. And our criminal justice system should focus on rehabilitation, not retribution.That should give you plenty of ammo to tear into me :-)



Yet you think gun owners live in a dream world.


So, you'd be in favour of closing the gun show loophole, and agree that all sensible gun owners think so too?

To stave off another etymology debate, that's the common term. It's a loophole, because it renders the background checks done by dealers moot. It's called the "gun show loophole" because, prior to Craigslist, a gun show was the easiest place to find a private seller.
2012-12-27 02:49:56 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: RexTalionis: He saw a guy who was clearly not the shooter tackling the shooter with several other bystanders restraining the shooter. He would have to be stupid in the extreme to pull out his gun and start shooting at that point.

Which is why he didn't.  He was a responsible gun owner and responsible concealed weapons permit holder.  He did exactly what should have been done.

Do you find fault with that?   Are you arguing that he should not have had a gun?


I think you give him too much credit. He didn't shoot. That's fine. But no sane person would've shot in that circumstance. I give him props for helping restrain the man, but to hold him up as some sort of paragon is silly.

Also, he wasn't even the first person to restrain him. Loughner was down on the ground, having had been smacked over the head with a chair and then tackled by a 74 year old Army Colonel at that point, so the statement that "A legally armed concealed weapons license holder disarmed the Giffords shooter in Arizona without harming anyone and there were other concealed weapons licensees in the crowd" seems rather misleading to me. It implies that he was the only one to disarm him (he wasn't, he wasn't even the first or the third, at that point) and it implies that he was at the scene when it happened (he wasn't, he wasn't there for the shooting).
2012-12-27 02:07:41 PM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: Theaetetus: ronaprhys: Zasteva: Well, the maximum number of times it would work the wrong way, that is, delaying someone in using a weapon for self defense, would be the total number of times that currently happens. Though in reality it would be at best a tiny fraction of that number, wouldn't you agree?

Don't know - I don't have any stats on that. I don't think anyone does. The fact is that if you set up a legal requirement that restricts someone's ability to defend themselves, you've moved into unconstitutional.

That's not true. Consider, many states require that guns be locked up in your trunk while you're driving. Those regulations certainly "restrict someone's ability to defend themselves" but are not unconstitutional. In fact, consider the simple request by a police officer to drop your gun - isn't that "restricting your ability to defend yourself"? But yet, if you don't follow it, you face criminal penalties.

In the home, it's been ruled as unconstitutional. That's what we were talking about. Nice move of the goalposts, though.


Sorry, was simply pointing out that your blanket statement is untrue. In fact, even adding "in the home" doesn't remedy that. The truth is that a legal requirement that restricts someone's ability to defend themselves, even in the home, is not  automatically unconstitutional. Rather, it depends on the specific restrictions involved.
2012-12-27 01:59:58 PM  
1 votes:
ronaprhys: Zasteva: Well, the maximum number of times it would work the wrong way, that is, delaying someone in using a weapon for self defense, would be the total number of times that currently happens. Though in reality it would be at best a tiny fraction of that number, wouldn't you agree?

Don't know - I don't have any stats on that. I don't think anyone does. The fact is that if you set up a legal requirement that restricts someone's ability to defend themselves, you've moved into unconstitutional.

That's not true. Consider, many states require that guns be locked up in your trunk while you're driving. Those regulations certainly "restrict someone's ability to defend themselves" but are not unconstitutional. In fact, consider the simple request by a police officer to drop your gun - isn't that "restricting your ability to defend yourself"? But yet, if you don't follow it, you face criminal penalties.
2012-12-27 01:51:20 PM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: 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:

I carry a gun almost all the time (I don't carry one where it is prohibited like the Courthouse or the police station, or where I don't need one like the Courthouse or the police station because there are policemen there who will deal with any armed lunatics so we don't have to).   If someone breaks down your front door they don't know if I am in the kitchen, the den, or the basement so I can surprise them.  They don't know my house, nor that I have a gun.

If someone is robbing the bank, they don't know I have a gun, I can use it to my advantage if need be but first I'm going to look for an exit and avoid shooting or getting shot at.   If someone attacks me on the street, they don't know I have a gun and it will surely be a surprise when I use my gun to persuade them to run away.

Legal weapons are used daily to repel criminals, your argument just doesn't hold water.


I avoid going to courthouses or police stations. You may need to rethink your normal, everyday behavior.
2012-12-27 01:23:30 PM  
1 votes:
From TFA:

It appears that transparency lends itself equally to being both a tool of democracy or a partisan weapon.

No shiat. That's because genuine democracy is hard, you farksticks.
2012-12-27 01:00:00 PM  
1 votes:

Mr.BobDobalita: justtray: Mr.BobDobalita: justtray: Mr.BobDobalita: justtray: Mr.BobDobalita:

What exactly is absurd about my statement that people saying standard capacity magazines that come with the gun and have for decades are now "high capacity"?

What exactly is absurd about my claim that this crime could have been perpetrated with a break action shotgun and a revolver?

1. Because its a semantic argument completely ignoring the lethality of the weapon
2. Because it couldn't have, and wasn't.

And as extra credit, because you're advocating keeping the status quo as opposed to better gun control based on these flawed arguments in addition to others - see your anecdotal story of someone defending thems ...


Hey, if you can't continue the argument and dismiss it as "absurd" and that's your argument, I get it...

As far as how lethal a weapon is, I'd say a 1 shot shotgun is pretty lethal. How far should a ban go?


People are calling from the high heavens for a magazine ban. I'm stating it wouldn't matter. People can change magazines in less than a second.


My example of the man defending himself is not anecdotal and it happens fairly often. You say you can match it with a crime story, so do it... let's see some assault rifle murders besides newtown... and even if you can match them (which I don't believe you can as FBI statistics show less than 400 murders per year via "assault rifles") wouldn't you think it would be more important to err on the side of freedom? You know, that whole rather 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man is executed....


People bent on murder and mayhem will perpetrate it with our without a gun. The 3 biggest mass murders in US history were done without a gun. 9/11, ok. city bombing, and bath high school massacre.


As for my assertion of this being done with another weapon, it easily could have occurred even with just the pistols he possessed.


Ah more dishonesty. How refreshing.

Why have laws at all if criminals still disobey them, amirite? Are you starting to see why all your arguments are invalid, logically speaking?

Go ahead, give me 3 times with credible sources where people were saved by any guns. So that means the non law enforcement person used a gun to prevent further death.

I have, sandy hook, dark knight, mall shooting, all within the last 6 months. Im sure there's dozens more, just depend how far back i want to go. Spoiler alert - its no contest. Guns almost never protect anyone, and gun overs next to never save any lives. By definition of the use of a gun, they only cause more death, justified or not.

I have not argued for magazine bans, and in fact I have never seen that argument posted here. Its another invalid semantic argument you're presenting when the actual argument is that lower capacity causes more reloads and thus more time to stop a shooter or escape.

The facts of handguns are that 6/7 people survive handgun shootings. In this case there were almost no wounded, because that is the damage assault weapons can cause. Define assault weapon how you will, argue more semantics if it makes you feel better. Semi automatic, high capacity, high power, spinning bullets are overly destructive compared to pistols and even shotguns, depending on the range. If a pistol were more effective, he would have used it.

