HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » New York Journal News Pub...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:24 PM

New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties

Source: Huffington Post

A New York newspaper is under criticism for publishing the names and addresses of local gun owners on Monday.

In a piece titled, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood," the Journal News requested the names and adresses of local residents who are licensed to own handguns through Freedom of Information Law requests. The paper requested information from Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties. The paper was only given the names and addresses of those who have a license to own a handgun. The paper was denied its requests for the amount and type of guns owned by those who have licenses. Putnam County was still working on the request and has not yet released information to the Journal News.

The article includes an interactive map of Westchester and Rockland counties that allows readers to view those who have a license to own handguns around them.

The article also has an editor's note attached to it describing the type of gun the journalist who wrote the article owns. "Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley owns a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum and has had a residence permit in New York City for that weapon since February 2011," it states.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/25/new-york-journal-news-gun-owners-westchester-rockland-counties_n_2362530.html



Good. Every gun, every gun owner should be known.

154 replies, 20560 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 154 replies Author Time Post
Reply New York Journal News Publishes Gun Owners' Names In Westchester, Rockland Counties (Original post)
onehandle Dec 2012 OP
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #1
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #16
harmonicon Dec 2012 #35
Tom Ripley Dec 2012 #110
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #125
harmonicon Dec 2012 #129
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #134
harmonicon Dec 2012 #136
Mojorabbit Dec 2012 #78
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #126
naaman fletcher Dec 2012 #39
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #2
askeptic Dec 2012 #117
wanttosavetheplanet Dec 2012 #3
mike_c Dec 2012 #4
WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2012 #5
onehandle Dec 2012 #6
ReRe Dec 2012 #10
WHEN CRABS ROAR Dec 2012 #13
pasto76 Dec 2012 #14
lolly Dec 2012 #44
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #68
Orrex Dec 2012 #74
virginia mountainman Dec 2012 #80
Orrex Dec 2012 #98
ReRe Dec 2012 #8
RoccoR5955 Dec 2012 #11
quakerboy Dec 2012 #12
NutmegYankee Dec 2012 #24
harmonicon Dec 2012 #36
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #69
pasto76 Dec 2012 #15
oldbanjo Dec 2012 #20
BainsBane Dec 2012 #7
PatrynXX Dec 2012 #9
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #17
Chemisse Dec 2012 #23
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #26
msongs Dec 2012 #62
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #65
alp227 Dec 2012 #77
harmonicon Dec 2012 #37
Chemisse Dec 2012 #49
harmonicon Dec 2012 #50
Chemisse Dec 2012 #96
harmonicon Dec 2012 #108
Chemisse Dec 2012 #128
harmonicon Dec 2012 #130
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #70
harmonicon Dec 2012 #75
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #82
harmonicon Dec 2012 #85
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #89
harmonicon Dec 2012 #91
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #106
harmonicon Dec 2012 #111
Comrade Grumpy Dec 2012 #120
harmonicon Dec 2012 #122
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #57
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #127
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #137
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #144
goclark Dec 2012 #149
Ruby the Liberal Dec 2012 #132
customerserviceguy Dec 2012 #133
jody Dec 2012 #18
Whovian Dec 2012 #21
jody Dec 2012 #22
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #30
lolly Dec 2012 #47
jody Dec 2012 #53
lolly Dec 2012 #103
jody Dec 2012 #107
rebuke Dec 2012 #139
S_B_Jackson Dec 2012 #145
AllyCat Dec 2012 #19
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #27
AllyCat Dec 2012 #84
Skittles Dec 2012 #25
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #29
Skittles Dec 2012 #31
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #33
closeupready Dec 2012 #150
slackmaster Dec 2012 #102
harmonicon Dec 2012 #38
Skittles Dec 2012 #40
harmonicon Dec 2012 #42
Skittles Dec 2012 #43
harmonicon Dec 2012 #45
Skittles Dec 2012 #46
harmonicon Dec 2012 #48
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #60
harmonicon Dec 2012 #61
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #72
harmonicon Dec 2012 #76
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #83
harmonicon Dec 2012 #86
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #88
harmonicon Dec 2012 #90
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #105
heaven05 Dec 2012 #28
Chemisse Dec 2012 #32
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #34
harmonicon Dec 2012 #41
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #51
harmonicon Dec 2012 #52
NYC Liberal Dec 2012 #58
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #59
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #73
Quantess Dec 2012 #54
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #55
boomerbust Dec 2012 #56
virginia mountainman Dec 2012 #63
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #66
slackmaster Dec 2012 #104
JoeyT Dec 2012 #64
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #67
virginia mountainman Dec 2012 #71
harmonicon Dec 2012 #87
virginia mountainman Dec 2012 #92
JoeyT Dec 2012 #94
harmonicon Dec 2012 #95
JoeyT Dec 2012 #99
harmonicon Dec 2012 #109
JoeyT Dec 2012 #112
OneMoreDemocrat Dec 2012 #113
harmonicon Dec 2012 #114
alp227 Dec 2012 #79
alp227 Dec 2012 #81
Historic NY Dec 2012 #93
obamanut2012 Dec 2012 #97
booley Dec 2012 #100
slackmaster Dec 2012 #101
Alamuti Lotus Dec 2012 #115
slackmaster Dec 2012 #116
Quantess Dec 2012 #118
harmonicon Dec 2012 #123
askeptic Dec 2012 #119
harmonicon Dec 2012 #124
askeptic Dec 2012 #131
harmonicon Dec 2012 #135
askeptic Dec 2012 #138
harmonicon Dec 2012 #143
malz Dec 2012 #121
jody Dec 2012 #140
gauguin57 Dec 2012 #141
LanternWaste Dec 2012 #142
Blasphemer Dec 2012 #146
S_B_Jackson Dec 2012 #147
Blasphemer Dec 2012 #153
slackmaster Dec 2012 #151
Blasphemer Dec 2012 #152
slackmaster Dec 2012 #154
Remmah2 Dec 2012 #148

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:32 PM

1. I agree at this point. If they owned dangerous wildlife like tigers and such, they'd have to

have a permit that would be a matter of public record.

