Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses

[proud2BlibKansan]

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.

more . . . http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/newspaper-publishes-gun-owners-names-and-addresses/

[slackmaster]

1. That provides one of the strongest arguments against gun registration

Here in California all motor vehicles are registered, but you need a court order to get even one record other than your own. The same is true of handguns here. Any kind of registration needs to be protected from malicious publication.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Almost everything is public information nowadays.

Not sure I agree with this or not.

[slackmaster]

3. Public doesn't necessarily mean freely available to anyone who wants it for any reason at any time

Nor should it always mean that.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Public employees salaries are public info. Newspapers started publishing them a couple years ago.

Mine was wrong. And it was creepy knowing it was out there for anyone to look up. Knowing it was grossly inflated made it worse.

But that's a media issue more than anything else. Like I said, I don't know how I feel about gun owners info being published. I can relate to how some of the gun owners must feel.

[littlemissmartypants]

18. So does that mean the place you worked for was inflating it for book keeping reasons or did the

outlet that published it just get it wrong? Transparency can lead to accountability in some cases. Keeping us honest is a good thing, IMHO.

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. I have no idea.

It just seems that inaccurate transparency isn't very helpful.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. What you are seeing though

Is truly the end of privacy.

I understand how much it bothers gun owners, or teachers...and it should. But I fear privacy is truly at an end.

[littlemissmartypants]

104. Yes and it ended with

www.

[Jamastiene]

254. That "slippery slope" some of us talked about when the Patriot Act

passed has now slipped even further. I share that same fear about privacy.

[RC]

89. Probably the gross, before the S/S, taxes, Medicare, insurance, retirement, etc., were taken out.

[proud2BlibKansan]

107. More like the gross plus 50%

They had principals making more than the superintendent. LOL

[littlemissmartypants]

111. So they exposed themselves as

mathematical idiots add to the list of what is wrong with:
1) using spell check instead of proof reading and
2) financial management in the schools.

[proud2BlibKansan]

113. Yep but we don't know who screwed up.

Was it the district or the state - state compiled the data and posted it online. Media provided the link.

[bobclark86]

125. If it's like NY, they're not idiots.

The figures put out by the comptroller's office include the health and retirement benefits the district taxpayers fund for you. You might not see it in your paycheck, but it comes from the taxpayers.

[proud2BlibKansan]

177. I'm familiar with those figures.

We have to report salary info to the Feds and when we write grants. And we have to add fringes to that figure.

The info linked in the media showed higher salaries than those figures.

[WCGreen]

169. Old information....

[Jenoch]

234. The reported number probably

included all of the benefits and other costs associated to your employment.

[Jamastiene]

253. Not to mention the criminal aspect of it.

All a criminal who has been denied a gun legally has to do is save that paper as a "shopping mall map" of sorts and get to the legal gun owners' guns when they are away. I think it is a bad idea for that reason alone, not to mention the creepy aspect of it too.

Back in the early 1990s, our local newspaper (we have only one) published the names of everyone who was HIV+. I was the only one to complain and was met with tons of vehement anti-gay arguments locally when I said something. They still swear up and down the only way to contract HIV is being gay here. It's such a backwards town.

They would never post the names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun here in town though. The paper is not that large and they would have to just add a phone book with a few names crossed out (of those who do NOT own guns) here.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually...sadly

It does.

You can find just about anything in public records.

[slackmaster]

11. Go to the California DMV and ask for your next-door neighbor's vehicle registrations

They won't give you that information.

OTOH you can certainly go to the Assessor/Recorder's Web site and order a copy of the current deed to any piece of property in the county.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Oh if a paper wanted to run a similar list

There are ways.

I can see our local fish wrap doing it to be exact.

[slackmaster]

33. It would be a major scandal if a newspaper published a DMV registration list here, I believe.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. And Doug Manchester would care?

If he could get a benefit he would.

Regardless, the gun registry is not dmv, and yes, it is a public record

Mind you there are good reasons for this info...such as social science research, and even investigative reporting. Raw data, not so much.

[slackmaster]

52. I agree, and I am quite sure the motivation of the publisher of the newspaper who published gun...

...registry information was thinking only of profit as well. Certainly not public safety.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. If Manchester can increase the ever diving

Circulation of the Union Trib, formerly a decent paper...

[slackmaster]

59. Circulation spiraling down, paper getting noticeably thinner by the month

Once you throw out the ads.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. Hey, it is a dying paper

So look at it from his point of view.

I don't expect the la times to do it...get the list, yes of course, publish it not. They still have an investigations desk. So relevant to a story, of course.

Manchester, on the other hand, lacks a research desk...and if it increases sales....of course.

And he does it, I admit, will buy a copy and file it for actual research. He paid the fees, so I don't have to

[dsc]

272. that is because of the young actress who was killed

Rebecca Schaffer I think. Her info was given to her killer who had run her plate and paid like 5 bucks. California stopped that practice after her death.

[obamanut2012]

141. It would be illegal here

[proud2BlibKansan]

108. Fred Phelps has some kind of connection that gets him DMV records.

He's famous for it. If you drive by a Westboro protest and yell at them or flip them off you can expect hate mail and nasty phone calls in a few days. He's been doing that for years.

[slackmaster]

114. He's a great example of a fucked up person who does fucked up things for attention

[obamanut2012]

140. It's also the same here

I think the CA law started because of Rebecca Schaeffer's murder.

[slackmaster]

147. DING! I believe you are correct.

There are good reasons for having some layers of protection around some kinds of public record data.

[dixiegrrrrl]

145. "vehicle registrations"

but DMV will cheerfully SELL the list of registrations to marketers.
As will anyone who has a list of customer information.

And exactly how did the newspaper get the gun registration info?

[nadinbrzezinski]

148. Simple

A public records request. The same way we get most crap that people think it's illegal or does not exist.

[LooseWilly]

17. Actually... yes- it does mean exactly that.

Public information means it is... stay with me now... available to the public.

Please consult a dictionary if you have any problems with the details of word meanings.

If a piece of information is public than anyone, you or I or your mother, can make a records request with the appropriate office/agency and they are legally required to respond within a reasonable period of time. Delaying as a means of avoiding responding is illegal... as is just plain not responding.

There is usually a politician around somewhere who will frown on such bureaucratic measures and lean on a public agency when they try to stall/ignore such requests. Get to know your local power structure if you need to find him/her.


If you want to argue that some information (or maybe all information?) should not be "public information"... then that's a different discussion. You can't just try to assert, however, that public only applies to information that you want disseminated... well, you can't assert that if you want your assertion to be taken seriously.

[slackmaster]

20. The legal term "public record" means accessible to scrutiny by the public

It does not mean that the process of accessing the data isn't subject to some kind of controls.

Try to get the sales price of someone's private home in Texas, or the vehicle registration data of a car owner in California. There are processes by which you can get them, but you can't just download them or walk in to an office and get a printout.

The San Diego County Superior Court allows anyone to examine and take copies of trial records. But you have to do it in person, and you have to pay for hard copies.

[Robb]

36. Do you own a set of encyclopedias?

Once upon a time, it was the only way to find the capital of Mali.

[slackmaster]

43. Do you know anyone who has ever filed for bankruptcy protection, or been tried for a federal crime?

You can download the case files directly from the federal court system.

http://www.pacer.gov/

But you have to register as a user of the system, all of your searches and downloads are logged, and you have to pay for copies if you download more than a certain amount per quarter.

Public record data, subject to scrutiny by anyone, but not available for mass access. Please also note that the terms and conditions of the site place limits on what you can do with the information.

[Robb]

194. Gatekeepers. Like, for example, *newspapers*.

The phrase "...according to court documents" ring a bell? When reporters use pacer, that's how you attribute it.

Limits? What exactly do you think I can't do with a document downloaded from pacer?

[LooseWilly]

44. Vehicle registration information is not public record. Deed titles are.

The sales prices of a home (or rather the last recorded sales price) is not only available from the county assessor's office, you can often get it from private real estate companies, like redfin.com... and that is because... yes- it is public record and that's why the real estate companies have access to it.

I know there are processes... and the details are often referred to under the umbrella-term of "public records request". Once someone gets that information, however, they can do with it as they like because... it is public information and therefore not subject to any privacy strictures/controls. Thus they can, if they'd like, print it in a newspaper... or, they can hire a plane and display it in a skybanner if they'd like.