And again i do not advocate bans. I support heavy taxation, registration, property tax, insurance, and training requirements with licensing. Just in case you feel inclined to attack my personal stance. Don't bother with the "but but SCOTUS 2nd ammendment interpretation" BS. The first four words of it are, "A well regulated militia."

I wont be responding to your posts any further, as you don't seem capable of understanding faulty logical reasoning.
2012-12-27 12:26:53 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: Mr.BobDobalita: justtray: Mr.BobDobalita: Let's get one thing straight. My 15 rd glock mag is NOT a high cap mag. It is a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine.

The anti-gunners are controlling the narrative on this and causing even US to believe that they are high cap mags.

20-30 round magazines for AR-15s are STANDARD ISSUE and have been STANDARD ISSUE for FOURTY YEARS!!!!!

Those are not high-capacity magazines. The 100 rd beta jam-o-matics.. yes those are high capacity.
Let's face facts here. This kid could have done this with a 2 shot double barrel sawed off shotgun. Surely with a revolver and the dbl bbl shottie... Shooting fish in a barrel here. Once he dispensed with the teachers who was going to take the gun from him as he reloaded? The kindergartners?

Wow. This is too much derp. He used the AR-15 to kill the kids. You really killed that strawman though. You may want to get a better grasp of the argument before you herp a derp.


Wow.. right to the name calling.. nice.


But anyways, this guy used an ar-15 to save himself and his shop... some people used diesel and fertilizer to blow up buildings.... some people used a commercial air liner to ram into a building....

ar-15 vs multiple assailants


Maybe you think he should be dead instead?

What name calling? I was just addressing the absurdity of your argument.


What exactly is absurd about my statement that people saying standard capacity magazines that come with the gun and have for decades are now "high capacity"?

What exactly is absurd about my claim that this crime could have been perpetrated with a break action shotgun and a revolver?
2012-12-27 12:17:07 PM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: What good reason are you using to argue for gun safes? Out of the total number of homicides, how many would be prevented by requiring gun safes?


I think the argument there is "out of the total number of accidental shootings, how many would be prevented by requiring gun safes?" It's tough to find specific statistics, but at least one site (take it with a grain of salt, it's the anti-gun momlogic.com) says that the CDC clocks it at 500 accidental deaths a year due to children discovering loaded guns and shooting themselves or a friend or sibling.
2012-12-27 12:15:11 PM  
1 votes:

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.


We don't all live in your gated community, slick. Some of us live or work in some pretty awful parts of the country. Youre basically advocating turning completely upstanding citizens into criminals because they have a silly sense of survival instinct.
2012-12-27 12:14:21 PM  
1 votes:
Anybody jumping on and beating the "OMFG GUN SHOW" horse has obviously:
 never been to a gun show,
 only repeating crap they heard, likely from a mainstream media sourse,
 is actually sadly inexperienced,
 and irrelevant.

/but they are good partisan idiots

//would not madea be a better spell?
2012-12-27 12:11:17 PM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: Theaetetus: Y'know, I actually think you could make a good argument for requiring gun safes and that they  would be constitutional. Given that the 2nd amendment is about preserving the possibility of overthrow of a tyrannous government, requiring you to lock up your guns when you're not transporting or using them is not an infringement on that - if you're going to muster your minutemen against the Governor's troops, then you're going to plan and scheme ahead of time, and can surely take the 30 seconds to open your safe, hence it's not a significant infringement on your ability to do so. Furthermore, there's a compelling interest in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and children.
The argument that a gun safe may make you less safe in case of home invasion may be true, but if the 2nd amendment is not about self defense against criminals, then it's irrelevant.

I think it'd still fail. It's a very established concept that one has the right to self-defense. Additionally, it's pretty clear that the founders also would've though of self-defense as a natural right given to all people.


Sure, I'd agree with both of those - but, it wouldn't be the second amendment. It'd probably fall under the 5th and 14th substantive due process rights. That said, the argument about "is this infringement in service of a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to the least restrictive means" is a little less cut-and-dried and is a lot less sexier than a "they're trying to take mah guns away!" argument under the 2nd... so it'd get a lot less press and propaganda, and could well come out the other way.
2012-12-27 12:03:14 PM  
1 votes:

MFK: The Muthaship: MFK: Nobody needs.....

Is making decisions about what you need something you want the government doing?

Nevermind. This is Fark. I know the answer.


The government has decided that you need to install seatbelts in cars. The government also decided that you need to not have tainted foods in your supermarkets. The government has decided that you need to keep lead out of children's toys. The government also decided that you need to keep toxic chemicals out of people's water supplies. I could go on, but I think i've made my point.

Frankly, I think restrictions on magazine capacity and high capacity weapons is a reasonable compromise. You have a right to own a gun. That's cool. I, however, also have a right to go to the mall and not worry about some asshole shooting up the place. Why don't we meet in the middle like reasonable people?

If you are demanding military weapons because you want to overthrow the governm


I'm really tired of the ignorant comparisons between guns and cars. Driving is a priveledge, gun ownership is a right, as defined in the constitution. There is no comparison between the two.

As far as not needing guns, not needing certain guns, or restricting magazines what you are talking about is prohibition.

Guns can be harmful to others? Alcohol can be harm to others.
Don't need guns? Don't need alchohol.
Larger magazines=higher potential for harm? Higher proof=Higher potential for harm.

So why aren't we going after alcohol? Because the majority of people can use it without problems, and when they don't(i.e. DUI) we have legal provisions to handle it. Kinda like guns are fine until you kill somebody with them, except that DUI is far more common.
2012-12-27 12:00:12 PM  
1 votes:

justtray: Mr.BobDobalita: Let's get one thing straight. My 15 rd glock mag is NOT a high cap mag. It is a STANDARD CAPACITY magazine.

The anti-gunners are controlling the narrative on this and causing even US to believe that they are high cap mags.

20-30 round magazines for AR-15s are STANDARD ISSUE and have been STANDARD ISSUE for FOURTY YEARS!!!!!

Those are not high-capacity magazines. The 100 rd beta jam-o-matics.. yes those are high capacity.
Let's face facts here. This kid could have done this with a 2 shot double barrel sawed off shotgun. Surely with a revolver and the dbl bbl shottie... Shooting fish in a barrel here. Once he dispensed with the teachers who was going to take the gun from him as he reloaded? The kindergartners?

Wow. This is too much derp. He used the AR-15 to kill the kids. You really killed that strawman though. You may want to get a better grasp of the argument before you herp a derp.



Wow.. right to the name calling.. nice.


But anyways, this guy used an ar-15 to save himself and his shop... some people used diesel and fertilizer to blow up buildings.... some people used a commercial air liner to ram into a building....

ar-15 vs multiple assailants


Maybe you think he should be dead instead?
2012-12-27 11:58:36 AM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: If felons can go to a gun show, look at a variety of guns in an open marketplace, then arrange a "private sale" without a background check, that sounds like a loophole to me -- or do you believe that this was an intended outcome when the law was written?


Knowingly selling to a felon, or someone who can't posses guns is illegal. When someone comes and looks at your wares, and then says 'I can't pass the background check, can we make this a private sale out back in an hour?', that is enough reasonable suspicion that you would be liable for selling them the gun. Besides, once the guns become part of a licensed dealer's inventory, they aren't available for private sale until legally sold to someone.