Parents should have a way of finding out which homes in their neighborhood their children perhaps shouldn't be spending time in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:51 PM

16. These are pistol permits

not "gun permits", as they don't cover rifles or shotguns. And if you knew how incredibly hard it was for a New Yorker to get one of those permits, you'd feel differently about the people who have them.

This is just an open invitation to rob the homes of people NOT on the list, and I'm one of them. For now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:48 PM

35. If anything, it's the other way around.

I'm pretty sure, without looking it up, that the number of guns stolen from homes is far greater than the number of burglaries thwarted by gun totin' residents of said homes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:24 PM

110. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #35)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:45 PM

125. That's only because

it's easier to burgle a home where the thief has already ascertained that the resident is not home. If they were a little bit stupider, you might see those numbers shift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #125)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:46 PM

129. That's only because human beings are smarter than ducks, rabbits, pigs, or whatever?!

No shit, Sherlock. "Well, if people were more stupid, I could get their money by asking for it and having them give it to me. Unfortunately, that's not reality, but that's the only reason it doesn't happen. If people were that dumb, I'd be rich."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #129)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:09 PM

134. All I'm trying to say

is that it's easier to steal guns from a place where the owners aren't, than where they are, because they might just shoot the thief, and even the theives know that.

Any disagreement with that premise?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #134)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:52 PM

136. Well, no.

It's even easier to not have guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #16)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:11 AM

78. I agree. It was also a violation of privacy

to publicize that information. You have to give them the info but one would hope it would remain with the dept. An open invitation for thieves is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mojorabbit (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:47 PM

126. It's an easy roadmap for burglars

Imagine if some reich-wing publication put out a searchable map of every couple who applied for a marriage license where both people were the same gender, in the states where equal marriage is legal.

We'd describe that as targeting the individuals involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:10 PM

39. The other possibility with doing this...

 

Is that people will realize how many of their friends and neighbors have guns, and therefore there will be less of a stigma attached to it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:34 PM

2. Exercising their first amendment rights

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #2)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:06 PM

117. Did they need a "permit" to exercise that right? - or any other except the 2nd?

I know I'll get flamed for exercising my 1st amendment rights to support the Constitution as written and interpreted by the SC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:35 PM

3. I certainly am all for public records of gun owners.

I think there should be much more regulation of gun ownership. I am of the mind that the second amendment is very clear about the fact that "the militia" should be "well regulated"!

For anyone who shares my views on gun control (namely, we need more of it), after seeing this:

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/12/24/piers-morgan-deport-gun-control/

I decided to create my own petition:

http://wh.gov/QIOg

It needs 25,000 signatures by January 23, 2013, to have the White House review the petition. I don't have enough posts on DU to start my own thread and I really want to put some light on this. I'm looking for related threads to get the word out. Help!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:44 PM

4. the North Coast Journal in Humboldt Co CA did that in 2008....

http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2008/09/25/pistol-packing-people/

I thought it was a great idea then, and it's still a great idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:04 PM

5. Has anyone here thought of the possibility for a criminal to use

this information to steal the weapons when the occupant wasn't home?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:16 PM

6. OMG! Who would have ever imagined that homes might contain things worth stealing!?

Tough shit.

Buy a gun safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:27 PM

10. Bury them...

... they have so many that they won't remember where they buried them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:38 PM

13. The problem of firearms being stolen from a home

that the homeowner bought for defending the home is a very real one, maybe a dog would be better protection.
FYI I am not pro-gun, everyone running around with a gun is crazy, more guns = more deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #13)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:45 PM

14. my friend is detective on city PD. He never worked a breakin or invasion of a dog owner

ok so he's worked one, and the yorkshire terrier just wasnt a deterrent. I have two(2) 100 pound lab huskies. They let me know, somehow without seeing them, when someone is in our front yard. (a city park is across the street) Plenty of time to pop out of bed and react. oh my, the cable guy came into our backyard one time. Seriously, I was afraid for him, and afraid they would take my dogs. They were literally ready to tear him up. I love my dogs. Sweet. unbelievably gentle and baby proof (babies have grabbed their faces, pulled and twisted with no reaction) - but they know what they are supposed to guard.

a lakohta told me once 'treat a dog as if he's part of your family, so he will protect you like you're part of his'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:22 PM

44. Well, here's another one

Had an extremely loveable Springer Spaniel who was in the house the whole time it was being robbed. Probably the only resistance she offered was to whine at them to pet her.

When I came home and saw the door had been kicked in, she was the first thing I was worried about.

They made off with a TV, my wedding rings and some jewelry, electronics, about 2K worth of stuff.

But the most precious thing was safe. Utterly useless as a watch dog, but a wonderful pet!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:31 AM

68. Firearm thieves specialize in cracking safes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #68)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:02 AM

74. Citation, please?

I would like to learn more about this dangerous trend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #74)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:29 AM

80. Hmmm... Does not seem too hard....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #80)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:19 AM

98. Yikes!

Sounds like a great argument for either buying a better safe or for owning fewer of these expensive and coveted guns!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:24 PM

8. Yip

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:34 PM

11. It would be stupid if

People didn't keep their guns locked up in gun safes whether or not their address is posted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:37 PM

12. Thats interesting

I thought the point of increased gun ownership was to increase safety? Having guns out there in homes is supposed to be a deterrent to crimes. Knowing which houses have guns should, according to the claims of gun afficionados, increase the safety of those homes, and decrease everyone elses safety.

Now you tell me that they make a home more attractive to the criminal element?