The question isn't, as I understood it, which office was waited in in order to make the request, nor which city or county clerk collected the information... but whether or not the information ought to be published- yes?

If it is public record... it can be published freely.

[slackmaster]

47. In most states, home sales prices are public record. A few states including Texas are called...

..."non-disclosure" states because sales prices have some degree of confidentiality.

However, in Texas you can obtain the property tax amount and rate for a parcel easily.

Once someone gets that information, however, they can do with it as they like because... it is public information and therefore not subject to any privacy strictures/controls. Thus they can, if they'd like, print it in a newspaper... or, they can hire a plane and display it in a skybanner if they'd like.

Ability to do something legally doesn't always mean that doing it is morally right.

[LooseWilly]

67. Morally Right?

Do you mean "Ok with Me"?

I try to avoid any truck with "morals" because they tend to be self-serving whenever they come up.

In other words... yes, I would argue that the ability to do something legally Does mean that doing it is "morally right"... the only gray area being in the realm of financial shenanigans such as predatory loans and foreclosures based upon rights created by forged "robo-signed" documents... you know, things that are only legal because no law maker had thought to prohibit it.

I do not, however, argue the converse. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it "morally wrong", in my judgement.

As for publishing lists of gun owners, specifically, I have no complaint or qualm.

[primavera]

149. Boy, this is a tough one

I see your point, slackmaster, about the need to protect privacy. At the same time, I kind of think that transparency is an essential first step towards accountability, something we need a whole lot more of, imho. For instance, I really think we should be able to see old Mitwit's tax returns. If he's bankrupting companies, looting their corpses, and squirreling away the booty in the Cayman Islands so he doesn't even have to pay taxes on his pillaging activities, I think the public should know that. How else can we begin to remedy the flaws in our culture if no one knows anything about those flaws? I'm also not sure how sacred a right privacy is vis a vis elective activities voluntarily undertaken by a citizen. Buying a house, driving a car, purchasing a gun, are all activities that one voluntarily undertakes that have potential public impact. If I open up a paper plant next to your house, the noxious smell that my facility produces is going to have an impact upon you and your property values. Such a decision should be open to public scrutiny, wouldn't you agree? If I make the voluntary decision to operate a vehicle capable of causing great harm to others if I mishandle it, is that still a private matter? It's not a thing integral to me, such as skin color or gender or sexual orientation. Does that even make a difference? Hmmm, I don't know, but it seems pertinent for some reason to me. On the flip side, I'm tempted to borrow an argument from con law, to the effect that, although the state may overrule certain basic constitutional rights and/or freedoms, there has to be a compelling interest to justify doing so. The harm in allowing public scrutiny of publicly-issued gun permits may not be great, but, even if it's a minor harm, is there any benefit to be had from doing so? Again, I don't really know. If there was evidence to suggest that disclosure of public gun permits would encourage gun owner responsibility and safety, then I could see overriding whatever right to privacy a gun owner has when s/he applies for a public gun permit. Without such evidence, though... what would the benefit be?

[HooptieWagon]

200. A publc figure has a lower expectation of privacy, accorting to the courts.

Which seems reasonable to me. In this case, it seems an invasion of privacy of private citizens. The gun-banners cheering this might be singing a different tune if records of theirs were made public...health, school, vehicle ownership, tax returns, etc. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[Mojorabbit]

285. Yes, major hypocrisy.

I am amazed that good liberal Dems would think this is ok. It is a major violation of privacy and is a goldmine of info for thieves. .

[HooptieWagon]

305. Also for stalkers...

if any of the names and addresses was someone living anonomously for protection.

[samsingh]

210. what's there too hide

[HooptieWagon]

307. This:

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

Her killer got her address from DMV records.

[samsingh]

314. i was heartbroken about this - are DMV records still openly available?

[HooptieWagon]

316. Not anymore in Cali.

Should be the case everywhere. If you had a violent or abusive ex, you wouldn't want him to be able to look up your current residence in public records...or to read it in the newspaper.

[samsingh]

318. agreed

i still mourn Rebecca. It was a tragedy. I don't think Pam Dawber has ever been the same.

[RomneyLies]

280. It provides an incredibly STRONG argument IN FAVOR of registering ALL GUNS, IMO

I';d like to know if somebody owns a gun or not before I ever have any dealings with them. My preference would be to never know or speak to a gun owner.

[Chorophyll]

4. Sweet. I found my own neighborhood on the map.

Now I know who to stay the fuck away from. Works for me.

[slackmaster]

6. The burglars now know where to look for guns. Rapists and home-invasion robbers also benefit...

...because a comprehensive list of who DOES have guns is also a list of everyone who does NOT have guns.

[Hoyt]

14. Of course you assume guns are the only deterent and that without a gun you will be victim.

Just not true. But, hey, why ruin a good paranoid delusion to rationalize one's love of guns.

[Hoyt]

39. Slackmaster, why don't you quit obsessing over being a victim. Crackheads aren't going to check

the gun list. You can quit sleeping with one eye open. Make it a New Years resolution. Merry Christmas.

[slackmaster]

45. Ha ha! Made you think.

I hope you have a great holiday even if it involves a little self-reflection.

[shadowrider]

48. It might just be me

but I don't believe he answered your question.

[slackmaster]

55. No, he didn't answer it at all.

He ducked it.

[proud2BlibKansan]

80. Hey did you check out that map?

No registered guns in Newtown. So Adam Lanza's mom didn't register her weapons?

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

[bobclark86]

133. Those are NYS pistol permits only.

You'll notice very few pistol permits outside of NY. Why? NY doesn't just hand them out like other states (You go in to a Pennsylvania sheriff's office and they'll often hand them out after a 20 minute wait).

Why NY? The state requires all licenses to be public record. Driver's licenses, hairdresser licenses, funeral directing licenses and pistol licenses are all in the same classification. Why mostly downstate and none in most of the rest? Because they only got records from some downstate counties. Upstate would be just as full if they were to get info from the rest of the 62 counties in NY.

BTW, NY does not license long arms, like rifles and shotguns. These are pistols only. Oh, and just the legally-owned ones.

[ywcachieve]

65. Just because a household is not on the list,

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

does not mean they do not have a gun(s). Some people have unregistered guns, unfortunately.

[slackmaster]

97. So the people who do appear on the map aren't really the ones that people should be worried about.

[oldbanjo]

135. This post is a good one to show that no one should register their guns because a list could get out.

Thanks for posting this it will help a lot of gun owners make the decision.

[slackmaster]

157. I'll always comply with the law, but laws are made by people that we elect.

I will not vote for any candidate who supports universal gun registration, nor will I buy any newspaper that publishes peoples' personal information without good reason.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. And I will go out of my way to vote for any candidate with an f or d rating from the NRA

And I support 100% gun registration, period.

[RomneyLies]

282. I will go out of my way to support ANY politician who supports universal gun registration

Especially through donations.

And I APPLAUD any newspaper that publishes a list of registered gun owners.

[Lifelong Protester]

187. Very true.

Around in my neck of the woods (WI), a lot of folks have unregistered guns they inherited from family. So yeah, there are a lot more guns than are registered.

[oldbanjo]

124. Of course you would, the people with guns

are a lot safer than the people without. It's just common sense.

[ET Awful]

129. Of course they are, just ask Nancy Lanza.

Her guns kept her nice and safe. . . . right?

[Shadowflash]

34. Amen!

[oldbanjo]

126. If the bad guy is armed you are a victim....

Common sense again.

[Jamastiene]

256. You don't think criminals are smart enough to take that list, pick a few

people in more remote areas, and watch their habits to see when they are away from home? That is all they would have to do to know which homes have guns that they can steal and use. The criminals can now break in and steal the guns, because they know EXACTLY where they all are. Think about it for a minute. How is that safer?

[Hoyt]

262. Price one has to pay for keeping a weapons cache.

[arely staircase]

275. and that others will pay because more guns are in the hands of criminals

i am for gun control. but what this newspaper did was irresponsible.

[Jamastiene]

288. Exactly.

When that stolen gun is used to shoot a person, the person being shot won't see it as "the price one has to pay." It will be them paying, not the original gun owner. I don't see how that can be good at all.

[Jamastiene]

291. Price the public has to pay for a newspaper

printing a handy burglary shopping map for criminals, who most likely will use the gun on a non gun owner. See how stupid that attitude sounds? You do realize it most likely will not be the gun owner that a criminal uses the gun on, don't you? Are you just THAT stubborn on the issue or what?