So, no...
2012-12-27 11:57:05 AM  
1 votes:

Uranus Is Huge!: Mikey1969: Uranus Is Huge!: For the willfully obtuse: While the "gun show exception" doesn't necessitate a gun show, it does make it awfully convenient for the would-be criminal.

Make all sales require a background check. I'm sure the Internet would provide tools to facilitate the background checks in short order.

No, it makes it more difficult. The gun show comes around every 4 months or so at best. I can get one today from the local classifieds. Four months is not "more convenient" than "today". Meeting someone at their house or the mall is more convenient than having to go down to the gun show, pay the $10 bucks to get in, and then look around for the person, after they have to pay the $10 as well.

Convenient = "Wow! Look at all these guns! And I can buy just about any of them, no questions asked, with this wad of twenties in my pocket!"


Except that the vast majority of tables at a gun show are run by licensed dealers that still have to run the same background checks... just like you walked into their store.

A small percentage of sales are person to person. It is a problem but lets not overstate it.
2012-12-27 11:55:32 AM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: Probably not, because things can fail. There's no good reason to require safes. If a person wants to get one, more power to them. In fact, with children involved, I'd argue that one probably should have a safe or some other secure mechanism. However, requiring it = unconstitutional.


This safe is very easy to access, and the batteries lasted almost 3 years, so you just need to check every few months. It's what I keep my pistol in.

personalsecurityzone.com
2012-12-27 11:52:45 AM  
1 votes:

Cybernetic: namatad: there is another side to this that I have not heard anyone talking about.
hypocrisy.
I wonder how many people on the list of owners are vocal anti-gun nuts.
Publicly or privately. They tell their friends that they hate guns, they work for anti-gun orgs, but in their house, they have guns ... LOL

The author of the original article is (as was stated in an editorial note) a registered owner of a .357 Magnum revolver.

He was not listed in the map, because he lives in Queens.

Which also leads one to wonder how the hell he got a New York City pistol permit. Those are nearly impossible to get.


Not if you know "somebody".
2012-12-27 11:32:02 AM  
1 votes:
Talkleft:

"I think it's an attempt at intimidation. I wonder if any of those whose addresses were published are immediate family members of federal officials or employees, and covered by 18 USC Section 119, which prohibits publishing home addresses for intimidation. Or if the internet publication of home addresses of gun owners can be considered cyber stalking, cyber-bullying, harassment or invasion of privacy under state laws?"
2012-12-27 11:20:21 AM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: The Muthaship: Is making decisions about what you need something you want the government doing?

Sadly, the answer to this is increasingly "Yes"


For too many people, you're correct. Which truly sucks. We should be, as a country, arguing for less governmental oversight in our decisions. In fact, we should be arguing for the minimum amount of interference to allow our country to function.
2012-12-27 11:17:57 AM  
1 votes:

Zasteva: dittybopper: Zasteva: Your guns should be in a secure location already. At very least locked in a gun safe.

If you want to do that voluntarily, that's fine. Requiring it to be done by law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled specifically on that matter:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. DC v. Heller.

That covers trigger locks and disassembly. It says nothing about gun safes, particularly if that safe is easily accessible to the lawful owner. As long as the mechanism doesn't provide an undue burden to the lawful own it should pass constitutional muster.


Yeah - it covered safes, too.
2012-12-27 11:09:58 AM  
1 votes:

MFK: 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.

really? All hunting rifles can hold 30+ rounds? You need 30 bullets to take down a deer? We have to make it easy for killers to wipe out large numbers of people because you're a shiatty hunter? A mini-14 is also a civilian version of another assault rifle, the M-14, another anti-personnel weapon.

I'm not advocating the banning of firearms by any stretch of the imagination and the Supreme Court has upheld your right to own guns via Heller BUT they also said that doesn't mean that there can't be reasonable gun controls, and Scalia said as much in his decision. Restricting high capacity magazines and weaponry is not going to infringe on your right to own a gun one bit but it is a step that can be taken to keep slaughters like Newtown from happening as easy. Nothing is going to be an easy fix and nothing is going to stop crazy people from doing crazy things, but if we are going to talk about this, let's talk about this like adults and not muddy up the water with bullshiat. An AR-15 is NOT the same thing as a Remmington hunting rifle and you farking know it.

Nobody needs 30+ rounds to take down a deer.


Could you please point out the part of the 2nd Amendment that speaks of hunting or deer? Is it near the part about muskets?
2012-12-27 11:04:24 AM  
1 votes:

ronaprhys: thurstonxhowell: ronaprhys: There is no gun show loophole. If you think there is, you're uneducated on how the laws actually work.

So I can't buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show without a background check? Or is it that you just don't like that terminology for it?

Nice try, but you can buy a firearm from a private seller without a background check anywhere. Therefore it's not specific to gun shows, which means there's not gun show loophole - but you knew that and want to keep lying about the law just to try and push your agenda.


When did I lie? It's called the "gun show loophole" because private sellers often arrange those transactions at gun shows, not because it's exclusive to gun shows. You're just nit picking.

I don't have an agenda here. To be honest, I think gun laws are pretty much fine as is.
2012-12-27 11:04:02 AM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: 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.

No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.  He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


And that is precisely the issue. I am a responsible gun owner, but if the local newspaper did that, I would HAVE to move. When I divorced, the courts very deliberately withheld my location from my ex-husband and continue to do so. If he wishes to speak with me, he may contact the court, and the court will relay the message--by the judge's order.

Responsible reporting means understanding that there are many of us who hold permits and weapons that are legally registered for the sole purpose of personal protection. Publishing our names, addresses, and personal information may very well get us killed.

Conversely, it is highly irresponsible of those who support gun rights to publish the personal information of journalists and their families--possibly for the same reason! Not every gun owner is mature, reasonable, logical, and responsible. My ex-husband, ofr instance, is a gun owner, and that farker is nuttier than a fruitcake and should be locked away in a psychiatric facility for the good of others (we are talking about a man who once told me that the only difference between the Columbine boys and him is that the Columbine boys had access to firearms as teens... which horrified me to no end and contributed to the end of the marriage. The man is a sociopath who shouldn't be allowed near a water pistol, let alone a real weapon).

Both sides of this argument (it is not a debate in 98% of cases; it is an "I'm right and you're wrong and I refuse to listen to your points" pissing contest) are immature idiots that need to grow the fark up. Unless you live in moose or bear (and I mean grizzly bears) country, there is absolutely no logical reason for you to require a .223 carbine/assault rifle such as an AR-15 or an assault rifle such as an AK-47. None whatsoever. They are not hunting rifles unless you are hunting men (which is what they are used for by military forces the world over, as the AR-15 is the civilian version of the beloved/much hated M-16 that several of us here can field strip blindfolded in less than 60 seconds). There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to require a fully automatic weapon. No reason for anyone to require a defensive weapon with a caliber greater than .357 and .45 in a semiautomatic handgun or revolver. (Note that I stress "require" rather than using the word "desire." I desire a Desert Eagle .50 caliber pistol, but I do not require one - I just think they are fun as hell to shoot) In point of fact, they now make shot shell for Derringers and revolvers in .38, .357 and other calibers, and that is more than sufficient to scare off most wildlife, including cougars (of the four-legged, furry sort), wolves, and coyotes--as experienced by a great many outdoorsmen and backpackers.