Secondary thought: if people were securing their guns in a responsible fashion, breaking in to steal them would be a fruitless endeavor. So, if this is truely a big concern, then perhaps all those "responsible, law abiding gun owners" are not so responsible after all. And if the assertions of most gun supporters over the past week are true, then if the law changes in such a way that it inconveniences them, they will decline to be law abiding. Which pretty much just leaves "gun owners".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:37 PM

24. Most gun safes can be cracked in 10 minutes.

Sure, your average burglar and child will not be capable of breaking into it, but a professional who has targeted you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:57 PM

36. You know very well that it's not for safety.

How to describe the feeling that it's for, when it's not for hunting or actual protection (from bears, wolves, etc.) is something I will likely never fully understand, much as I won't understand faith - it cannot be rationalized, because rational thought would lead anyone to the conclusion that there is no purpose to covet a device designed and manufactured for killing human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quakerboy (Reply #12)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:32 AM

69. Increases the safety of the home when the owner is home.

Increases the value of the house as a burglary target when no one is home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WHEN CRABS ROAR (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:47 PM

15. no more than leaving anything valuable in the house

sure they are weapons, but if you are leaving them unsecured, you have just as much blood on your hands. Positive control of a firearm is a big deal. leaving them 'stashed' is irresponsible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pasto76 (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:10 PM

20. A lot of them get stolen from police cars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:18 PM

7. The problem is this discourages registration

Of guns, which is not in the community's interest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:26 PM

9. might be crossing the line a bit

well except for concealed weapons..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:52 PM

17. I seem to remember thirty years ago

that reich wingers wanted the same "preventive" information about people with HIV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:27 PM

23. Yeah, I am uncomfortable with this too.

They are following the law and have done nothing wrong.

It reminds me a little bit of the harassment of women going for a legal abortion, and the way people feel any behavior is fair and justified because they are 'right' on the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:19 PM

26. Exactly. The DUers cheering this would be screaming bloody murder

if the paper was publishing the names and addresses of HIV patients, abortion seekers, or mental health patients- or any other private information. Hell, DU even has a policy forbidding doing it here. Its a shame DU has stooped to the level of RW extremists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:07 PM

62. these guns owners are NOT private information, they are public records - your comparison

is not valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:51 PM

65. Would you like your DL data published?

How about school records? How about tax returns?
The gun-owners have done the legal and responsible thing to register their weapons, you want to punish them for that? How many gun-owners will now decide NOT to register their weapons? Is that the result you want?
There are about 100 million registered gun owners, you are going to need some of their votes and support if gun control legislation is going to be passed (Obama got a little over 60M votes). Now, if the target is the criminals doing most of the shooting, you may find that support. If you target legal gun owners who are following the law, you won't find that support, and nothing will be done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #65)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:09 AM

77. Have your grades or taxes ever shot anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #23)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:03 PM

37. Should those nuts screaming outside of abortion clinics be legally barred from doing so?

I don't think so.

I actually think guns should be legal to posses, but I don't think it should be considered socially acceptable. I think all drugs should be legal too, but I wouldn't want to live next to a meth lab.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:30 PM

49. I don't suggest the newspaper should be legally prohibited from doing this.

It is public information, after all.

But I think it is the wrong thing to do. Just because you CAN harass a woman seeking an abortion, doesn't mean you should.

I also think people are going a bit overboard, demonizing legal and likely responsible gun owners.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:36 PM

50. What is a "responsible gun owner"?

They're responsible for not killing people? So is everyone else who doesn't kill people. What happens when their gun falls into the hands of someone who would use it to kill someone? A gun is a time bomb without a clock. A lot of guns will never kill people, but they could at almost any moment.

Sure, there are cases where firearms are used for things like hunting, and I'm ok with that. Handguns are made for killing people. The charade of describing someone who owns something that could be used to kill anyone at any moment as "responsible" should be done away with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #50)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:53 AM

96. This is why the NRA gets the traction that it does.

We laugh when they say Obama wants to take our guns. But it turns out they are right, if the anti-gun comments on this site are any barometer.

The massacres have shown us that we need gun control - get rid of semi-automatics, close the gun show loophole, etc.

But once that door is opened, all sorts of people here are demonizing ALL guns and ALL gun owners.

I don't want a gun, but I want to be free to have one if I so desire. I expect it won't be capable of riddling people with bullets over a second's time, and I expect to register it and/or require a license and some training, and I expect that I would need to keep it secured, and I expect I would not be able to shoot blindly every time I am feeling a bit nervous.

But I expect I will be able to acquire one without being publicly ridiculed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #96)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:10 PM

108. Ah, see, that last point is where we differ.

I think people should be free to own anything they'd like, including whatever kind of insane killing device they may want, be it an automatic rifle or a gas chamber.

Like you, I think every single gun that is manufactured and sold should be registered and accounted for. Voting is my right, but I have to register to vote.

However, joining a racist group is also my right, and I wouldn't want to lose it. However, if I were to join a racist organization, I'd hope that I would be publicly ridiculed. Just because we have the right to do something doesn't mean we shouldn't be ridiculed for it. There are many many things we have the right to do that most people won't do because doing so is reprehensible to most.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #108)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:16 PM

128. Huh? I didn't say anything about joining the NRA.

I was talking about simply owning a gun. I don't think anybody should be ridiculed for simply owning a gun.

On edit - You do realize you don't have to join the NRA to own a gun, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #128)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:51 PM

130. I didn't say anything about joining the NRA - I don't know where you got that from.

I absolutely think people should be ridiculed for owning guns or any other devices designed and manufactured for the purpose of killing human beings. Not only is there no rational reason to possess such devices (but people own many things that have no logical purpose for being), they are devices which, when used properly, kill people. That's scary as shit, and I don't think it should be regarded as being socially acceptable.

I don't mind people owning guns designed and manufactured for hunting or sport, but I still think they should have those guns registered in a national database.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #37)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:39 AM

70. Pretty sure Meth wouldn't exist if drugs were decriminalized.

Who wants to use a drug whose production involves chemicals that were used as war gasses in WWI.