[Hoyt]

299. My friend, simply saying that those who unreasonably arm up because they are afraid of crime are

delusional.

I really don't think it is wise to print names of gun owners, although I have no problem printing names of those with multiple "assault" weapons and those that carry in public. I think they are a danger to society.

But, if you are going to choose act like these losers and stand in line to buy an assault weapon one week after Sandy Hook -- I think you ought to have your name plastered everywhere. Thus, you choose to be a gun cultists/abuser -- you pay the price.



Source: http://www.ajc.com/news/news/cobb-gun-show-attracts-scores-looking-for-semi-aut/nTdMm/

[Chorophyll]

15. Yup. I'm extra-scared now. nt

[blueamy66]

57. Yeah, cause everyone who has a gun in their house has registered it.

NOT

[Whovian]

73. Do you even realize you are coming across as really, really paranoid here?

[Chorophyll]

74. Let me just add to my previous comment that I was not surprised IN THE LEAST

to see who the gunowners in my own neighborhood are.

Same people who had Romney lawn signs in November (a rarity here, thankfully) and who tend to express paranoia about the fact that our schools now have a non-white majority.

Consider that, if you will.

[Fresh_Start]

304. I have to agree with you.

I checked my former addresses. Not a lot of handgun owners in my neighborhood. Of course, that doesn't mean people don't have a shotgun in the house for hunting.

[LooseWilly]

5. Brilliant!! Public Information... overload

I wonder if that information is public record in other states, like California... but after seeing right-leaning ("libertarian&quot newspaper editors post the names and salaries of entire districts of college professors/instructors in the midst of public spending debates- I think lists of gun owners in a gun control debate makes perfect sense.

It might be interesting to compare the interactive gun owner maps with the interactive sex offender maps...

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. Yup

The age of privacy is gone.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Our local media put all of our salaries online.

And they were wrong.

So my first thought is don't trust the accuracy of the info.

[LooseWilly]

30. Yeah, organizations like a school district don't want to work any harder than necessary to comply...

so the records they provide will not necessarily be absolutely accurate in every detail.

After all, a school district involves lots of information and moving parts. A city bureaucracy too. And some official has to be tasked with sorting information to find what is covered by the information request (and, depending on the wording of the requestor, that can be open to some "interesting" interpretation). The person assigned to the job won't always be very good at it... since it's not something they, generally, do all the time.

Of course, if the information is public... you can always double check it by making your own public records request ...

[Warren Stupidity]

7. The newspaper is just exercising its first amendment rights

[tularetom]

13. I could show you a dozen houses with signs on the lawn

Reading

"THESE PREMESES PROTECTED BY SMITH & WESSON"

So I'm assuming that there are at least a few gun owners in America who wouldn't object to such disclosure.

[Walk away]

22. Why did this guy just put up a sign that said "I am an asshole with a gun" nt

[renie408]

25. Exactly. Anybody who would put this sign in their yard should add:

"I am a moron who does not understand the danger of owning guns. Don't let your kids come play here and be careful if you visit my house."

[pkdu]

37. Couple of corrections...

"Giant" asshole. And "Guns" , plural. ;O)

[renie408]

23. I would welcome that.

As long as I can put a sign on my front lawn that says "My neighbor is armed. So if you want a gun, that's where to go."

[cantbeserious]

35. Or A Sign That Says - "If You Are A Really Good Criminal, Prove It By Duking It Out With My Neighbor"

eom

[renie408]

224. Why is it that everybody that owns a gun thinks that THEY will be the ones

to defy statistics and defend their home from criminals using their guns??

[renie408]

226. Read this...

And then let's talk about how guns are REALLY used.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

[littlemissmartypants]

49. Seems to me...

[slackmaster]

62. By publishing a map of homes that DO have guns, the paper also published a map of homes that do NOT.

[littlemissmartypants]

66. How do we know they

didn't get one at a gun show? Or steal one themselves?

[proud2BlibKansan]

71. No they didn't

Lots of people have unregistered weapons.

[slackmaster]

91. So the people who do appear on the map aren't really the ones that people should be worried about.

How about that?

[proud2BlibKansan]

99. Not only that but is the map even accurate

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2069702

[slackmaster]

101. I guarantee it is not accurate. All map publishers intentionally "seed" their products with errors.

Maps are intentionally made less than perfectly accurate in order to discourage, and assist in the detection of, unauthorized re-publication by customers.

Every page of a Thomas Brothers map book contains at least one significant inaccuracy. I have spotted several of them.

[GeorgeGist]

295. Confession time ...

You're part Freeper aren't you?

[gulliver]

95. I'd see that sign and be thinking "tick...tick...tick"

We have an armed nut here. Only a matter of time before he is the star on the news.

If they saw this sign, what would his kids think? What would his boss think? What would people in the neighborhood looking to buy a home think?

[Ikonoklast]

324. He might as well put a sign on his lawn that reads

"To All Criminals: Case My House For A Week or Two, Just Wait Until No One Is Home Here, Then Break In And Steal My Guns."

Hope he has a pretty impressive gun safe.


And if you actually believe everything your neighbor tells you, you are a bigger idiot than that sign says you are.

[Walk away]

19. I think it is a great public service.

My family does not allow any of the kids visit or play in homes with guns. This has been our policy for decades. We don't have any problem asking new friends if they keep guns as we believe the children's lives depend upon it.

This way EVERYONE has the choice to keep their children out of home with guns.

Also, since only 20% of gun owners hunt, a large proportion must keep them for "protection". Wouldn't they be more protected if their "attackers" knew they had a gun? Wouldn't they be less likely to be the target of a burglary?

[Shadowflash]

27. Another great reason. Hear, hear!

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. We did the same thing when our kids were young.

We also made sure our kids had gun safety training so they would know what to do if they were at a friend's house and the friend got ahold of Dad's gun.

[Indydem]

38. Does it bother you to be paranoid?

Your kids have a greater probability of dying in a pool than of being shot.

[Walk away]

61. All of our children know how to swim and if they are too young to swim....

they are not allowed to play in houses with pools unless one of us is with them. We are not paranoid. We actually care enough about our children to take the time and effort to protect them.

My best friend's son accidentally shot and killed his classmate on Christmas day ten years ago. His "not paranoid" father had given it to him as a birthday present a few weeks before. When we heard about the gun we decide not to visit Angelica that holiday season. Her son was up in his bedroom showing his friend his fantastic present when he killed a boy who was the light of his family's life. I have written about the incident before. Both of these families were destroyed and are still suffering and will for the rest of their lives.

You keep believing you are so smart and so right. That's your risk to take. Better your family than mine.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. See the story on post 61

Cause that is the reason why.

[Indydem]

92. Alas, the mobile version doesn't show post #

So I will have to look later.

Still paranoia.

[nadinbrzezinski]

98. Read this

In the discussion thread: Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses [View all]
Response to Indydem (Reply #38)Tue Dec 25, 2012, 08:47 AM
Walk away (3,688 posts)
61. All of our children know how to swim and if they are too young to swim....

they are not allowed to play in houses with pools unless one of us is with them. We are not paranoid. We actually care enough about our children to take the time and effort to protect them.

My best friend's son accidentally shot and killed his classmate on Christmas day ten years ago. His "not paranoid" father had given it to him as a birthday present a few weeks before. When we heard about the gun we decide not to visit Angelica that holiday season. Her son was up in his bedroom showing his friend his fantastic present when he killed a boy who was the light of his family's life. I have written about the incident before. Both of these families were destroyed and are still suffering and will for the rest of their lives.

You keep believing you are so smart and so right. That's your risk to take. Better your family than mine.
Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way.... Martin Luther King Jr.
Reply to this post
Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

[MessiahRp]

287. No, paranoia is gun nuts buying up all the guns and ammo they can

to defend themselves against the Government (read: black guy in charge) because they disagree with his policies (and skin color).

THAT is paranoia.

[Indydem]

292. Ha ha! Is that honestly the best you have?

Racism? That's why people are buying guns, magazines, and ammunition?

Sorry. They are buying them because they expect the Democrat to go after their guns. Thankfully for them, the President hasn't let them down.

It's not race, it's a track record.

I wish the man I voted for supported the 2a, but he doesn't.