Both sides really need to give a little and meet in the middle. For instance, yes, there should be a psych eval before issuing gun permits! Absolutely! On the flip side, the current gun laws do work, as Sideshow Bob Junior up in Newtown did attempt to legally purchase weapons in three different places and was three times denied before he stole his mother's guns. So no, more legislation restricting sales isn't needed--the legislation works! The only additional legislation I could agree with would be to pass a psych eval before issuing a permit and take the guns out of the hands of crazies like Sideshow Bob Junior's mother, because that may have had the effect of further limiting his access. In addition, if you know you have a mentally unstable child/spouse in your home, it should be required to have a biometric gun safe--one that requires, say, both a thumbprint and retinal scan so that your personal problem child cannot access your weapons by killing you and stealing the key.

Middle ground. Common sense. Logic. How do they work?

FWIW, I have a close friend who lives in Newtown, and he is furious at the politicizing and more furious at the people using his town's tragedy as an excuse to steal Constitutional rights from Americans--and he is not even a gun owner.
2012-12-27 11:01:50 AM  
1 votes:

thurstonxhowell: ronaprhys: There is no gun show loophole. If you think there is, you're uneducated on how the laws actually work.

So I can't buy a gun from a private seller at a gun show without a background check? Or is it that you just don't like that terminology for it?


The term "gun show loophole" is anachronistic. But being able to do a private party transfer (PPT) without a FFL is nuts imo. This definitely enables more felons to obtain weapons, again imo.
2012-12-27 10:52:05 AM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.


www.socialstudieshelp.com
2012-12-27 10:42:52 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:40:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:33:00 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:29:35 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:25:27 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:18:04 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:17:36 AM  
1 votes:

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 10:14:09 AM  
1 votes:

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 09:59:18 AM  
1 votes:

Generation_D: ronaprhys: Generation_D:
As far as I'm aware, journalists have not been shooting unarmed children lately.

I highly doubt a journalist is not already intimately familiar with the ins and outs of having their private lives made public.  They put their real name in the media daily.  Which is more than any of us does.

I'm unaware that any of these people shot anyone. Gods, you're a douchebag.

Generation_D:
It is public information.  It was already "published."

The media is making use of public information.

I am already on many lists on the internet!  So are you!  zomg!

That's actually a lie. It wasn't published. It was available to search if you filed an FOIA. There's a difference between that and an interactive map. To ignore that difference shows that you're not even willing to have an honest discussion on the subject.

As for many lists, no, I'm not. A very small amount of my personal information is publicly available. Any other lists that I might be on (due to forum memberships, online shopping, etc) aren't publicly-available and if they were made so I could sue.

At least you arent threatening to shoot them with your Bushmaster.  Thats a start.

Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.

As for disclosing journalists whereabouts, that sounds remarkably like something they used to do in the old USSR.  Comrade.


Why is that? Do journalists deserve additional protections from their information being released for some reason? If I can find someones information without resorting to illegal means then isn't that information public anyway? The obvious intent of this was to intimidate gun owners into changing their positions and giving people the ability to go confront gun owners personally to let them know how they feel. Why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing to a journalist?
2012-12-27 09:55:08 AM  
1 votes:

thurstonxhowell: RexTalionis: utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.

Actually, he's wronger than you thought. The map doesn't even account for Staten Island in homicide stats.


For some reason, I thought the original map accounted for the entire 5 boroughs.
2012-12-27 09:52:25 AM  
1 votes:

RexTalionis: utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]

Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.


Actually, he's wronger than you thought. The map doesn't even account for Staten Island in homicide stats.
2012-12-27 09:48:39 AM  
1 votes:

utah dude: [imageshack.us image 640x480]


Yeah, see, that's a total fail. You know why there's no overlap? Because the map of homicides only account for New York City (i.e. the 5 boroughs - 1. Manhattan, 2. Brooklyn, 3. Queens, 4. The Bronx, and 5. Staten Island). The map of gunowners only account for Westchester County (which is, I might adD, not one of the 5 buroughs).

Totally non-overlapping sets.

So, yeah, you're a dumbass for using that map.
2012-12-27 09:46:16 AM  
1 votes:

Generation_D:
At least you arent threatening to shoot them with your Bushmaster.  Thats a start.


And I wouldn't as that's illegal. I realize it's difficult for you to comprehend, but the vast majority of legal firearm owners (north of 99%) will never, ever commit anything more serious than a traffic violation. Again, you're a douche.

Your FOIA point is valid, but sort of pointless unless you're advocating that the FOIA requests be denied due to some made-up exception that only applies to gun owners.

I believe an FOIA request could be denied, if the person had a restraining order or something to that effect. So, yes, there's a good reason to not publish the information so that it's publicly available like this.

As for disclosing journalists whereabouts, that sounds remarkably like something they used to do in the old USSR.  Comrade.

I advocate publishing neither - however, if one group decides to do something, I've got no problem with the tit for tat.

Nice job of throwing the loaded insult in there, asshat.
2012-12-27 09:45:30 AM  
1 votes:

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

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

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


Rhetorically weak, and patently unrelated.
2012-12-27 09:36:52 AM  
1 votes:
Can we all just agree that we shouldn't use public information to try to shame others we disagree with?  I don't care if it is guns, reporters addresses, people who sign recall petitions, or whatever.  If your views are so god damn brilliant then try to make arguments to gain supporters to your cause and don't waste time trying to intimidate anyone who dares disagree with you.
2012-12-27 09:21:43 AM  
1 votes:

my lip balm addiction: This seems like as good a place as any to ask my question.

My stepmother - completely right -wing and wacko - handed me a book on Christmas Day and asked me to read it "with an open mind". The book is titled "The Fired The First Shot 2012" and looks like extremist Tea Party insanity. Anyone know about this book or read it?

TIA


I take it that you can't read, yet somehow can type.
2012-12-27 09:15:30 AM  
1 votes:

Generation_D: Matter of public record, made public.  Its sure interesting how you gun owners are suddenly unwilling to let the rest of society follow the law.


It's pretty sad when the FARQ has a higher sense of journalistic responsibility than a newspaper.
2012-12-27 09:15:02 AM  
1 votes:

utharda: So actually I like knowing who has a gun, so I can keep my kids out of their houses, because thats a risk I choose not to expose them too.


(1) The difference between a gun owner and a gun owner that leaves his weapon and ammo out where a visiting kid can get to them is that the latter is, in fact, already a criminal. Like, federal illegal, on the order of letting your kid drive his car or play with power tools. There's a big difference between a gun owner and a gun owner that could potentially harm your children.

(2) You do realize that if you haven't talked to your kid about what to do around an unattended gun (basically, don't touch the damned thing, and tell an adult) then your primary problem is that you're a horrible farking parent, right? You going to not tell them about sex or drugs, either? Just shrug and nod when they tell you about their needle-sharing habit or the fun new game they made up where their friends get together and kick smaller children to death in an alley on the way home form school?