(This is why meth melts you from the inside out)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #70)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:07 AM

75. I can't really think of many drugs that don't involve using nasty chemicals in their production.

Apart from that, meth heads would still use meth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:31 AM

82. Meth was developed as a workaround for prohibition perimeter controls.

Why smuggle in risky quantities of stuff you can make in a bathtub right there in the US?

People already using meth would be likely to continue perhaps. I don't see them jumping to another simpler drug.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #82)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:36 AM

85. Exactly.

People don't kick one addiction just because another is available, and as long as that first one's around, new people will find it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #85)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:58 AM

89. Eventually attrition solves that problem, in a hypothetical decriminalized society.

See: Portugal.

Also, addicts are much more likely to submit to rehab if they know they won't go to jail for it. This is also demonstrated in Portugal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #89)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:09 AM

91. I think that's likely true.

However, people are going to get high, one way or another. Having a war on drugs is going to do nothing about it.

This is now how I view the debate on gun control. Trying to have some sort of "war on guns" isn't the answer. We're not going to change the culture with laws. We need to change the culture by actually changing the culture - changing attitudes, conceptions, values.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #91)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:43 AM

106. Totally agree with you there.

If you look a this in the abstract, as a simple VIOLENCE policy question, and take Guns and gun related injuries, deaths, all of that out of the picture...

Americans are still shockingly violent.

I don't feel like I've been terribly productive if I get a gun off the street that might be used to kill me, if I get beaten to death anyway. If we can move people toward non-violence, the guns become a moot issue. In fact, they will probably fade somewhat in total numbers. The less people are motivated by hate, the fewer responding people are motivated by fear. That would really suck for the gun industry, there. Bans don't seem to bother that industry at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #106)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:26 PM

111. I'm not sure that this "we're a violent culture" thing is true.

My real question is what is the actual reason that people want to own guns. It's not rational, because there aren't rational reasons for owning them. That in itself is fine - most things we own aren't owned for rational reasons. Is there a rational reason to have art on your walls? However, we can't address the number of guns that are around if we don't address why they're around. We can't get to that so long as we refuse to be self-reflective about it.

Though it was seen as a "gaff" I think what Obama said in the 2008 election is true, at least in part. People are dejected and feel that they have little control over their lives, so they cling to a few rights that they absolutely do have very strongly; religion, guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #75)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:43 PM

120. Go natural, avoid the nasty chemicals and the industrialized drugs...

Coca tea, not cocaine or meth.

Poppy concoctions, not heroin or Oxycodone or Vicodin.

Marijuana, not all those pharmaceuticals.

Smoked tobacco, not some weird industrialized nico-heroin powder. (What we do to opium poppy and coca.)

Mushrooms, not Lysergic Acid Diethylamide

__________

Would meth user still use meth if they had decent substitutes? I knew a Belgian drug activist meth user who switched over to prescribed oral amphetamines under a doctor's care and seemed to maintain for a long time. I've also heard of studies where they are trying Adderall (or is it Ritalin?) in a sort of amphetamine maintenance therapy approach to meth users, but I don't know how they've turned out or if they've even concluded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #120)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:24 PM

122. It's not just the end product that will involve harsh chemicals.

Do you really think marijuana, coca, and poppies aren't being grown with chemical fertilizers and pesticides? Unless you grew it and processed it yourself, count on those things being in/on there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:15 PM

57. So you think having a medical condition is comparable to

owning a weapon, the express purpose of which is to injure or kill?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #57)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:56 PM

127. The express purpose of having a handgun in one's home

is to defend one's household, if need be.

It's all about which irrational fears a person has.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #127)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:00 AM

137. The express purpose is to injure or kill.

Is a person going to whack an intruder on the head with their gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #137)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 07:08 PM

144. No, they're going to do whatever it takes to stop an intruder, of course

That's the point of having an effective weapon, rather than just a bludgeon. You have to be able to have some certainty that the weapon is going to do it's job the first time you use it, the consequences of failure are monumental.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #127)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:33 AM

149. I'm new to this topic - what is ADT for...?



What about having ADT protect the homes?

I'm just getting the visual of someome breaking into a house at 2 am. The owner is half asleep.
Owner gets gun and listens for footsteps. Get's out of the bed with gun grabs it and finds it's his teenager slipping in the house from a secret Date Night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to customerserviceguy (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:57 PM

132. I can't control my health.

I CAN control my decision to own/house a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #132)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:06 PM

133. And you can't control

the evil assholes who want to break into your home, especially in a bad neighborhood, but you can decide to protect yourself if they come charging in.

Fearing the law-abiding citizen in NY who had to jump through a hundred hoops to get a pistol permit is just as irrational as fearing the neighbor who has HIV. Neither one makes any sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 06:53 PM

18. Isn't that just a msm variation of the cartoon below?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:16 PM

21. A sign like that is an invitation to crooks as where to steal guns.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:22 PM

22. Absolutely. Some years ago a criminal gang was discovered that used NSSA's annual report on

 

competitor ranking to target homes for burglary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #21)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:25 PM

30. Yep. And a once legally owned gun falls in the hands of a criminal. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:24 PM

47. How do guns protect you in a house burglary?

Most of them take place when you're not there.

Do the guns get up and shoot the burglars on their own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:40 PM

53. "guns get up and shoot the burglars"? Obviously NO, guns don't get up and commit a crime.

 

Thanks for recognizing guns don't commit crimes and mass-murders, people do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #53)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:55 AM

103. Guns facilitate aggression much more readily than protection

If guns are going to be much protection, the user has to be continually on the alert and armed, like a soldier or police officer. They're no good if you're not there or if you're asleep. More and more, it seems as if we're being told that we should live like that, like we're in a war zone all the time, and that this is real FREEDOM as defined by the 2nd Amendment.