[MessiahRp]

322. Do a little thinking here. Were gun sales this high under Bush? Under Clinton? No.

What is the race mostly buying up these weapons? Who leads the Government these nuts want to overthrow.

SO YES. RACISM.

[Indydem]

323. This is seriously the best you've got?

1. Very few gun owners want to overthrow or defend themselves against the "evil" government. That's a narrative that gun grabbers have been using for a couple decades and have been consistently proven to be false and just a method by which gun owners and enthusiasts can be marginalized.

2. Gun sales SURGED under Clinton after the AWB began to be proposed and considered. The statistics are clear: people wanted to buy the firearms they wanted before they were restricted. High capacity magazine sales also surged.

3. Why would sales be high under *? He did not run on a platform of gun control, rather was clearly against gun restrictions. Something Al Gore and John Kerry both supported.

This has absolutely nothing to do about race. If it makes you feel better to jump up and down and say it does, then there isn't much logic or facts are going to do to convince you.

This is about people knowing that President Obama is a gun control advocate and having a feeling that when the time was in his favor, he would make a push for gun control.

[MessiahRp]

332. Obama NEVER ran on gun control so you're full of shit.

And the only reason it's even being discussed now is because gun fetishists like yourselves pushed a gun culture so insane that elementary school kids are being slaughtered and victimized by it.

[Shadowflash]

24. Makes sense to me

One of the biggest reasons I hear gun freaks use for having military weapons with 90 round clips is for 'home protection' and they say 'If the bad guys think we have a gun they may think twice about stealing from me'.

Well now they KNOW you are and will leave you alone. Win, win.

[Indydem]

41. A 90 ROUND CLIP!

Wow! That must be, what, about 4' long?

[shadowrider]

60. The new

Gigazine: (Note: Not for conceal carry)

[Indydem]

87. I think you have to shoot that from a ladder.

Perhaps those are the safest mags ever made!

[Electric Monk]

247. Drum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101786818

[RomneyLies]

249. Here's seveal different sizes of magazines

10 round magazine:



30 round magazine:



80 round magazine:



100 round magazine:



100 round drum magazine:

[cantbeserious]

28. The Best Way For The Unarmed To Avoid Being Shot By Gun Owners - Information Is Power

eom

[Robb]

29. Sunlight is an excellent disinfectant.

Campaign contributions were my favorite public record until today.

[HooptieWagon]

308. Too much sunlight can burn.

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

Her killer got her address from DMV records.

[Robb]

310. We probably shouldn't license cars then.

[HooptieWagon]

321. Or not not publish owners names and addys in newspapers.

[Robb]

330. First they came for the phone books.

[HooptieWagon]

331. Why many people had inlisted numbers,

and now have dropped landlines altogether.

[cthulu2016]

40. And I wonder who will die from this disgusting stunt?

Since guns are one of the most desired hauls in burglary, what could go wrong with publishing a map of which houses to hit?

Self-righteous assholes tend not to think much.

[Indydem]

42. Self righteous gun haters think even less. Nt

[RC]

130. The 'self righteous gun haters' are getting fed up with the mass shooting by gun lovers.

Your right to guns, does not trump anyone else's right to live. It is the gun lovers guns that are the problem in so many mass deaths in this country.

[Indydem]

259. Gun "Lovers" aren't committing these crimes.

Not ONE of these massacres have been committed by NRA members, gun enthusiasts, or members of the gun "culture."

People who are actually members of those groups actually have respect for their firearms and the responsible use and storage of their weapons.

The people who are committing these crimes are oddballs and criminals who have a beef with someone or something for no logical reason.

Your attempts to paint with such broad a brush as to cover those of us who are responsible gun owners has only served to get yourself covered in the paint of ignorance.

[morningfog]

274. Do you have a list of all the members of the gun culture? How can you make that statement?

[Indydem]

276. Name me the NRA member, or gun culture member who participated in a mass murder.

You won't find one.

These are all outsiders, not members of the gun culture which teaches safety, respect, and responsibility.

[morningfog]

277. How do you identify the gun culture member? By, like, them possessing guns?

Going to shooting ranges?

Buying guns?

Glorifying guns?

Shooting guns?

Everyone of them have been member of the gun culture. Every fucking one.

[Indydem]

281. Wrong.

Try again.

Most of the shooters in mass murders haven't done most of those things. Most guns are stolen or purchased illegally. Most of them have never been to a firing range, and if they were it wasn't a regular occurrence.

Some of them had never even fired a gun before.

And if those were the identifiers of "gun culture" I would have to think about it, but even those don't define the group you are trying to demonize.

"Gun culture" is a social phenomenon. People talk about guns, they shoot together, they hunt together. They chastise talk of inproper use of firearms, and anyone who doesn't follow proper safety etiquette is ostracized. Anyone who would ever propose, mention, or allude to a mass murder of anyone would be immediately shunned and most likely reported to authorities as a danger.

You want to heap all of your worst hatreds of gun and violent crazies on "gun culture" and you don't even know anything about it.

[morningfog]

294. The guns you defend are capable of mass murder

By someone who has never fired one. Think about that.

[Indydem]

301. So is a bomb

Or a fire.

You don't need special training to cause mayhem. All you need is a will.

[slackmaster]

51. The people who performed the disgusting stunt don't give a flying fuck if anyone gets harmed by it

They care only about selling newspapers and the electronic equivalent thereof.

[Lizzie Poppet]

217. Well, since their own personal information was almost immediately counter-leaked...

...I suspect they might be having second thoughts.

[underthematrix]

122. Well gunowners say that

Newtown would not have happened if the principal had a gun. What could possibly go wrong when a burglar comes into a house where the homeowner has a gun?

[aquart]

131. So you're saying houses with guns are not safe?

And you sound a bit frightened. Good thing you have a gun instead of a society with laws.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

219. Most of the commenters on that article seem to know

or seem to adhere to only one Constitutional amendment, the Second. They are complete disregarding the 1st Amendment guaranteeing the right to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They also seem to disconnect with the idea of public records. They're fine with reporting of crimes, deaths, and sex offenders (all public records) but not with the reporting of gun owners who gave their information freely to the state gun registration and licensing agency, which is also public.

Indeed, 90% of the commenters there are just simply stupid in the purest sense of the word.

[Honeycombe8]

50. That is dangerous for the gun owners. Thieves will target them, to steal their guns.

Planning it when they're away, or in the middle of the night, and making sure they are more armed than the homeowner.

Maybe they should post everyone who owns more than two computers? Or everyone who owns the expensive X-Box? That's not private information.

How about a list of everyone who has registered a luxury car?

If it's a matter of public record, I guess lists like that are okay.

[Chorophyll]

72. "That is dangerous for the gun owners."

Listen to yourself.

[Honeycombe8]

78. Yes, it's true. Guns are expensive and a common object of theft.

Might as well post other expensive items that people own, to direct thieves in the market for those items.

In addition, criminals esp like to steal guns to use in crimes, since they are not traced back to the criminal.

[Chorophyll]

106. Right. But I thought people kept guns so that they could defend themselves from the baddies?

Am I missing something here?

[slackmaster]

117. You're misinformed. People keep firearms for a lot of different reasons.

Let your stereotype go.

[Chorophyll]

119. I'll let my stereotype go when you stop making comments about rapists and home invasions,

as you did upthread.

Please.

Edited for "rapists," not "burglaries."

[Honeycombe8]

260. Yes. But there's a difference between protecting against the happenstance that you have an intruder,

and someone publishing a map to your house and a list of what you own. You know the difference.

Owning a pricey necklace your husband gave you for Christmas is one thing. Having it posted on facebook along with your name and address, so creeps know where it is and where you are, is quite another thing. Even if you have a gun for protection. Why ask for trouble? It's like sticking your head out the door and yelling at a wacko neighbor, because after all you have a gun for protection. Why go looking for trouble?

[LooseWilly]

116. Ermm... where do you live that X-boxes have to be registered with a public regulatory agency?

That's a new one for me...

As for car registrations- those Are Not public record.

Multiple computers?... again, where are those registrations required?

If you want to have a discussion about what ought to be registered... that's one thing... but you really should understand that X-box possession, in every locality of which I am aware, IS private information. Publishing that would be an invasion of privacy (unless, perhaps, we were talking about one of those people who makes a living as a professional X-box Game player... in which case you'd be in a gray area).