//Seriously, if you need a general list to deal with your kid being just in the general proximity of a gun, you're orders of magnitude less competent a parent than the idiots who can't manage to not buy their kids m-rated games or tickets to r-rated movies and then biatch about it.
2012-12-27 09:10:52 AM  
1 votes:

msupf: And until this site stops gawping at the mugshots on TSG, anyone on here decrying either list is likely a hypocrite.

Just because it is public record doesn't mean we should slather it everywhere for people. Even good intentions can have negative consequences, and I'm not even seeing good intentions in any of this.


Good point
2012-12-27 08:57:38 AM  
1 votes:
imageshack.us
2012-12-27 08:43:24 AM  
1 votes:

Your Average Witty Fark User: Posting names and addresses of the gun owners wasn't necessarily the brightest idea, however, it was to prove a point. Posting ANY information on the journalists involved proves no point; it's for intimidation purposes only.


I'm sorry, what point was proven?

They didn't validate the list, didn't make any news story out of it per se -- they justified the whole story by saying some guy at the YMCA wanted to know which neighbors had weapons. There was no public journalistic interest in compiling that list.

None of those people had anything to do with Sandy Hook, yet that was the justification for running this sensationalistic story. They could have made a point with aggregate data. They could have made a non-detailed map from a screen shot instead of giving all names and addresses, if they'd had an actual point to make -- but they never made an actual point, other than "That guy at the YMCA was sure nervous about his neighbors having guns, when we posed the question he didn't ask us."

Rather than letting individuals *pull* data by request, a corporation with resources compiled and *pushed* the data to the public when there was no public interest served and no outcry. They could even have given the instructions to make an FOIA request to let individuals who were interested know how to find the information. They didn't do that. I could see a private activist group doing something like this, but not someone calling himself a journalist.
2012-12-27 08:38:06 AM  
1 votes:

Your Average Witty Fark User: Posting names and addresses of the gun owners wasn't necessarily the brightest idea, however, it was to prove a point. Posting ANY information on the journalists involved proves no point; it's for intimidation purposes only.


It's all publicly available information. Why the double standard?
MFK
2012-12-27 08:24:39 AM  
1 votes:
I am not a gun owner. I have no problem with people wanting a gun to hunt or perhaps to defend their home. What I have a problem with is military style weapons proliferating like crazy into the hands of whoever wants one because they think it's their "right" to amass personal arsenals. It's never really bothered me, however, until the last couple years when these mass shooting events seem to happen every other week or so. And anytime one happens everyone throws up their hands and says "welp, there's nothing we can do. They bought their guns legally."

I am pissed off that because I have a huge problem with this sort of wholesale killing, that I am labeled a "gun grabber who hates the constitution". It pisses me off that the way the NRA and the gun "enthusiasts" frame the debate it's either "all guns for all people" or "the government is taking away all our guns" as if there is no sane, sensible middle ground. I'm tired of not having a voice in this debate. I'm tired of reading about a massacre of school children (farking CHILDREN!) and having the gun "enthusiasts" bring up Tim McVeigh as an example of why we shouldn't bother doing any gun control at all. I'm tired of reading about slaughters and killings with these guns that have no business in civilian hands just so Randy can look badass in his bedroom mirror with his army gun.

I come from a rural state where hunting is a legit activity and fully support guns for that. But not people hunting and that's what AR-15's are for and anyone who tells you otherwise is a farking liar.
2012-12-27 08:15:56 AM  
1 votes:
Well, journalists are doing a lot more harm than registered gun owners.
2012-12-27 08:15:47 AM  
1 votes:
I'm sure it has been said more then once in this thread, but in case not, here goes.

Where the fark is the HERO tag when you need it!!!

This lawyer has done more to redeem the reputation of lawyers then the Goldwater law firm has done to destroy it.
2012-12-27 08:13:37 AM  
1 votes:

Warlordtrooper: liquidpoo: Why don't all the people that think that the gun owners shouldn't be upset post their addresses and real names? I mean it's the same principal right?

Why do the people who are upset over this are fine when it's othe people's info posted. How many oppose the sex offender registry?


What crime did the gun owners commit again?
2012-12-27 08:12:45 AM  
1 votes:

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

Done in bloody one

Your gun debate is boring.

But the US loves the sound of its own voice, a constant drone across the world, like a petulant child with too many toys to clean up.


If only other countries had the ability to not listen to our own internal debates...
2012-12-27 08:10:29 AM  
1 votes:
And people wonder why so many unregistered weapons are out there. It is like this whole medical pot legalization thing. You have to register to get a card, so that they can track who is using it "legally" (it is still illegal at the federal level, remember). So what happens if tomorrow the feds decide to enforce the federal law? That's right...they have ready made lists of which doors to knock on to make their arrests. Is that likely to happen? No, not with dope. But perhaps with guns. Most gun owners I know here in MI have at least 2 or 3 unregistered firearms in addition to the registered ones, just in case the government ever decides to disarm the public. I know several people who have never registered a single weapon with anyone*, and these guys have some pretty nice collections. The thought is that if they don't register them, nobody will know they have them, so nobody (government or general public) will treat them differently because of it. I'm not sure I follow that thought process, but there it is. I do understand the general idea though, that public records are publically available and because of the internet we should all assume that our public records are known by everyone. The thing is, most people don't know everything that is contained in their "public record", and just how much additional information can be amassed by extrapolation just from that information.

*One guy I know in particular has worn the same unregistered, illegally concealed revolver every day of his life since I first met him back in the early 60's. It is always loaded, and to my knowledge he has never used it apart from target shooting on his own property, though he may well have used it to put down his dying livestock at some point. I have a hard time thinking of him as anything but a responsible gun owner.
2012-12-27 07:54:06 AM  
1 votes:

Onkel Buck: Well it's pretty much becoming a war, so all's fair.


Mean Daddy: I think the point that is being missed is what John Lott was trying to make in his books is that the thought or threat of someone having a concealed weapon was enough of a deterrent. Now a criminal knows where the guns aren't and in theory, can target the non-gun permitted homes.


rlv.zcache.com

I would hate for one of those folks to be inadvertently protected from harm because someone who would hurt them didn't know they were unarmed. Have the courage of your convictions for the love of god. You despise guns so very much, make a statement that you won't allow them in your home for the world to see.
2012-12-27 07:48:03 AM  
1 votes:
Wow, what a terrible thing to do to these fine, upstanding journalists. They may feel frightened and defenseless, exposed to this cruel and crazy world, especially if they live in a bad neighborhood. Too bad there's no way to proactively prepare to defend oneself from life's seedier elements.
2012-12-27 07:32:49 AM  
1 votes:
Something I'm wondering: How does the rule from the FArQ apply when Fark links to personal information?
2012-12-27 07:31:34 AM  
1 votes:
Thousands of years of recorded history and so far, we've managed "nuh UH, I'm gonna tell on YOU!" *sigh*
2012-12-27 07:30:32 AM  
1 votes:
Newspaper dudes were dicks. A lot of the responses in this thread sound like they'd like to see the journalists

iq_in_binary: SlothB77: Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

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

So treat legal gun owners like pedophiles?

You're not helping.