If you want to go on a rampage, however, you choose your own time and go get your guns. And the more gunpower you have, the easier it is to kills lots of people, very fast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #103)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:46 PM

107. IMO traditional crimes including that with firearms are committed by people who are different than

 

those who commit mass-murder.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/117296269

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jody (Reply #18)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:07 PM

139. Post addresses

of the journalists with names and an indication of Lack of gun ownership..turn the tables. Look, gun ownership is not a crime. Next the idiots from Kansas will post your name and address and tell people that you don't go to church.
"For evil to flourish, all that is needed is for good
people to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
- Al Capone (1899-1947)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rebuke (Reply #139)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:19 AM

145. Apparently, it's already being done

the names, addresses, work phone & fax #s, work e-mail addresses, facebook pages, pics of the cars they drive - the publisher, editors, the name of the journalist, publishing the fact that he lives in NYC, has a residential pistol permit and identifying it's make, model, and caliber. And listing the full names of a large number of the staff, and their work e-mail addresses.

It's getting ugly, and this:
[link:http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood|is going to make it uglier. I can only pray that this only devolves into noise and finger pointing, but I am deeply concerned that something bad is going to result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 07:02 PM

19. If the state of Wisconsin can publish the name of

Every person who signed the recall petition against Walker, this seems completely okay with me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AllyCat (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:21 PM

27. Do you agree with what Wisconsin did?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #27)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:34 AM

84. Someone who holds a license for ANYTHING is subject to FOI requests.

Someone can request my professional license because it is public record. They can request my driving record, my license plate for the auto, and whether or not a I voted or signed a recall petition against out moron Governor. It seems only fair that it should have to be a specific request, but since that doesn't seem to actually matter anymore to anyone, might as well publish names of the people who have guns to kill people so I can be sure to protect myself as best I can against their arsenals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:04 PM

25. I don't like this

I do not understand the purpose if they legally own the guns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:22 PM

29. The people cheering this,

Are some pretty sick RW fascists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:26 PM

31. reminds me of the things the anti-choice folk want to do to women

to prevent them doing something that is....legal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:30 PM

33. No surprise, its the same self-righteous zealotry. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #33)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:23 AM

150. "Self-righteous zealotry" - yes, today's DU.

We have become populated with a surplus of self-righteous zealots here and it's getting old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #29)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:53 AM

102. A Chinese co-worker once told me something quite profound about life in an authoritarian state

 

He said "A left jackboot up your ass feels no better than a right jackboot up your ass."

He's a pretty smart young man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:08 PM

38. You wouldn't want to know if your neighbours owned killing devices?

Would it make you uncomfortable if your neighbour owned a private gas chamber, electric chair, or table with straps along with the rest of the equipment to cause lethal injections?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:11 PM

40. I LIVE IN TEXAS

I *KNOW* MY NEIGHBORS OWN KILLING DEVICES

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:14 PM

42. ... and? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:16 PM

43. they LEGALLY have guns

I despise gun nuts like any normal, thinking person does and I believe America's sick gun culture needs some fixing but this kind of tactic is DANGEROUS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:22 PM

45. Why is it dangerous?

This is not actually dangerous in the same way that having guns is dangerous. If owning guns came to make it hard to get insurance, change property values, and have other negative effects on the owners lives in such trite ways compared to how their guns may actually take lives, maybe we could have a change. Gun control won't be the answer. Removing the desire to own killing devices may. I think anyone should be allowed to own a gun. I also think they should be ostracized for doing so. If this starts that process, I think it's for the best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:24 PM

46. sorry, no

there are ways to accomplish such ostracizing without resorting to rightwing fascist tactics

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skittles (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:27 PM

48. How is this a "rightwing fascist tactic"?

All of this was publicly available information. I think even more of it should be available. I think people should know if their lives are in danger due to their proximity to killing machines. Guns are ACTUAL danger. Some other feared danger pales in comparison to this real and present danger in our lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:34 PM

60. It was invented by the anti-abortion and anti-gay facist zealots.

And apparently warmly embraced by many on DU. Hell, DU doesn't even allow the posting of personal information...how can DU endorse a media oitlet doing it? Hypocrisy? Selective morality?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:41 PM

61. DU doesn't allow the posting of certain personal information, but DU isn't a newspaper.

I really don't think these things you're describing are equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #38)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:47 AM

72. Are those things licensed and legal for private citizens to own?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #72)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:08 AM

76. I think so.

I don't know for sure. Either way, it's irrelevant to my question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #76)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:33 AM

83. Actually it is.

I would suspect they are NOT legal and that is highly relevant, when compared to an item that can be used for killing, but is owned in a licensed, lawful manner by a law abiding owner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #83)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:40 AM

86. Please do explain the relevance.

I'm fairly certain I could build my own electric chair, and I don't know what would be illegal about it. The exact chemicals used in gas chambers and for lethal injections may be illegal to posses, but I'm sure there are legal workarounds which would enable me to have functioning versions.

However, my question had nothing to do with whether or not something is legal. That's my entire argument. Would you want to know if the people living around you own devices designed to kill human beings? Would knowing that people near your have killing machines in their homes make you feel differently about them, where you live, and your safety?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #86)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:57 AM

88. I feel differently about a person who

Has registered, licensed, passed a background check, and is legally clear in owning a firearm. A firearm is not a dangerous thing in my assessment, in the hands of a law abiding citizen.

There are certainly some who STOP being law abiding citizens, every year, but they are the vast minority of firearm owners.

On the other side, a person with no clear background check, constructing machines like what you describe? Highly irregular and suspicious.

My objection to 'outing' these people has nothing to do with the possession of the devices. Someone can say 'hey, I own a gun, and have a CPL'. That is fine to say in public. Not a problem. I doubt you could say the same of "I built a working and armed gas chamber in my basement".