[Baitball Blogger]

53. Public records. tee-hee.

[HooptieWagon]

309. Yes, I'm sure this woman is laughing:

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

...or would be, if she wasn't killed by a stalker who got her address from public records.

[Baitball Blogger]

311. What public records did he have access to?

I thought most movie stars knew to go unlisted in the phone book.

[HooptieWagon]

315. Driver's license, vehicle registration.

Since then, Cali changed procedure to not allow the releasing of DMV records to a third party without them proving a need to have it. Certainly this should be the case for any records the govt has on individuals that has residence, contact info, medical info, etc. While it may be public information as far as the govt has it, there is seldom a need for the public to access it, and in some cases may be dangerous.

[Baitball Blogger]

317. Such is the case in Florida.

You can't even get records to determine the political affiliations of the citizens.

However, I don't see what the problem with gun ownership, since there are so many guns out there that it isn't likely that someone is going to get the list to start picking them off. On the up side, if you have a neighbor who seems off, it's helpful to know they're gun owners so you can feel comfortable about keeping your distance, and also prevent your children from playing in the house when the parents are not there, or if you know there are family problems, such as divorce.

It's nice to have the choice. Especially if you're brought up to be perpetually nice to everyone, sometimes it's good to have the information to ease your mind when you have to make a tough decision.

[HooptieWagon]

320. Well, if your gun'owning neighbor has a criminal or mental illness record,

They wouldn't appear on the list since they can't legally own a gun. So the list is at best a false sense of security.
Second, it's highly likely that some on the list are retired LEO or Judges, who may have a valid reason to keep their address private since an ex-con with a grudge may seek them out for revenge.
Lastly, a victim of domestic abuse probably wouldn't like their ex to have their current address.
Publishing information like this was simply a really bad idea, that was not thought through.

[Baitball Blogger]

326. There are ways to address those issues.

Even today you can keep that information hidden. You only have to be a guardian ad litem to have your information hidden from the public.

[Fawke Em]

54. I just love how most people in this thread care more about the

Second Amendment than the First.

Is this DU?

[slackmaster]

58. What about the Fourth Amendment?

What about the privacy rights of the households that appear on those pin maps?

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. Dubya did away with the 4th amendment

[slackmaster]

79. And DUers are now enthusiastically embracing many of Dubya's policies all over the place

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Like the first

It applies to the government, not private individuals. The paper is a private entity. So we are legally clear here.

I know as a gun owner this bothers you...but to be honest...I expect more of this, not less. Especially as communities are further scared by mass shootings.

[proud2BlibKansan]

110. Exactly

[otohara]

86. FREEDOM - of Information Act

I'd like to know who if any on my block owns guns so I could avoid them like the plague.

[Comrade Grumpy]

156. No government action, no Fourth Amendment issue.

I don't think you have a right to be free from the warrantless publication of public records.

[slackmaster]

159. Government released the information to the press. Government made the law that allowed it...

...to release that kind of information to the press.

There is most definitely a Fourth Amendment issue or two here.

[NutmegYankee]

93. The first amendment doesn't shield the paper from negligence.

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 03:03 PM - Edit history (1)

If someone is targeted and robbed because of this action, the first amendment won't save the paper. This was a violation of privacy and wildly irresponsible.

[LooseWilly]

112. Public information is not private. That is the definition of "Public Record"...

There can be no violation of privacy for disseminating information that is not private. It's a simple matter of definitions.

The notion of the paper being responsible if someone is targeted & robbed "because of this action" again fails to recognize the point: namely that this is public information... which means that any burglar, thug, or other unsavory sort... up to and including the Hamburglar Himself... has access to this information in their own right. The newspaper hasn't told anyone anything that they can't find out for themselves, so there is no liability.

I hope this helps untangle and debunk the myth of some public information being more public than other public information.

[NutmegYankee]

167. Disagree.

The information was public, but difficult to acquire and look up. This paper released it all out with an easy tool to locate the house, allowing someone to search and select targets.

If you feel differently, please post your real name and address below.

[LooseWilly]

214. So you are arguing that requested public information should not be shared with fellow citizens?

The difficulty in acquiring and looking up the information is somehow a feature of said information's public-ness?... and to make public information easily accessible is, somehow, a violation of the implicit pain-in-the-ass quality of Public Records... and therefore... an... invasion of public-ish-privacy?

Is that really your position on public records? They should, maybe, only be released once a non-disclosure agreement has been signed?

Do you also think that, once said public information is received, citizens should be barred from being legally allowed to discuss it?

Maybe we should all be allowed to examine the information, but barred from acknowledging it, in order to respect the "rights" of those we know something about?

Maybe the same should apply to all the "dirt" we get on celebrities from the tabloids?... We should be able to know about it but discussing it should be prosecutable as an invasion of privacy?

You do realize these are the ramifications of the notion that making public information more easily accessible is somehow a crime, right?

In point of fact however... the difficulties of acquiring Public Records information is simply a hassle that everyone acknowledges as a logistical reality/inevitability. Efforts to make said information more easily accessible are made regularly and are expected of all public institutions generally. It is a good thing, not a bad thing, to make public records more accessible- in terms of the spirit of Public Records regulation generally.

And as for my real name and address, check my profile and you should be able to find it quite easily. Even more easily than if you were required to make a public records request...

[NutmegYankee]

221. I strongly believe this should not have been a public record.

How many battered women who have gone to great lengths to hide their address did this newspaper just release to their abuser? I've known someone in that exact position, with a pistol for defense because her abuser threatened her life and the children's. The police have already won court cases showing they do not have a responsibility to protect anyone.

How many police officers had their address released to anyone who may have a reason to get revenge on them?

I read several posts over the week proposing to fire gun owners from their jobs or publicly defriend/shun gun owners. How did this release serve the public interest? I see only negative actions against people who have committed no crime whatsoever!

I completely disagree with your view that the information of private citizens should be released to the public. Open records laws should apply to to functions and decisions of government, not to private citizens. Every bit of information released can be compiled and used to cause harm to you. The more info I have on someone the easier to Phish their family or steal their identity.

You disagree likely because you've never seen a woman, beaten and bruised and scared to death of her soon to be ex, living a nomadic life to protect her children. You've never seen the shame of a friend's grandmother who fell for wiring money via western union due to an elaborate hoax perpetrated by someone with enough information to sound like the grandson.

That the law pathetically allowed the release doesn't mean nearly as much as the epic poor judgement this newspaper used in releasing the info, mapping it and making it easily searchable. The action of this Newspaper was reckless and negligent, and I hope they fail as a company. And for that I will never apologize.

[LooseWilly]

233. You strongly believe it shouldn't've been a public record. Fair enough. Agitate to change it...

I also know women who've had to go into virtual hiding to escape stalkers &/or abuse, as well as men who've had to go into virtual hiding to avoid paying child support. For whatever reasons, people often choose to go into hiding.

If we, as a society, want those in hiding to be able to legally own a firearm while in hiding, then the regulatory legislation needs to be changed.

In the meantime, gun registration information is Not private, no matter how non-public the citizen owning the gun might otherwise be.

In fact, I have no opinion one way or the other as to the standing of gun registrations viz a viz Public Records. I simply don't care, personally.

I do, however, very much believe in the accessibility of public records. If a record is Public, then I support the right to publish it by anyone anywhere for any reason, or even for no reason whatsoever.

I am fine with deciding that gun registrations be removed from the lists of Public Records. I am also fine with sex offenders registrations being removed from the list of Public Records. Or leave them all on... whatever.

I will never endorse, however, the notion that Public Records should be made LESS ACCESSIBLE...

If you can't convince a court or legislative body to make a given set of records private... then I will endorse the right of any asshat to hire planes to skybanner the information above the local sporting arena if they want. Trying to obfuscate Public information simply because you can think of ways the information could be abused is a license to surreptitiously Un-Public-ize all information.

[billh58]

297. Excellent post, and well said.

Thank you for articulating the issue so well.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

64. I'm in favor of making lots of things public information.

Especially tax returns.

[In_The_Wind]

69. One of my old neighbors is listed on this map.

[proud2BlibKansan]

75. And no guns in Newtown

So Adam Lanza's mother didn't register her guns??

[In_The_Wind]

142. I don't understand how that could be possible.

The map information is obviously not accurate.

[PavePusher]

151. I thought this was about two NY counties.

Conneticutt not being part of NY, you see....

Also, what are the firearm registration requirements in CT?