I dunno man, I'm on your side in theory when I clicked the thread but reading the stuff like these quotes you posted earlier:

- Pictures of your kids. Where your kids go to school. I can get to all of that in minutes.
- I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, everything I could find on them AND their family.
- I have absolutely no problem doing the same to you with avarice and absolutely NO regard for your well being.
- But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place
- Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time
- I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson
- they deserve the anguish of their kids suffering for it
- Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.
- Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

...makes it sound like you're hoping someone shoots and kills their children. I would say you're not really helping either, you sound like a psycho who is willing to abuse your work resources (if you're a cop or something). If someone cuts you off in traffic do you look up their license number and threaten their newborn? I mean "and their families" man, what did some dumb writer's 5 year old kid do to deserve 'retaliation', just be born to some asshole? Why do you emphasize their kids so much, right after sandy hook?

I assume your argument will be 'my kids were threatened by my address being posted' but there's a reason we have laws and legal recourse rather than 'eye for an eye'. If you can prove you are more in danger as a result of their actions in court, you're entitled to damages. I don't see how a story next week about gun owners threatening children of journalists (eg if you did all that) will change the public at large's mind about this issue, rather it will just reinforce the general misconceptions that people like these journalists have and make people more terrified of CC'ers than they already seem to be. If you really want to be the bigger man, don't resort to threatening children. You won't get too many supporters, I'd imagine.

Just went to the shooting range for 2nd time ever, gf and I are shopping around for a handgun. Had been planning for a while, unrelated to the recent tragedies though. More of a neighborhood-drive thing.

Other more reasonable-sounding people though, I agree upthread. Not sure what the 'journalists' were trying to prove but this isn't helping their cause.
2012-12-27 07:26:47 AM  
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: way south: ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!

No, public records are public but most don't know or think of ways to use them nefariously because they are NOT published in the GODDAMN NEWSPAPER (or on the Internet, or wherever).

It was a bad idea to out gun owners, its a bad idea to out the papers staff.
People need to grow up.

Retaliation needs to happen, or they will think it is a good idea in the future.

I wasn't a part of what was outed, but if I was I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson. This shiat needs to stop, I've seen it happen 5 times already just in my adult life. Until these farkers suffer the consequences of what can happen to the people they jut published on, this shiat will not stop. The last one caught a girl that was trying to keep away from her abusive husband. Until they all or at least some of them suffer the consequences of something like that, they don't deserve any farking quarter. Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.They need to feel the ramifications of their actions.

fark their rights, they violated that of thousands. They get to suffer every god damned ramification of having the same thing done of them.


Retaliation should happen and I don't disagree that it should be painful, but it should take the form in something they will remember: a lawsuit.

Lets face the fact that the publisher doesn't care about the people. Not others and not its own. They could give FARK all if the guy who wrote this story got tarred and feathered, because its more news and a giant win for the guy selling that news. It's manufactured controversy.

What the publisher needs is to be deprived a few million dollars and be publicly shamed as nothing more than a scandal sheet. That hurts the owners, and they'll put the screws to any editor that approves similarly bad ideas.

Leaving a bag of flaming dog shiat at the reporters door doesn't have the same impact as making his boss sign you a big settlement check.
2012-12-27 07:12:13 AM  
1 votes:
Everybody knows there are enough crazies around and you don't need a gun to show up at somebody's house in the middle of the night to express your opinion on their stance anonymously. I'm guessing the newspaper people have been doing coonty things and pissing people off far longer than any of the gun owners. Sleep tight Janet.

wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net
2012-12-27 07:11:31 AM  
1 votes:
Well I guess they shouldn't have pulled that bullsh*t, should they?
2012-12-27 07:10:01 AM  
1 votes:
farm8.staticflickr.com
2012-12-27 07:08:56 AM  
1 votes:
Well it's pretty much becoming a war, so all's fair.
2012-12-27 07:06:58 AM  
1 votes:

Rincewind53: This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

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


So treat legal gun owners like pedophiles?
2012-12-27 07:05:29 AM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: Normal people know that journalists will manipulate what they say, edit what they say to serve the journalist's purpose, or simply lie.


There's an upside to that. If you're careful, you can get them to package the story exactly as you tell them to. They're lazy, and they just want to collect their paycheck and go home.
2012-12-27 06:54:59 AM  
1 votes:

way south: ghare: iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.

Internet tough guy detected!

Listen, moron, PUBLIC RECORDS are already public! PUBLIC! PUBLICPUBLICPUBLIC! THEY ARE ALREADY PUBLISHED!

No, public records are public but most don't know or think of ways to use them nefariously because they are NOT published in the GODDAMN NEWSPAPER (or on the Internet, or wherever).

It was a bad idea to out gun owners, its a bad idea to out the papers staff.
People need to grow up.


Retaliation needs to happen, or they will think it is a good idea in the future.

I wasn't a part of what was outed, but if I was I would not stop until something bad happened to them to teach them a lesson. This shiat needs to stop, I've seen it happen 5 times already just in my adult life. Until these farkers suffer the consequences of what can happen to the people they jut published on, this shiat will not stop. The last one caught a girl that was trying to keep away from her abusive husband. Until they all or at least some of them suffer the consequences of something like that, they don't deserve any farking quarter. Them and their families are open to anything in retaliation as far as I'm concerned.They need to feel the ramifications of their actions.

fark their rights, they violated that of thousands. They get to suffer every god damned ramification of having the same thing done of them.
2012-12-27 06:49:10 AM  
1 votes:
Journalism seems to have one intent and that is "how can we alarm people today?" by making news where there is none and combining it with real news in such a way as to cause unease and (they think) a dependency on the media for more news. If the headline is alarmist, I don't read the article. Whatever the blaring headline says is usually buried in the story and is inconsequential other than to make an attention grabbing banner. Drudge is the worst (or best) at this. Damn shame - what news organizations have become.
2012-12-27 06:38:13 AM  
1 votes:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: iq_in_binary: Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.

I would support you 100% in that. If you inadvertently violated any laws, I'd even put money on your account in jail and visit you.

Orders of protection are not magical force fields that keep you safe, so I had to go beyond that. I have better tools to protect myself now.  I'm still terrified of my ex. He's out of prison, mentally unstable, doesn't take his meds and has already tried to kill me once - why wouldn't  I be terrified? I'm not real down with people outing those who are trying to hide. I agree the shiat needs to stop.

I still do think everyone should be required to do what I did and take classes and pass tests (which I did for myself), but I do not think gun owners' lives should be put in danger or that they should be demonized simply for owning guns or having a concealed carry permit. That's just sheer douchebaggery right there.


Knowing what I know, and how capable of finding information as I am, I tend to keep a "No Prisoners, Kill everyone" point of view on the subject. Nor am I alien to the licensing idea, hence my suggestion of expanding the NFA. These poeple were straight dicks. They deserve every ounce of bad news headed their way. They need to be taught a lesson. They should be thankful I didn't end up on that list, because they very well would end up suffering for it, if not their kids. Actions need to have consequences, they were too stupid to think that through and they deserve the anguish of their kids suffering for it, if for no other reason than they tried to make mine suffer.

fark these people, they deserve no pity whatsoever for whatever happens to them.
2012-12-27 06:37:58 AM  
1 votes:
I think they should publish a list of all houses with swimming pools, seeing as those kill more children than firearms.

I wanted to do something grumbly about Jenny McCarthy's cause or Barbara Streisand's diet, but swimming pools are a real killer.
2012-12-27 05:58:18 AM  
1 votes:

Real Women Drink Akvavit: feckingmorons: 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.