My objection is around outing people who have done nothing wrong, and nothing suspicious for no purpose. Doing so can have two negative consequences: 1. Outing people who had a valid reason to be anonymous, like an abused spouse that was living anonymously, but didn't have sufficient evidence to have the abuser thrown in jail forever. If that person owned a firearm for self defense, their location (being honestly registered as a law abiding citizen) is now available to the abuser. And then there is the theft issue. Security through obscurity is one layer of, I hope many layers of protection for firearms that aren't carried 24x7 by the owners, when they are away. But it's a good start. That has been taken away, without prior informed consent of the owners that these lists would be published.

OTHERWISE, I have no problems with the publication of the list.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #88)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:07 AM

90. I don't see the difference.

Handguns, like gas chambers, are made for killing people. I can't imagine why anyone would want to own either one of them.

The idea that guns are owned for self-defense is a canard. How many people actually use guns for self defense compared to violent crime? It's a pittance. Of course most guns are simply owned and never used as intended, which is pretty great, but that they're owned at all is disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #90)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:39 AM

105. The US Department of Justice pins the number of lawful defensive gun uses

in this country anywhere from 60,000 to 100,000 every year. (there is considerable variance year over year.)

That involves about 1,000 excusable or justifiable homicides per year, depending on how the states classify it. (that number as low as 400 for a year in the last 3 decades)
The vast majority don't involve discharging the firearm at all. The mere presence of the firearm can have a 'discouraging' effect.

(This stands in contrast to Kleck's study that put the number at a ridiculous 2.5 million per year. I trust the Department of Justice, not Kleck.)

I don't mind the firearms. I'm more disturbed by the number of people that ridicule the Non-Aggression principle, or hell... Did you watch the RNC primary debates? Room full of people booed the 'golden rule'. THAT shit scares me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:22 PM

28. I'm

not comfortable with this type of info given to the general public. I don't 'feel' this is right. If criminals could be outed like this, which of course they can't, I would be okay with that. But law abiding citizens should not have this info put out, because someone will try to rob them and if successful, another stolen weapon, in the wrong hands, will be on the streets. Not good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to heaven05 (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:28 PM

32. And why the finger pointing if they have not done anything illegal?

This is a RW-type tactic. We should not be endorsing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:37 PM

34. I wonder how many of the permit holders...

...are retired FBI, DEA, and Judges whose lives may now be in danger? You people cheering this are some serious sickos...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:12 PM

41. Someone who wants to be knowledgable about their personal safety?

Handguns are made for killing people. When used properly, that is what they do. Would you want to know if your neighbours had bombs in their homes? The closer you are to a killing device, the more your life is in danger. I think it's ok to let people know when their lives are in danger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:36 PM

51. If your neighbor has a registered handgun,

The chances of you being shot by it are very low. If a criminal steals that gun, your chances of being shot by it go up.
Of course, if your neighbor with the registered gun is a woman hiding from an abusive ex, her death warrant was just signed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:39 PM

52. And is my life more in danger if my neigbour doesn't own a killing device at all?

No, I didn't think so. If I had a neighbour who made bombs as a hobby and was really serious about never detonating them, I would still not be comfortable with those bombs lying around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:18 PM

58. How the does that work?

I'm assuming you mean they could be robbed. The only way their lives could be in danger is if they were home when that happened, in which case isn't that what the guns are supposed to be for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 10:28 PM

59. Any ex-con with a grudge now knows where they live.

Current and retired LEO and Judges don't have listed phones or publicize their addresses just for that reason. Now their addresses are handed on a platter to anyone who has an old score to settle.
Same goes for a woman hiding from an abusive ex...now he knows where to find her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #34)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:52 AM

73. Also, people who may have been living in anonymous locations to evade abusive

subjects of restraining orders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:44 PM

54. I can't believe they did that.

They deserve all the criticism coming to them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #54)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:51 PM

55. And all the lawsuits. nt

The self-righteous anti-gun zealots are on the wrong track targeting legal registered gun owners. This will backfire horribly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 09:52 PM

56. Bad idea

I've owned a shotgun for 50 years for bird hunting. This would piss me off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:41 PM

63. What about a domestic violance victim, whom has been hiding from a violent ex???

Who has a gun to protect herself and her kids, NOW, he can find her HOME ADDRESS, ..and know that she is armed..

Could anything BAD happen to her now that her ex has her home address? NO, of course not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:54 PM

66. Exactly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #63)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:16 AM

104. Rebecca Shaeffer was murdered in 1989 by a stalker who got her address from the California DMV

 

Maybe it's time for states to make it a little harder for personal information about citizens to be released wholesale to anyone.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:48 PM

64. Good plan.

We should marshal as much opposition as humanly possible to any kind of gun control before we start pushing for it. It's bound to help.

We can kiss any kind of list or registry, which is badly needed, goodbye now. When we demand one all the nuts will have to do is point to this incident for exactly why there shouldn't be one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 25, 2012, 11:59 PM

67. Yep. This is the anti's "legitimate rape" moment...

that will kill any effective legislation that might have passed. 'effin dumb-asses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #67)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 12:45 AM

71. Posts like this..

Show just how out of touch, and extreme the gun control movement really is... They have no problem "outing" a Woman hiding from a violent ex, simply because she dares to own a gun to protect herself and children from the ex.

They are so blind to the dogma of Gun Control, they cannot see the effects of their actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #71)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:44 AM

87. That's a red herring of an argument if I've ever seen one.

The solution to the danger of violence is not to plan a murder.

If someone assaulted me, should I get a gun and plan to murder them if they try to assault me again, or should I go to the police? If the police won't help, is murder the answer? No? It's ok for women in certain situations though?

What about bars on the windows and better locks on the doors? Oh, hell, that's too hard - just plan a murder... much easier than actual security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:11 AM

92. Thats you, many folks, realize that the cops tend to only take reports...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #87)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:52 AM

94. Unless you're closely related to

the mayor or governor, you're not going to get round the clock protection.