[HooptieWagon]

70. I wonder how the DUers cheering this would feel...

if the newspaper was publishing the names and addresses of rape victims or abortion patients.

I am astonished at the hypocrisy and double standards of anti-gun DUers, which are reaching teabagger levels.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. You of course realize

Rape victims are covered under HIPA and such lists used to be released but a generation ago. If your gun were covered under HIPA, but it is not.

What you are seeing is a bit of cultural change. We have crossed a cultural tipping point. Like drunk driving...it will take time, but we have crossed that point.

Enjoy.

[HooptieWagon]

139. Of course, legal gun owners are covered by the 2A.

And don't be so sure a cultural "tipping point" has been reached. To be sure the country has been outraged by Sandy Hook. But, once the shock starts to wear off and gun-control debate begins, the gun-banners will find the public will not support an extreme position. Don't forget what happened to the teabaggers, who had convinced themselves they represented a majority of voters. It only took a few "legitimate rape" comments and mandatory ultrasound bills to turn off most people to the extreme RW.

Its DoJ's own data that indicates most gun homicides are committed by previously convicted felons who aren't allowed to own guns anyway. Legislation targeting them has a reasonable chance of passing. Legislation that targets legal gun owners, the vast majority of whom will never commit a homicide, is not likely to pass.

And talk of repealing the 2A is just fantasy. It would only take 13 states to block that, and theres easily double that number of solid red states that will vote that down. I doubt such a referendum would even pass solid blue states like PA and Mich, who have a fair amount of hunters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

144. Gun banners are as fringe as we all get a Glock 9

But if you think the NRA is mainstream, please make my mandatory side arm a Glock 40

[HooptieWagon]

174. No one has claimed the NRA is mainstream.

They claim 4 million members, which represents less than 5% of gun-owners if their claim isn't inflated.
The 100 million or so of gun-owners will likely be divided over gun-control legislation. Which side is the majority will be determined by which side is perceived as being more reasonable. Legislation banning guns or targeting legal, law-abiding gun-owners will likely find a majority supporting the NRA. Legislation targeting criminal's access to guns will probably be seen as reasonable by many gun-owners, and would see an erosion of support for the NRA's position.

[nadinbrzezinski]

181. Look, limiting mag size, and 100% background checks

As well as smart guns are fringe to the NRA and more that a few gungeoners. So that's it.

Also second means drill in the 18th century context. People want battle riffles (these things are used around the world in combat zones) I want them to go to drill. I can see a ban of assault weapons, rightfully so.

[HooptieWagon]

208. Extra-capacity mags have no useful purpose for civilians...

...heck, even the military doesn't use them. However, they also are involved in very few homicides. I'm not convinced that's a political cost that outweighs other areas of gun-control where the political capital spent has greater effect in reducing gun deaths.

[nadinbrzezinski]

261. Lets do nothing then

Yup, the NRA answer.

[HooptieWagon]

263. No one here has suggested that.

I'm totally on board with banning private sales, which will go a long ways towards keeping guns out of the hands of convicted felons, "crazies", and kids.

[billh58]

154. Spoken like a true

red state supporter. No one wants to take away your precious fucking gun. When will you gun fetishists understand that, and stop spouting bullshit NRA talking points.

The "gun control debate" has already begun, and national polls show that a majority of Americans are fed up with the easy accessibility of fucking guns, and the lax regulation of their use and ownership. There is a steadily growing call for regulation that ensures responsibility and accountability for purchasing and using lethal weapons, and Sandy Hook was a catalyst which has invigorated the American people against the NRA and its supporters.

You want to own a gun? Then be responsible and accountable for it. You want to own a semi-automatic, high capacity rifle? Go pound sand -- no civilian needs one.

[bvar22]

225. "Then be responsible and accountable for it"...

..so that your name and address winds up in the paper?
I don't think so.
The responsible Gun Owners who did the right thing and registered their guns
are the ones paying the price for this.

Good Luck getting people to register their guns NOW.

[friendly_iconoclast]

283. "NRA talking points". There's that incantation again...

[beevul]

279. Funny, that drunk driving thing...

Funny, that drunk driving thing...

Somehow, the "cultural change" with it, never really included screams "blood on their hands" aimed at chevrolet or ford, or budweiser or smirnoff.


On edit: mostly, I suspect, because people loves themselves some alcohol, or they hate guns, or a combination of the two.

[JVS]

255. Yeah. There are no principles, only aesthetics.

[billh58]

127. What?

Are you serious? You are equating rape and abortion to your ownership of a fucking gun? You really have the audacity paint yourself as a "victim" on the same par with a rape victim? Really? Get over yourself, and try looking in a mirror if you want a true reflection of a hypocritical Tea Bagger. Unlike the rape victim, you WANTED a fucking gun -- it wasn't forced on you.

If you're so worried that someone might find out where you live, take your name out of the phone book, don't own a car, don't register to vote, keep your kids out of school, and cancel your mail delivery. Oh, and don't register or license your gun.

If you want to own a lethal weapon, then accept responsibility and accountability for the fucking thing. According to you Gungeon types, a gun is nothing more than a tool like a shovel or a car, so why then would you try to hide the fact that you own a "gun tool?" Does the 2nd Amendment include a fucking secrecy clause?

You gun fetishists continue to amuse and amaze.

[HooptieWagon]

153. I've never owned a gun, so I don't have a dog in that fight.

However, I think it's a bad precedent for newspaper to publish data on private law-abiding citizens. I certainly don't want my tax returns made public, what vehicles I own, my health or school records, or any other information that a reasonable person believes should remain private.

[billh58]

271. How many people have

your tax returns, vehicles, health or school records killed recently? Why would anyone give a shit about those things? If you have a gun, however, it has the very real potential to kill someone because that is what it was designed for. A person is a "private law-abiding citizen" until they are not. Owning a gun increases the risk of crossing that line significantly.

I would like to know if you have a gun because you have the potential to be dangerous to my health. And yes, I know what the statistics are. Trayvon Martin and hundreds more like him knew the statistics as well.

[Bluenorthwest]

298. If you do drive t cars in public at all you have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding them

Health records are protected by law, specifically. If the press and media ceased publishing information of law abiding citizens, they'd go out of business. I wonder if you raise these objections in other areas? The press publishes stories about the personal lives of anyone famous, very private items, all the time. Can you show me a post in which you object to that?
Plus, equating gun owners to victims of horrible crimes is just so low down and irrational it is hard to respond to you without being rude.

[Squinch]

143. That wins the ridiculous comparison award for today! Congratulations!

[Starry Messenger]

81. I wonder how many people this pissed off complained when newspapers published teachers' test scores

[proud2BlibKansan]

82. Yep.

Having been on the receiving end puts a different light on this.

[slackmaster]

84. That's different

[ReRe]

88. Nothing but praise for doing this....

...to the Journal News, and to ABC News for picking it up, and to you proud2BlibKansan! I think it's a great idea. This will force them to bury their guns, because if they don't, other criminal gun enthusiast elements will come to their homes and rob them while they are away from home. If it's public knowledge in NY, then the newspaper should be protected, no? From lawsuits? Anybody can go to the courthouses and look this stuff up, I guess? Public domain is public domain, right? However, this will probably encourage more black-marketing of guns, so there won't be any record of it? Of course if they are caught with a gun that is unregistered, what then? They would be arrested, no?
Yeah, it's about time the ATF earned it's keep. Just opining, i.e. thinking out loud...
Please don't attack me for thinking. I won't reply. And thank you.

[slackmaster]

94. Let me give you a little piece of information that you may not have considered.

Publishing the maps was not done in order to advance public safety. It was done by a corporation, for profit.

[ReRe]

230. Yeah, yeah, yeah....

...if you're talk about road maps. Those turned out to be real handy though, didn't they?
BTW, Merry Christmas

[PavePusher]

155. "Please don't attack me for thinking."

You have nothing to fear on that point...

[ReRe]

231. Whew!

Thanks

[99Forever]

90. So, if owning and carrying a gun is such a wonderful, "patriotic"...

... thing to do, why would this bother them so much?

[slackmaster]

100. It's an invasion of privacy that serves no purpose other than boosting sales of a newspaper

[Sekhmets Daughter]

109. Couldn't the same pretty much be said about the gun manufacturers?

Aren't they really behind all the hysteria that makes people want to own countless weapons capable of doing incalculable harm? According to a 2010 survey 32% of American households have at least one gun. But let's say, because of the meme they pushed that Obama is going to take their guns, that is 40%.... they own 300 million weapons.