No it this incident is about poor journalism and intimidation.    This particular journalistic creation of a news story, as opposed to what we normally believe to a journalist's job to be - objective reporting of the news, has been done before, including The Roanoke Times publishing of all the concealed weapons permit holders in Virgina at their newspaper website.   That of course turned out to be a colossal error and the data has been taken down; ostensibly because of errors, but the newspaper leaders and reporter had their personal information published online and were quite scared.  However no bomb was delivered to his home.

The newspaper of record in Memphis also did this.  Theirs is still up, but out of date as the residents of Tennessee urged their elected officials to make that information confidential and available to law enforcement only much like our driver license information has been for quite some time.   The Virginia and Tennessee newspapers publishing of such information was indeed the impetus of many state laws making that information confidential.

While you may have your own opinion on it, one that was shared by an unnamed young woman during a hearing in Tennessee is clearly an important message.   She said she followed all the laws, got her gun and permit legally because she feared her ex-husband.   He now knows where she lives because the newspaper acted without caring about women like her and now she has to move again.

Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

So much this. That's why I have a concealed weapons permit. My ex went to pri ...


Which is why my counter-attack would be overwhelming. There is no end to the personal information I can get on them as a specialist in the field, and they need to learn to quit this shiat. I've been playing nice with the lawyers, but when some asshat journalist decides to out me? I'm going to absolutely ruin his life, and that of everyone around him. This shiat needs to stop. It's one thing to have a political message, it's quite another to put people in danger intentionally.
2012-12-27 05:37:38 AM  
1 votes:

iq_in_binary: Cubansaltyballs: doglover: IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.

My cat would probably set it off. He's passive aggressive like that.

Besides, sounds are far scarier. I've long toyed with the idea of planting speakers at various places in the house that have a NetDuino system to play a recording of me racking a shotgun and going off on some Liam Neeson-esque dialog about how what he just heard hit the floor was a round of buckshot and the round now in the chamber was a pig sticker slug (plastic slugs used by the Marines, known for their lack of over-penetration, whereas lead slugs suuuuuuck for keeping a security deposit). I figure by the time I get to explaining the pig sticker the guy would be shiatting his pants, and with a NetDuino I could set up an automated call to the cops with an old Nokia using the same tactics to arrive about the time he started running.

Wouldn't even have to pull the shotgun out of the closet then, just hit a button on my nightstand. Make some coffee for the poor guy who had to clean the shiat out of the back of his cruiser, and offer my services to the guys that responded. Win/Win!

/Break-ins are common in this neighborhood
//Would put a speaker in the garage too with an IR sensor.


Or: 10,000,000 bees in a nest that gets agitated when the sensors are tripped.
2012-12-27 05:24:34 AM  
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: doglover: IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.

My cat would probably set it off. He's passive aggressive like that.


Besides, sounds are far scarier. I've long toyed with the idea of planting speakers at various places in the house that have a NetDuino system to play a recording of me racking a shotgun and going off on some Liam Neeson-esque dialog about how what he just heard hit the floor was a round of buckshot and the round now in the chamber was a pig sticker slug (plastic slugs used by the Marines, known for their lack of over-penetration, whereas lead slugs suuuuuuck for keeping a security deposit). I figure by the time I get to explaining the pig sticker the guy would be shiatting his pants, and with a NetDuino I could set up an automated call to the cops with an old Nokia using the same tactics to arrive about the time he started running.

Wouldn't even have to pull the shotgun out of the closet then, just hit a button on my nightstand. Make some coffee for the poor guy who had to clean the shiat out of the back of his cruiser, and offer my services to the guys that responded. Win/Win!

/Break-ins are common in this neighborhood
//Would put a speaker in the garage too with an IR sensor.
2012-12-27 05:18:25 AM  
1 votes:

Gulper Eel: If the newspaper wanted to be helpful they could have published a map of domestic violence offenders.

Nothing gets a guy to behave more than the prospect of never getting laid again unless he gets his shiat together.


http://marriage.about.com/cs/prisonmarriage/ht/prisonmarriage.htm
2012-12-27 05:11:57 AM  
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: iq_in_binary: But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.

This is where we our opinions diverge. For home defense I have a double-barrel, side-by-side and a Saiga 12ga. I'd go for a pump-action, but I'd rather have semi-auto. Why? Because F*ck them, that's why. If someone were so sh*t-all stupid as to enter my home, I fully expect to lose my security deposit because there's a smoking pile of brains, eye-balls, blood, and fecal matter in the doorway.


encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

All the benefits of getting the guy out of the house without leaving the room, without any of the downsides of a pump.

I'll probably own one eventually, mainly because it could serve so many different purposes and I'm willing to bet one of my wood furniture treatments would make the thing beeeeee-autiful.
2012-12-27 05:07:57 AM  
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: iq_in_binary: But then again, I'm the guy that focuses on avoiding the fight in the first place, and cheating wherever possible if it turns out the fight is unavoidable. Your average wannabe Rambo might be a little different. Although I do enjoy scaring the ever living fark out of people from time to time when they deserve it, might make me slightly Rambo-ish.

This is where we our opinions diverge. For home defense I have a double-barrel, side-by-side and a Saiga 12ga. I'd go for a pump-action, but I'd rather have semi-auto. Why? Because F*ck them, that's why. If someone were so sh*t-all stupid as to enter my home, I fully expect to lose my security deposit because there's a smoking pile of brains, eye-balls, blood, and fecal matter in the doorway.


IED in the living room. Hear a noise? Press the plunger.
2012-12-27 04:50:40 AM  
1 votes:

namatad: would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders


I choose #000 for a few reasons. I'm going to fire a shotgun, so stopping-power/spread is important. I'd either go with #00 buck with 15x pellets or #000 buck with 10 pellets. Personally, the idea of emptying a 10rd magazine of 9mm for every pull of the trigger is appealing to me. Most people are good shots, and I am too, but a high-stress home-invasion is different from the range. So while some prefer handguns for home defense, I prefer shotguns.

Another reason is noise. Dear god, I can't imagine the sound of firing #000 indoors or at close range or worse... standing downrange from it. The sound of a 10x pellet #000 buck round going off sounds like a grenade. It's startling the first time you fire it. If someone was coming into your home and you fired that at them, it would either A) tear them to pieces or B) Make them think you fired a mortar round at them. Either way, that bastard will know he made a big mistake in will rethink his life's choices if he survives.
2012-12-27 04:43:12 AM  
1 votes:

Cubansaltyballs: Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.

#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.


you know, I dont have a shot gun and well, I know nothing
so wikipedia .....
WTF, you werent even close to making that shiat up!
nice

would there be some benefit in using slightly smaller buck shot?
or is the goal in the end, quickly exploding heads with small chance of survival, which is a good thing in dealing with zombies/home invaders
2012-12-27 02:12:18 AM  
1 votes:

Cup Check: Otherwise, the crime committed against me and mine IN MY HOME is stopped.


#000 buckshot. The trauma of ten #000 pellets tearing his face, neck, chest to pieces will stop an intruder, but will cost you your security deposit as the intruder's head comes apart like a watermelon at a Gallagher show. If you miss... the sound alone should be enough to make any intruder wish he stayed home that night.