They aren't planning a murder, they're planning to defend themselves. Bars on the windows will slow someone down for all of about thirty seconds if they have a crowbar or demo bar, and you can't escape through barred windows. You can reinforce the window frames so that the bars can't be easily pried out, but it costs way more than a woman running from a bad relationship is likely to have. It also decreases your chance of escaping a fire. Better locks on doors are a good idea regardless, but they aren't going to stop someone that's sufficiently determined to get in.

The false dichotomy that there are only two options (Not being allowed to defend yourself at all because if you do it's murder or a gun in every hand) is one of the things that has kept us from useful gun control legislation for so long. FWIW 1/3rd of female murder victims 12 or older are killed by an intimate partner, so this isn't some Rambo taking down a gunman fantasy: Women are killed by their exes every day.

That said I've always recommended pepper spray over a gun. Allegedly 10% of the population is immune to pepper spray, but I've yet to meet anyone that's met anyone that was part of that 10%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #94)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:48 AM

95. How many women killed by their partners are shot?

I imagine it's a far higher number than abused women who "defend" themselves with guns. Guns are made for killing people. They aren't made for deterring attack or slowing down attackers. As you say, there are other things which can be used for that. If this hypothetical super-determined attacker is so determined to cause harm, why wouldn't they have a gun themselves? The solution to violence is not more violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #95)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 09:37 AM

99. So your stance is

that a person doesn't have a right to defend themselves?

What if someone breaks into a house, attacks the occupants and gets stabbed? Do you consider that murder too?

Edited to add: There are other options in some places. Tasers and pepper spray aren't legal everywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JoeyT (Reply #99)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:15 PM

109. My stance is that "guns!" isn't the answer to every question.

The truth is, there are very few - if any - possible scenarios where having a gun would ever make someone more safe than having that same gun would put their lives in danger. Trying to concoct them to justify having guns for other reasons isn't going to win me over. If people could examine themselves and figure out the real reason they covet a personal killing device and explain that to me, I'd be more willing to discuss it seriously.

In your hypothetical scenario, is the person stabbed with a special knife that was designed, manufactured, and purchased for the sole purpose of killing human beings with no other possible use? I doubt it, because I don't think such a thing exists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 03:40 PM

112. There are a few knives

that are marketed that way, and are absolutely useless for anything else. Truth be told, they're not actually very good for self defense either. They're usually hooked and serrated, which makes them scary looking and much more likely to hang up in clothes, and utterly useless if you're being attacked by more than one person.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA06L04V8945
or


They're usually marketed in the same places gun accessories are, and to the same crowd.

Edited to add: Completely forgot butterfly knives and switchblades. Two more knives that are useless for anything else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #109)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:07 PM

113. The sole purpose a gun has is to kill human beings?...

 

Huh.

I imagine that will come a shock to target range owners and biathloners everywhere.

Good on you for your hard work and dedication to educating the masses and keepin' it real !!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OneMoreDemocrat (Reply #113)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 04:50 PM

114. Yes, that is the purpose.

The fact that people use them for target shooting is beside the point. They are designed to kill people, and they're good at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:12 AM

79. How will publicly publishing legal gun owners' info deter crime?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 01:31 AM

81. Excerpt from the print article in question...

http://www.lohud.com/article/20121224/NEWS04/312240045/

In May, Richard V. Wilson approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head, a crime that stunned their quiet Katonah neighborhood.

What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition without any neighbors knowing.


In the wake of the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and amid renewed nationwide calls for stronger gun control, some Lower Hudson Valley residents would like lawmakers to expand the amount of information the public can find out about gun owners. About 44,000 people in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam one out of every 23 adults are licensed to own a handgun.


So snitching on your neighbors=the new solution against gun violence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 02:48 AM

93. The main database is maintained by the NY State Poilce since 1936...

you could FOIL the info for any location. Its considered public information and records created by the Family Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 08:19 AM

97. And if one is in hiding from an abuser

Having been very careful to live off the information grid as much as possible, and having been granted a CCW and a pistol permit by the courts and other authorities, who deemed you needed one for protection, guess what? Your abuser now knows exactly where you live. Where your kids live. Ask how many dead women there are who had restraining orders. Who called the cops. They live as anonymously as possible for a reason.

Retired LEO or Judge who also lives as much as possible off the "info grid," also for safety reasons? Same thing.

This is why many states do not allow DL info to be given out, unless via a court order. The same should hold true here. Especially in a state like NY, where legally being allowed to own a handgun is really, really difficult.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:08 AM

100. Totally counter productive

Besides the privacy issues (which dont' go away fro me even when the person is someone I may disagree with) there is another problem

It just feeds into the gun nut paranoia that makes them believe they are being persecuted. Bet you money now this story will trotted out over and over by the anti gun regulation people to "prove" that there's a movement to put gun owners in camps.

If you wanted to make the gun nuts less nuts, this will NOT have that effect

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:48 AM

101. Here is a sample of the kinds of public information about author Dwight R. Worley that ANYONE...

 

...can get online quite easily.

I know for a fact that if someone posted ANY of the following information, most of the people on this forum who are cheering the wholesale publication of names and addresses of gun permit holders would go ape shit and scream bloody murder about violations of Dwight R. Worley's privacy.

In case some nitwit alerts this reply, jurors please note that the following text is metadata, i.e. data about the data, not the actual data:

Home address
Vesting, i.e. who owns the property
Date the home was purchased
Sales price of the home
Name(s) and addresse(s) of the seller(s)
Loan amounts and lenders
Property tax amount
Property tax status
Assessed value
Assessor's parcel number
Parcel map
Year built
Effective year built
Size of the lot
Size(s) of structure(s)

The Terms of Service of this site pretty clearly prohibit posting of personal information that can be tied to any individual. But for some odd reason posts like the OP, which link to information that itself would not be permitted in a post or reply on DU, are tolerated and even celebrated by the most authoritarian factions of the community here. It's the group hypocrisy of an angry mob.