[slackmaster]

115. I know for a fact that the neighbors on all four sides of me have firearms in their homes

That doesn't bother me even a little; and the fact that they are all willing to share that information makes me feel good about having them as neighbors.

We always inform each other when we are going away for a weekend or for an extended vacation. We watch each other's backs.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

164. Good.

Now post that in the newspapers... in fact you should all put sign in your yards to that effect....which will probably go a long way toward keeping your homes safe. Break-ins are crimes of opportunity, after all.

[LooseWilly]

121. Again- public information is *NOT* private... there is no expectation of privacy

... and therefore there is nothing to "invade".

If the public is interested in the information then it will boost the sales of the newspaper. Likewise, if the sales/circulation of the newspaper increases, it may entice gun manufacturers to advertise in the newspaper in order to increase sales of a gun manufacturer. I hope you aren't trying to imply that there's something more nefarious in the actions of a newspaper to increase sales than those of a gun manufacturer?...

[99Forever]

128. That you are armed and dangerous...

... should be a "private" matter?

I don't agree, I want to know who's "packin' heat" and keep them clear the fuck out of my and my neighbors lives.

[proud2BlibKansan]

123. Because it's probably inaccurate info

Adam Lanza's mom isn't listed. Didn't the media tell us for a week now that she had registered her guns? Well, they aren't on this map.

[PavePusher]

158. You are starting to look rather foolish.

From the report you quoted:

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday.

Emphasis mine.

[proud2BlibKansan]

172. Yet they list gun owners in CT

Did you look at the map or were you just in the mood to be snarky?

[PavePusher]

192. The article doesn't explain those dots in CT.

So, no idea if those are gun owners or not.

And didn't you mention inaccuracies earlier?

Have a great day.

[billh58]

186. Did you ever consider that

maybe, just maybe, they don't list dead people? I doubt seriously that the paper had this list made up and ready to go BEFORE the mass killings. Just a thought...

[billh58]

182. For the same reason they

want to carry a fucking gun "concealed" -- they want their fucking 2nd Amendment rights, but they don't want anyone to know that they're exercising them.

It might be called the "Zimmerman Complex," and is not meant to be a deterrent, but a vigilantism tactic. Summary executions are all the rage with the "Guns 'R Us" crowd. No muss, no fuss, no tax dollars wasted on a pesky old trial, or paying for incarceration.

[HereSince1628]

102. Next up? A list of those DENIED a permit???

Just wondering. It's the nature of information creep in a digital age.

[slackmaster]

103. That would actually be more useful for people looking for lists of neighbors to avoid

But nobody is going to publish that.

[HereSince1628]

105. I wouldn't make a bet on that.

Frightened people have an appetite for information that will make them safe.

If it's available, somebody will put it in the publc forum. That's life in the digital age.

We already have seen published the faces and names of drunk drivers and johns using escort services.

[billh58]

134. Actually, that list

already exists. It's called the NICS.

[HereSince1628]

138. The list exists, the question is how and when it will become public information.

[mainer]

118. It's a great guide for parents. Where NOT to let your kid play.

I also think that these are the houses where burglars wouldn't want to visit.

[HereSince1628]

120. so it shifts burglars to homes without guns

Better occupational safety for burglars!

[RC]

152. Not really. The reality is, not many criminals are overly bright.

How many criminals will know or even care if the home occupier has any guns or not? The burglar is most likely looking for electronics anyway. Having a gun handy is false security and more of a hazard for the other occupants, than for any intruder.

[slackmaster]

166. Here's a list of the tems stolen by burglars nationwide...

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/top-10-most-stolen-items-country-021800509.html

[gollygee]

132. I bet it sold some papers.

It is a public record so it is legal. Guns are commonly stolen from homes. Most houses are broken into when the house appears vacant, so it might make people case the homes listed as having guns to try to catch them vacant.

[1monster]

136. So they publish the names of the LAW ABIDING citizens. Are they trying to drive gun ownership

underground?

Because I doubt that this tactic of this newspaper will encourage future gun owners to register their guns. It's almost like declaring open season on those trying to be responsible gun owners.

For the record, I loathe guns and despise hunting as a "sport," however, that does not mean the I condone this kind of persecution of those who are abiding by the law.

[billh58]

168. So it's okay to publish weddings,

obituaries, births, arrests, names and addresses of murder victims, and any manner of other public information, but not gun ownership?

The press can publish any information which is, in fact, "public." Responsible gun owners, like other responsible citizens, should have no qualms about their information being made public so the rest of us know that they're armed.

[1monster]

216. Where I live, the birth announcements are up to the parents. If they want the birth published,

Last edited Tue Dec 25, 2012, 05:39 PM - Edit history (1)

the parents have to send the announcement to the paper (the hospital provideds the form). Deaths, unless the person was a public figure, or the nature of the death is newsworthy, are also up to the family to request either a death notice (free) or an obituary (for a fee) notice. Addresses are extremely rare in the obits/death notices, are supplied by the family of the deceased, and NEVER appear in the birth announcements.

Each week the newspaper prints a list (in a very small font) of the names ONLY of those who have purchased a marriage license and another of the names ONLY of those who have received their divorce decrees. No addresses or other information is published. Address are not included.

Wedding/engagement annoucements in the paper, like birth announcements, are at the behest of the families of those celebrating the events. Addresses are limited to the city the couple will be living in and that information is given only at the behest of the family/bride/groom.

The addresses of murder victims are not published, as a general rule, except when the address is material to the news story.

All of the examples you cited as public information are of those who status has changed (or begun). Often, those status changes do have relevancy to the public.

In the case of the gun owners whose names and addresses were published w/o their knowledge, no change in status was noted.

Had it been the practice to publish this information in the past, at least the registered gun owners would have known that their names and addresses were going to be put out for all to see. They were blindsided.

And that is not right.

[billh58]

220. I submit that the examples you cite

are true, but the premise remains valid: the information is public knowledge, and many newspapers (including my local paper) publish all of those things based on government filings. I also stipulate that these are indeed "change in status" events. However, in almost every town or city all one needs is a telephone directory in order to find the address and phone number of a name published in the newspaper, so that information is public knowledge as well.

What has changed with the gun owner issue, is that the public (as represented by the press and public opinion) has finally said "enough is enough." There has long been a public call for identifying those who own and carry lethal weapons, but the NRA has bought enough politicians to squelch these requests. The 2nd Amendment carries no secrecy clause, and just as with owning an automobile there can be no expectation of privacy when the information is public knowledge.

Until Congress enacts legislation to make the release of gun ownership details private and protected information, the publication of gun ownership details is a fair tactic in the fight for sane and reasonable gun regulation. After all, if as the NRA claims, "a gun is nothing more than a tool," then I fail to see what the hue and cry is about.

Maybe at some point when ALL guns are registered, and there are regulations which ensure accountability and responsibility (insurance, background checks for "private" sales, etc.) there will no longer be a desire, or a need, to make gun ownership information public. Until then, the public has a right to know who is armed and potentially dangerous.

[proud2BlibKansan]

236. You have to pay for an obituary in the paper.

I would imagine weddings and birth announcements are also at a cost.

[Robb]

239. Not in all papers.

Smaller ones especially do it gratis, because hey, free copy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

241. That's good.

My mom's obit was almost $1000. Still blows me away and she died 6 years ago.

[billh58]

252. Not where I live.

I guess that each newspaper has its own policy, but thanks for the info.

[obamanut2012]

137. 100% out of line

You can't even get a driving record or other personal info without a court order. This isn't like public tax records.

[LooseWilly]

180. It seems to be a lot like Business Licenses, and such.

(I'm shying away from comparing to sex offender registration, mostly because of the downright monstrous connotations/associations created by such a comparison... but I suspect the legislative logic is similar... guns are "also" deemed to be a potential public danger and hence information from such registrations are treated as Public Information.)

You can get information about any licensed business... and you can get information about any registered gun. You can also get information about the pay & position title (& possibly address) of any public employee. And if anyone can get it, it isn't privileged information...

[-..__...]

146. I wonder how well this idea would be received..

if mental health records were publicly available and published?

The only thing that's preventing that is HIPAA laws.

Privacy rights should be secondary to the safety of the community.