In my home, I've got 11x rounds waiting for anyone foolish enough to think they can dodge 110x pellets the size of a 9mm round.
2012-12-27 01:27:26 AM  
1 votes:

Rincewind53: It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map.


You have a lot of public information, too. Your name, address, employer, employer's address, every comment on fark, names and ages of any relatives, etc.

Your life can be ruined.
2012-12-27 01:09:10 AM  
1 votes:

violentsalvation: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com


The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."


Yes because in NY you can't carry that gun in your car or to work.  It is a premises permit.  The gun stays in the house.   Yes you can get a permit to carry a gun or a permit for a gun at your job, but you can also win the powerball and I think the odds of that are better, someone wins the power ball every few weeks.
2012-12-27 12:58:57 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.

Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

[rlv.zcache.com image 400x400]

Yes, I'm sure some moron did post some macho bullshiat that they clearly don't have up at their house.

But the outrage to this makes no sense.  The whole concealed carry argument is that invisible guns make you safe, which is basically a religious argument - the unseen saves you, even though others don't know you're protected by the unseen.  If guns save you, it's because they are visible and known.  Logically the you would want your ownership to be known.


Yet another tack, you are indeed the drunken sailor of discourse.    You manage to work in your lack of religious faith, that must make you a celebrity among the other anti-religionists.

You claim you don't agree with the publishing of the names and addresses of gun owners then you claim the outrage makes no sense.  Which one is it, which opinion do you truly hold?  Is it that you've never had a thought or opinion of your own so you want to cover all the bases lest someone have an opinion that differs from yours?   Are you afraid of not being universally loved so you support or hate everything equally?   There is a word for that.
2012-12-27 12:53:17 AM  
1 votes:

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com



The other side of that, the realistic side is: "I have at least one gun in my house and as soon as you watch me pull away for work you are free to break in and try to take it and use it on the streets for your nefarious purposes."
2012-12-27 12:42:56 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.


Someone on Fark was pushing this kind of thing the other day:

rlv.zcache.com
2012-12-27 12:37:22 AM  
1 votes:
I would think that any real journalist would respect the privacy of someone not directly making active news. Someone with an actual ax to grind or that wants to take advantage of a tragedy to get themselves noticed for their "work" shouldn't b surprised that they get some push back.
2012-12-27 12:32:31 AM  
1 votes:
To various people,

The point I'm making is that pro-gun people always say guns stop crime, they make everyone safer, the whole nine yards.  You know the lines, I don't have to repeat them.  So knowing that this person has a gun must make them safer, right?

I should note that I actually do think this was an asshole thing of the paper to do, but I am fully using it to argue what I think are non-sensical pro-gun arguments about safety that have glaring holes in them.
2012-12-27 12:26:36 AM  
1 votes:

NewportBarGuy: Triumph: Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.

[Dude, wait, what?


William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard - he just wouldn't hire reporters who did, because he didn't pay them enough.
2012-12-27 12:26:18 AM  
1 votes:

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.



THIS100.
2012-12-27 12:26:04 AM  
1 votes:

GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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


As a responsible gun owner you should do everything you can to avoid confrontation. The newspaper pointing out every legal gun owner in a few counties increases the chance of confrontation with someone that may be armed. This is America. We have crazy people everywhere and this issue is one that both sides are passionate about.

Our angry little friend may be going over the top, but he is right. The public scrutiny does raise the risk, however small it may be.
2012-12-27 12:23:00 AM  
1 votes:

Kimothy: How does CC prevent you from being shot? That's not what FM said at all.


He never makes any substantive argument, he just parrots media talking points and re-engineers what others say in an attempt to make their cogent argument seem defective.

Probably a journalism student.

If you told him the sky was blue he would complain that big pharma causes bus fares to rise.
2012-12-27 12:16:59 AM  
1 votes:

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?


How does CC prevent you from being shot? That's not what FM said at all.

And no, I don't think publishing the name and address of every gun owner is something anyone would want, necessarily. There are several great examples in this thread of why it shouldn't be done. I get that those are public records, but I think that goes against the nature of CC - those shouldn't be public records because that defeats the purpose of a  concealed carry permit. As for just registered gun owners, I understand why those are public records, too, but the way both the "news" and the idiot in the article are behaving is just asinine. I've seen kindergartners have a better fight than this "nyah nyah nyah I can do it too!" crap.
2012-12-27 12:08:17 AM  
1 votes:

Triumph: feckingmorons: The fourth estate used to be respected, journalism used to be a calling.  Now it is what the kids who can't get into anything else go for in college.

Actually, there's a fair number of Ivy leaguers in the media these days, which never used to be the case.


And that makes them competent and not agenda driven how exactly?  Princeton turns out all sorts of journalists, but we have so few real journalists devoted to truth and objectivity the entire graduating class could be j school grads and we would be no better off.
2012-12-27 12:06:44 AM  
1 votes:

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?
2012-12-27 12:04:12 AM  
1 votes:
images3.wikia.nocookie.net
2012-12-27 12:03:16 AM  
1 votes:

feckingmorons: GAT_00: iq_in_binary: Put me and my roommate and girlfriend in danger

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

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.

/not that you can see this since you ignore opinion and facts that differ from your warped world view.   Perhaps someone will quote it so you can ball your little fists up, start frothing at the mouth and post some of your usual nonsense in response.   Or not, either way is fine with me, I find you to be an amusing cog in the huge wheel of liberalism with all the other uninformed cogs.


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.
2012-12-26 11:59:39 PM  
1 votes:
So what? All the tough gun people gonna go hunt these people down now?

They'll just be shooting themselves in the foot.
2012-12-26 11:48:04 PM  
1 votes:

Triumph: feckingmorons: Journalistic integrity is gone, it is all agenda driven sensationalization.

I couldn't agree more. Instead of just stoking up the gun control blather, here's what real journalists would be chasing in the Sandy Hook shooting among many other things:

1. The guy they arrested in the woods at the edge of the school who was wearing camo and screaming "I didn't do it." Who is he? What's the story there?
2. What have they learned from security camera footage?
3. How was it that an untrained kid was able to be so deadly, with so many fatalities and so few wounded?
4. What's up with the car towed away from the scene that allegedly had the gun in the trunk? The license plate trace allegedly went out over police scanners and it may belong to a drug dealer - what's up with that?
5. What medications was the shooter on? What kind of psychiatric care was he receiving?
6. Why was it so quickly pronounced that the data from the shooter's hard drive is unrecoverable?

There's plenty more facts to chase, but you get the idea - there's a bona fide story to report, but it's hard to find anyone doing it.


Check Infowars. I'm sure someone there is on the case.
2012-12-26 11:05:55 PM  
1 votes:
This is my hometown newspaper, so I'm getting a kick, etc...

iq_in_binary: They got off easy. If I was on that list I'd post everything on them I can find. And I have access to far more useful tools than that lawyer does. Where their children went to school, their private cell phone numbers, their spouses employers, everything I could find on them AND their family.

Maybe then people would quit trying this shiat to intimidate people.


It was all public information, Mr. ITG. All they did was put it on a map. If anyone had wanted to, they could have compiled this list at any point, at any time.
 
Displayed 166 of 166 comments

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