Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits


betsy

Recommended Posts

And what if it becomes apparent that some bright criminal is using the interactive map as a guide? What happens when hundreds of gun owners end up being relieved of their weapons by the likes of William Spengler? The newspaper just gave them a comprehensive list of gun owners to choose from, why waste time and money to buy weapons and ammunition when I can just go in to someone's home and just take it?

I see a lawsuit on the horizon. Or somebody taking a potshot at those involved with the publishing of the list.

The newspaper "shamed" the gun-owners by publishing the names. Anti-gun nuts could stalk and harrass those individuals now that they're exposed. I suspect the newspaper hope that, that would be the next step. This is outright intimidation.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

It's not a constitutional right to print this information because this information is not publicly known. I question how they got this information in the first place. This is a breech of privacy plain and simple.

They have put many people at risk by pulling off this incredibly stupid stunt.

From what I read they got their information from local counties under Freedom of Information Law and of course, they have freedom of the press to print the list.

I think the fact that it 'puts many people at risk' is their point - freedoms should have limits and be exercised with caution when they affect other people's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lawsuit on the horizon. Or somebody taking a potshot at those involved with the publishing of the list.

The newspaper "shamed" the gun-owners by publishing the names. Anti-gun nuts could stalk and harrass those individuals now that they're exposed. I suspect the newspaper hope that, that would be the next step. This is outright intimidation.

You mean a frivalous lawsuit that has no chance of success?

Or somebody taking a potshot at those involved with the publishing of the list.

laugh.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what if it becomes apparent that some bright criminal is using the interactive map as a guide? What happens when hundreds of gun owners end up being relieved of their weapons by the likes of William Spengler? The newspaper just gave them a comprehensive list of gun owners to choose from, why waste time and money to buy weapons and ammunition when I can just go in to someone's home and just take it?

I don't know how many different ways I can say this - think what you want about the list, the incident opens up the discussion about the right to exercise freedoms without any limits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a lawsuit on the horizon. Or somebody taking a potshot at those involved with the publishing of the list.

The newspaper "shamed" the gun-owners by publishing the names. Anti-gun nuts could stalk and harrass those individuals now that they're exposed. I suspect the newspaper hope that, that would be the next step. This is outright intimidation.

Not likely, I suspect that at some point they will "realize their error" if this becomes a big enough deal and sponsors start ducking out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that it 'puts many people at risk' is their point - freedoms should have limits and be exercised with caution when they affect other people's lives.

And that's what the newspaper violated, by publicly printing those names. Their freedom to free expression should be exercised with caution when they affect other people's lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how many different ways I can say this - think what you want about the list, the incident opens up the discussion about the right to exercise freedoms without any limits.

Then don't go blaming gun owners when their legal weapons end up on the street because of the freedom exercised by this "newspaper", because if some legal gun owner is robbed of their weapon and that weapon is used in a mass shooting gun owners will get the blame even though some journalist decided to publish a comprehensive list of gun owners.

Gun owners are within the bounds of the law and instead of going after the law in question and changing it one way or another this journalist decided to endanger the entire state by printing a map detailing exactly where every legal firearm in private hands is located. The gun owners exercised their rights within the limits of the law while this "journalist" put millions of people at risk simply because of his/her idiocy.

One side has freedoms with limits while the other side has freedoms without limits and they use those freedoms to endanger thousands of people who are living within the law of the land.

Edited by Signals.Cpl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

99% of those permit holders are most likely responsible and safe with their firearms and now the newspaper has placed all of them at risk.

1 in 4 - 5 of them will likely also suffer a mental illness at some point in their lives thereby placing society at risk.

How do you expect your mental illness database be any use if you can't cross-check it for guns?

Edited by eyeball
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 in 4 - 5 of them will likely also suffer a mental illness at some point in their lives thereby placing society at risk.

How do you expect your mental illness database be any use if you can't cross-check it for guns?

I am not arguing against gun control nor am I suggesting we go about destroying/removing a list of gun owners and/or permit holder, I am arguing against idiots placing everyone at risk by announcing to the world exactly where the weapons are thereby giving industrious criminals a guide as to where they can get firearms and ammunition. No need to buy a gun for sometime to come, you have a list of people who could be relieved of their firearms without too much fuss.