And now a historical note: California Actress Rebecca Shaeffer was murdered on July 18, 1989 at the age of 21. Her murderer, Robert John Bardo, had been stalking Ms. Shaeffer for three years, was able to locate her apartment by paying the Department of Motor Vehicles a small fee for a printout of her vehicle registration information, which included her physical home address.

The state legislature dragged its feet for several years, but finally passed the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which prohibits disclosure of sensitive personal information by the DMV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

Maybe it's time for other states to enact similar protections for their citizens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 05:08 PM

115. reprehensible invasion of privacy and the cheerleaders should be ashamed of themselves

 

but I suppose that zealots fed on a steady diet of hysteria feel no shame, so I'm wasting my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:17 PM

118. I am surprised so many DUers are in support of this!

The newspaper made a very poor decision. We need more gun control, not reckless tactics like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quantess (Reply #118)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:26 PM

123. I'd flip that on its head.

We need less gun control, and more awareness like this about the place guns are in our communities.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:23 PM

119. A Constitutional Right does not require permission to exercise

That's the reason it's there - and it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as an individual right. Courts will eventually have to make better definitions

I think people will go along with a background check, but that is different from registration and the DB itself is probably unconstitutional.

I know I'll get flamed for exercising my Constitutional right to air my support for the entire Constitution as written and interpreted. I support the privacy decision in Roe and wish that the anti-gun crowd would quit behaving like the anti-choice crowd is behaving.

Quit going after gun owners - you want to change the Constitution, there's a process, and it's not to lash out and blame everyone who owns a gun. And it's not to do a bunch of backdoor attempts that will easily be seen to be infringement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #119)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 07:27 PM

124. What about voting?

That's a right. While it's a right, we still register to vote. I don't see that as an infringement on my rights. How does having to register a gun take away your right to possess it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #124)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:44 PM

131. Good Analogy - What if they recorded your vote for public disclosure (the gun) in a database?

So it is one thing to "register" to vote, although a "background check" would accomplish the same thing which is to show that you are of legal age and residency, not lost through criminal conviction or other legal reason. In other words, once we determine that you meet the qualifications under the Constitution you may vote. Since we don't seem to be able to use the background check idea for voting, they came up with registration.

-- But should it be publicly available information whether you voted? What about exactly HOW you voted on each candidate/issue?

The Background check is the "qualifier" that says this person qualifies under the Constitution to exercise the right of gun ownership. Once the dealer has that assurance, he is free to make the sale. You could have people get a "registration" card that says they meet those requirements and may - if they so choose - purchase guns. You could add a code to driver's licenses for that.

Of course, seems to me a driver's license could also do all the things a voter registration card does, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #131)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 11:49 PM

135. Whether or not you voted already is part of the public record.

Sorry to burst your bubble. It's not the same as a driver's license, because that's not a right we all have. Besides, a resident may be able to get a driver's license, but they may not be a citizen eligible to vote. As far as background checks to vote, they're basically already there. While I think it's unconstitutional, in some places convicted felons cannot vote.

I honestly cannot understand why you would be against having every gun that is sold registered to the owner. I see zero downsides to that, except for criminals. Remember, unless a gun was more-or-less home made, it was legal up until the point it was sold or stolen from a store (I don't think a lot of guns get stolen from shops). All guns used in crimes were once legal guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harmonicon (Reply #135)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 08:27 AM

138. But not HOW - that's the analogy

Guns can be catalogued for insurance and theft purposes without a public record of each purchasing decision being made. The government shouldn't be the agent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #138)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 04:30 PM

143. Well, no one is doing it now, are they?

Every time a gun is used in a crime, someone put it into the hands of that criminal. What downside is there to finding out how they got it? Why can't we very simply trace the chain of ownership of that gun from the manufacturer on down? Someone fucked up along the way.

What could be a single possible reason be for not wanting the government to keep track of this record? (spare me the Red Dawn fantasies - I mean real reasons)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Wed Dec 26, 2012, 06:55 PM

121. Second Amendment, meet FIRST!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 01:15 PM

140. May as well publish names & addresses of all receiving food-stamps and other welfare. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:14 PM

141. My local paper in Pennsylvania did this more than 20 years ago.

Caused the same kind of stink.

Nothing new under the sun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Thu Dec 27, 2012, 03:10 PM

142. The newspaper simply collated publicly available information...

The newspaper simply collated publicly available information, yes? I'm afraid I simply do not see the invasion of privacy so righteously and melodramatically shouted from the metaphorical mountaintops...

Unless we want to restrict the first amendment to better accommodate the sacred cows of the second...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 03:50 AM

146. I have no problem with this whatsoever

Owning a gun requires a permit, meaning that ownership is a matter of public record. Having a driver's license is a matter of public record as well. The paper used freedom of information laws and lawfully received information anyone else can get a hold of. This type of information is important in the gun control debate and the press should be reporting on the gun ownership of politicians, lobbyists and other influential voices but John and Jane Q. Public aren't exempt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #146)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 08:56 AM

147. Do you have a problem with the response?

privacy rights activists accessing public records and information anyone else can get a hold of have now published a similar map of the publisher, editors, and journalists at the Journal News.
http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood

Myself, I think that the actions of both the paper and the activists are irresponsible and potentially dangerous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to S_B_Jackson (Reply #147)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:03 PM

153. Not at all. This is all public information.

Publishing this information may or may not be useful but there is nothing inherently wrong in it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #146)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 11:25 AM

151. Have you ever heard of Rebecca Shaeffer?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #151)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:01 PM

152. Indeed and Jodi Foster was stalked at her college campus

Anyone who really wants to find me, or anyone else, can easily do so. Are you suggesting that FOI laws should be changed so that there isn't equal access to them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #152)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 12:12 PM

154. I'm saying that gun permits and registration are bad ideas.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Fri Dec 28, 2012, 09:04 AM

148. How come they didn't post a list of people with illegal guns?

 

What are they hiding?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread