Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits


betsy

Recommended Posts

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.

What's wrong about my reply to you? You think the media shouldn't have any responsibility? That there shouldn't be any check and balances? They can use their pen without any regard for consequences?

betsy, on 26 December 2012 - 06:26 PM, said:

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.

Your statement don't make any sense. You tend to look at only one side of the spectrum....a very limited view, I would say. Your reasoning seems to be fueled by being simply anti-gun! You have a penchant for making "authoritative" claims!

Why don't you explain clearly what you're saying. What's wrong with my reply? Fire away!

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

Very true. And that seems to be lost to some on this topic. The reaction of the media - and people like these posters - only help to incite attention-seeking lunatics who want to go with a big bang! You think the next-looney-in-line isn't already saying, "you ain't seen nothin' yet?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first read your post...yes, but after considering the context...no.

Thanks for posting that.

Again, to anyone who might not have seen the context:

I told Bryan he would be on the list. I told him that because he was the poster with whom I was discussing the list. It could have been anyone. The idea was to show how ridiculous publishing a list of "potential" criminals was.

It seems the only people who took umbrage are among those who support the list of gun owners being published. I don't know why that would be the case.

That said, does anyone seriously believe I would come on here and accuse someone I have never met, never addressed here, of being a child molestor and a rapist? I mean, really?

Edited by bcsapper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find any of these arguments very persuasive.

Suppose they had published the names and addresses of single women in their readership area. Or names and addresses of same-sex couples.

Everybody here would be smart enough to recognize that for what it is: reckless endangerment.

"Gun control has been a topic of great concern to our readers in the week since the Sandy Hook shooting!" Hey, so is same sex marriage. Finding single women is always a topic of great interest, I hear.

"It's publicly available information!" Well, just as with the gun permit list, you could probably compile lists of single women or same-sex couples pretty easily using the phone book and public records.

"It's a challenging statement concerning the abuse of freedoms!" So would be publishing lists of single women or same-sex couples.

One difference between these examples and the gun permit list is that people would obviously recognize a list of single women as an invitation to stalkers, and would recognize a list of same-sex couples as an invitation to homophobes and bigots, but some people are apparently too dense to recognize a list of gun-permit holders as an invitation to robbers.

The other difference is that some people apparently feel that gun permit holders deserve the harrassment that will come from this.

-k

Edited by kimmy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this has escalated quickly...

Journalists phone numbers and addresses posted.

...a Connecticut lawyer posted the phone number and addresses of the Journal‘s staff, including a Google Maps satellite Image of the Publisher’s home. “I don’t know whether the Journal’s publisher Janet Hasson is a permit holder herself, but here’s how to find her to ask,” read Christopher Fountain’s blog post.

Perhaps, like the gun permit holders, these journalists also "had it coming".

-k

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.

That theory would work only if they did not know exactly where the weapons are. With this list criminals are informed that there likely is one or more weapons and ammunition in the dwelling in question and thus they need to go about their business with more caution and planning, a gun may deter criminals but a gun cannot do anything if you are not there to fire it. If they know exactly who has the weapons they cant inure out when no one is home and for how long, in most cases you will need a couple of days to check the residence out and you can know that the parents leave at 8am, the kids leave at 8:30am and no one is back home until at least 4pm and then you are free to rob them wether they have one pistol or an arsenal for an entire army.

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 if the criminal is smart there is not that much risk of death and arrest, the problem is not the idiots who are unable to use their brains, we are talking about those individuals who see a piece of intelligence they could use. If we follow through with your chain of thought, why do people risk jail time when they could go in to any store and buy a TV or jewellery?

There are people who rob houses every day, if they go blindly hoping for something worth the effort why on earth would they avoid using the given intel?

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?

And who would you suggest keep this information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems the only people who took umbrage are among those who support the list of gun owners being published. I don't know why that would be the case.

Well, I do not support the list of gun owners being published and I'm the one who reported you. And I would do it again.

IOW - this is completely irrelevant.

That said, does anyone seriously believe I would come on here and accuse someone I have never met, never addressed here, of being a child molestor and a rapist? I mean, really?

Frankly, yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Sorry, I was under the impression that is how democracy works... just because you don't like it and you are in the minority doesn't mean the rights are limitless.

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

And instead of working on fixing the problem what is your solution? An interactive map to point to where every assault rifle is?

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

They exercised their freedom but if someone uses to its full potential the information they made available they will not be sharing in the blame in the next shooting by someone using stolen weapons thanks to the interactive map.

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.

And the thousands of people who have a pistol at home what about them? They don't want nor do they support assault rifles in private hands but now they are put in danger for something they neither support nor want.

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

And this exercise of rights by the newspaper in question did not think of the greater good of society, if they had done so they would have realized that telling criminals where the weapons are means that those criminals now have a nice source of weapons for some time to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The paper was wrong an very stupid to post that information publicly. I do hope they get sued.

The only restriction on their right to print the information would be if the intent was to cause harm, so if they do get sued, I imagine it would have to be on those grounds, which I doubt anyone would be able to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the list being put to good use by parents... If Squid Jr.'s friends had guns in the house, there would be some thought about not allowing Jr. to go over.

This happens way more often than a burglar being shot. Not a very merry xmas when you shoot your kid in the head.

Edited by The_Squid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
I can see the list being put to good use by parents... If Squid Jr.'s friends had guns in the house, there would be some thought about not allowing Jr. to go over.

This happens way more often than a burglar being shot. Not a very merry xmas when you shoot your kid in the head.

Burglars being deterred by guns aren't always shot by any means, so the "burglar being shot" scenario doesn't really tell the story of how many robberies have been thwarted by the homeowner possessing a gun. The idea isn't to shoot the burglar, but to scare him off.

Furthermore, some people who applied for a permit may not have made a purchase, some people who owned firearms may no longer own them, and some people who didn't own one likely will in the future.

You only need ask the parents of the friends whose house you allow Squid Jr. to go over whether or not they have guns.

As for accidental shootings, that can occur in any nation that doesn't ban firearms.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For starters , this list is a FOI request , so a lawsuit is out of the question. Perhaps, and I largely doubt it , the harm as AW mentioned would be the basis but even thats a stratch.

To answer Kimmy's question, she could go here....http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/SomsSUBDirectory/search_index.jsp assuming one lives in NY.

A list like this has been published numerous times in the past down in the States. It is nothing new and as far as I can recall it has not resulted in any theft occurences or problems.

ETA, not a fan of publishing this, seems counter productive.

Not to mention the hyperbole of the OP (oh no surprise) with "Gross violation of privacy" ....when in fact it is nothing of the sort.

Edited by guyser
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

It certainly gets reported more by the media. "Innocent kid gets shot" makes a much more contraversial story than "burgler gets shot while committing a crime".

Or simply burglar thwarted by gun when intending to commit a crime.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly gets reported more by the media. "Innocent kid gets shot" makes a much more contraversial story than "burgler gets shot while committing a crime".

Except the stats, as have been reported in several threads, bare this out.

Or simply burglar thwarted by gun when intending to commit a crime.....

Scaring away a possible burglar is worth the risk of a dead child? LOL What a mindset!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Scaring away a possible burglar is worth the risk of a dead child? LOL What a mindset!!

Did I say it was? LOL what reading comprehension skills!!

rolleyes.gif

I hate to break it to you, but your gun laws also allow for the risk of a dead child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The risk is more apparent with the USA's gun laws which resulted in 20 dead children.

So how would Canada's laws have prevented that from happening? Since Lanza broke several U.S. laws, I'm wondering just what's so special about Canada's laws that he wouldn't have been able to carry this out.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? How come?

Because you are anonymous, tone is difficult to comprehend when reading, and because it is never a good idea to link a member specifically with the words "rapist" and "child molester" no matter how certain you are that the abstract "justification" will make it look like it is anything but an ad hominem attack.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did I say it was? LOL what reading comprehension skills!!

rolleyes.gif

I hate to break it to you, but your gun laws also allow for the risk of a dead child.

The laws do? But the laws say it has to be stored and locked away. So no, the laws do not do that. America doesn't have the same type of storage laws, as far as I could find out. Want a loaded gun under your pillow? No problem. Perfectly legal. It will protect you from burglars or, way more likely, it will end up shooting a kid or someone else you know.

Why do these things happen so much more in America than in any other industrialized nation, even though "it could happen anywhere"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you are anonymous, tone is difficult to comprehend when reading, and because it is never a good idea to link a member specifically with the words "rapist" and "child molester" no matter how certain you are that the abstract "justification" will make it look like it is anything but an ad hominem attack.

I would never imagine that someone would randomely make such an accusation. I would default to the obvious and then make sure I fully understood the posts in question before believing such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would never imagine that someone would randomely make such an accusation. I would default to the obvious and then make sure I fully understood the posts in question before believing such a thing.

Good for you.

Haven't been around forums very much, eh?

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.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...