There is a list of people who are gun owners then by all means keep it but this has a limited audience meaning need to know as opposed to telling everyone where every legal firearm in the state is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not arguing against gun control nor am I suggesting we go about destroying/removing a list of gun owners and/or permit holder, I am arguing against idiots placing everyone at risk by announcing to the world exactly where the weapons are thereby giving industrious criminals a guide as to where they can get firearms and ammunition. No need to buy a gun for sometime to come, you have a list of people who could be relieved of their firearms without too much fuss.

A couple of things come to mind;

1) What happened to the theory that criminals are deterred by the knowledge their potential targets are armed? Presumably that's why the good guy's are arming themselves to the teeth. I've read often enough from gun-ownership advocates that the bad guy's believe it too and they apparently have stats that show criminals stay away from unarmed neighbourhoods to prove it.

2) Why would any industrious criminal go to the trouble of risking death and arrest when she could just buy as many battlefield weapons and ammunition as she liked at a gun show, no questions asked?

There is a list of people who are gun owners then by all means keep it but this has a limited audience meaning need to know as opposed to telling everyone where every legal firearm in the state is.

Now you sound like you're advocating that only the state should know where all the guns and mentally ill are. I guess it's easy to grok why the 2nd amendment is so alluring isn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that's what the newspaper violated, by publicly printing those names. Their freedom to free expression should be exercised with caution when they affect other people's lives.

I generally try and limit the number of times I explain a post before you're on your own.

Think real hard about what you type right there and maybe it'll come to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One side has freedoms with limits while the other side has freedoms without limits and they use those freedoms to endanger thousands of people who are living within the law of the land.

Any talk about making any restrictions to gun-ownership and half the country goes, well, up in arms cool.png citing their freedom to bear arms.

Ban military-weapons? Heck no, that would infringe on someone's right to bear arms.

Well, this newspaper exercised their freedom of the press to the full extent. Was it a good idea?

Depends but whatever your take is, they proved a point that just because you have a 'right' to do something you don't have to practice that right to its full extent.

Rights are always exercised with caution and with adherence to the greater good of society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of things come to mind;

1) What happened to the theory that criminals are deterred by the knowledge their potential targets are armed? Presumably that's why the good guy's are arming themselves to the teeth. I've read often enough from gun-ownership advocates that the bad guy's believe it too and they apparently have stats that show criminals stay away from unarmed neighbourhoods to prove it.

But if someone wants to get a gun, they know where to get one. What's stopping them from casing your place....and knowing your routine? Knowing you've got the gun in the house - along with the other goodies - isn't a waste of their time.

2) Why would any industrious criminal go to the trouble of risking death and arrest when she could just buy as many battlefield weapons and ammunition as she liked at a gun show, no questions asked?

Because people with criminal intent don't want to buy guns that can be traced to them. Seasoned criminals know where to go!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I generally try and limit the number of times I explain a post before you're on your own.

Think real hard about what you type right there and maybe it'll come to you.

This is one of those posts that so utterly destroys one of betsy's arguments that she'll just ignore it and you for awhile. Congratulations on your well-earned reprieve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. they proved a point that just because you have a 'right' to do something you don't have to practice that right to its full extent.

So, are you saying then that what they did was wrong, but the fact they made some idealistic point about not taking rights to their fullest extent makes it right? Not sure I'm buying it...I think some people would call that sucking and blowing at the same time.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to be nothing more than an article designed to be controversial for the sake of ratings. I find it rather ironic that they cite concerns about the Newtown shooting as motivation to publishing this information.

There are many out there who would argue that the over the top attention the media gives to these killers and their actions contributes to the problem of mass shootings. These clueless self-proclaimed societal saviors run around crying crocodile tears and playing scary, ominous soundtracks to their superficial stories for ratings every time one of these shootings take place, then they have the gonads to proclaim that they are taking action by violating peoples privacy. Hypocrisy at it's finest.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...