Repealing them, would allow concerned citizens, newspapers and journalists to discover and disclose
potential threats to the neighborhood and/or which neighbors to keep an eye on.

People have a right to know if there are any potentially dangerous and/or mentally unstable individuals living next door.

[Piazza Riforma]

150. Just curious. . . .

I see people on here outraged by this information exposure yet wasn't there a thread on DU a few days ago where people were cheering the release of Westboro member's personal information by Anonymous?

Can't have it both ways - if this kind of exposure is criminal then ANY exposure of personal information (without a warrant/court order) is criminal.

[slackmaster]

160. I automatically trash all Westboro threads

But I think publishing some of that information was out of line.

[proud2BlibKansan]

237. The dumb thing about that is that info is already out there.

Anonymous isn't doing anything that hasn't already been done regarding the Phelps.

[JVS]

258. I don't support the release of personal information of WBC

In fact, I doubt that such a release of info is going to do a thing to deter them from their activities. Maybe they'll have to get new credit cards, but they're more experienced at dealing with a hostile public than the average person. They've even been bombed before. For them that release of info was probably small potatoes.

[slackmaster]

190. Oh, no, you didn't.

[patrice]

162. That newspaper is protecting my right of free association. Concealed Carry MIXES "good" guys/gals

with bad guys/gals and I want my right to make informed decisions about as many of those situations as possible PROTECTED.

[PavePusher]

163. What is truely amazing, on a alledged liberal website....

is the amount of bile and bigotry that becomes exposed against honest, lawful people, when stories like this are published.

Facsinating, if rather saddening.

[patrice]

176. It's not against "honest, lawful people" it's against circumstances that affect millions directly or

indirectly, by the specific nature of the weapons we're talking about, and by CONCEALED CARRY, and about which most of us are NEVER allowed our own rights to make our own choices about our involvement in those situations whether we are carrying or own guns and/or assault weapons or not.

I don't think most people consider honest gun owners a problem, but to at least some of us that honesty includes whether you/anyone is in fact carrying or not. Concealed Carry is dishonest, ergo it has affects upon me and others that amount to a PRIVILEGE that denies my right to free association.

[slackmaster]

179. You should read the article, patrice. It has nothing to do with concealed carry permits.

[PavePusher]

195. Something is not "dishonest" merely because you label it so.

Nor does my right to protect myself within the law deny you any rights at all, let alone free association. I'm not stopping you from doing anything.

Have a great day.

[patrice]

204. Isn't something that refuses to identify what it is, conceals itself, & acts publicly BECAUSE of

concealment, dishonest?

to you too!

[Lizzie Poppet]

222. Illuminating, isn't it?

A sadly large portion of this community have become the very thing liberalism fights: totalitarians in the making.

[Robb]

229. Slavery, too, was once lawful.

Enjoy the company.

[PavePusher]

240. If you think it valid to equate lawful tools and methods for self-defense to slavery...

then yes, I am in far better company than yourself.

Have a merry, festive, charitable day.

[Robb]

242. Slaves were lawful tools.

Sorry you don't care for the comparison, but "legal" and "right" are not the same word. And when owning one of these weapons becomes illegal, I look forward to your abrupt reversal.

Bless your little heart, too, I guess. But there's too many people not having the Christmas they expected because of these guns, so I'm not even going to pretend I want those defending them to enjoy their holiday.

How about this: I hope yours is as good as that celebrated by the parents of all the kids killed by guns in this country this year. And last year. And the year before.

[Dirty Socialist]

170. The newspaper should be sued

For invasion of privacy. And I don't care if one can find their names some other way.
BTW: I am for an assault rifle ban and a limit on bullet capacities.

[LooseWilly]

189. Public information is not private.

Public information is not subject to any privacy privileges... because it is not private.

Publication of not-private information is a not-invasion of privacy.

Sue away, you'll just be wasting $ on a losing case... and you may wind up having to pay the newspaper's legal costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

BTW: if firearms were banned there would be no registration list to publish. Not that I care one way or the other... just saying

[Dirty Socialist]

206. That pretty much shoots down my suggestion

[billh58]

197. As has been pointed out,

publishing information which is otherwise publicly available is NOT an invasion of privacy, and no action under either criminal or civil law is applicable. It isn't a matter of fair, or unfair, it is a matter of rights -- just like the Gungeon dwellers are always screaming about their fucking 2nd Amendment rights.

See? That works both ways doesn't it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

223. Which is why the counterattack is also legal.

The newspaper owners, editors, and other persons responsible for the story have subsequently had their personal informational published in multiple places.

[LooseWilly]

306. Uhmmm... their business info is also public record- but *NOT* their personal information.

You do understand the difference, right?

If information submitted for a registration process is delineated as Public Record, then it is public information and is not subject to any privacy considerations.

Business license info, which includes business address and so on, fall likewise under the umbrella of Public Record. That information is also not subject to privacy considerations.

The "personal information" of those working at such a business, however, is Not Public Record- and as such any release of that information IS an "invasion of privacy".

The "counterattack" is, in fact, Not Legal. If anything untoward happens to any of those editors, as private citizens, as a result of the publication of their personal information, there will be an issue of liability.

[lexw]

171. I'm anti-gun, but this seems like it does more harm than good.

[slackmaster]

184. All the publisher cares about is that it sells newspapers

[Robb]

203. It's called a First Amendment Remedy.

Every time some scumbag got caught in print, he'd say "they're trying to sell more newspapers." It's the oldest and lamest retort in the book.

To wit: it's precisely what Liddy said.

[gulliver]

173. If I had an assault weapon in the house, I would be tossing it.

The article says that the paper couldn't get the number and types of weapons owned yet, because their government sources were saying that information is not public record. But they cite an expert who disagrees. It's only a matter of time. This will be happening all over the country.

And that's just the legal sources of the info. Pretty soon, disgruntled ex-spouses, kids, ex-friends and ex-acquaintances of the folks with these wack weapons will be posting names on the Internet. Their bosses will be a Google away from knowing who they are dealing with. Neighborhoods will demand to know about their Nancy Lanzas. Subdivision property owners associations will be livid about the risk and the damage to neighborhood property values.

Times have changed. The people buying these guns now are probably just the same pigeons who always peck the button every time the NRA rings the bell.

[billh58]

201. Well said,

and is an accurate assessment of the coming trend which will make the NRA immaterial and powerless.

[proud2BlibKansan]

238. A kid I taught about 20 years ago had a dad who was on parole.

He went to Dad's one weekend and when he got home his mom asked what he did and the kid told Mom that Dad had taken him out to the country somewhere and taught him how to shoot Dad's gun. Mom called Dad's parole officer and Dad was sent back to prison.

[jody]

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

[patrice]

196. Which cartoon strongly supports why we ought to ask questions about gun-ownership, because

apparently, gun ownership is it own justification, so it has nothing to do with anyone but the owner, everyone else be fucked. A self-fulfilling prophecy. Why should WE support something that serves itself ONLY?

[patrice]

198. And anything that acrues power to itself only is FASCISM. nt

[Buns_of_Fire]

183. I'm just trying to figure out the "why" of it all. The rationale behind it.

Are these folks to henceforth be stigmatized? Applauded? Avoided? Rewarded? Bombarded with letters (from both sides, since they considerately included zip codes)?

Or is it simply "because we can" and to sell papers?

[slackmaster]

185. The answer is: To sell more newspapers

That is all the publisher cares about.

[newblewtoo]

235. actually what they really care about

is even more sinister. Now a days news papers exist to sell advertising. The cost of a newspaper doesn't come close to covering the cost of its publication. Jouralists have become the new Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. Media companies are the name of the new game while news and journalism keep a respectable face on the farce.

[billh58]

209. It is for the sake of

responsibility and accountability. You have a gun in your house? Then little Billy can not come there to play with Jimmy. Or, thanks anyway, but we'll pass on the dinner invitation. You carry concealed? Thanks, but I'll catch another ride to work.

The anonymous ownership and public carry of concealed guns deprives others of the ability to make rational choices about who they associate with, and places they frequent. If I know that Jim Bob carries a concealed weapon, and I see him in a restaurant, or in a supermarket, I can avoid him for my own safety and peace of mind. And before you get to the "but criminals carry concealed guns," NRA talking point, that is a separate and addressable issue which is NOT a reason to enter an arms race with them. The answer is to reinstate harsh penalties (long mandatory jail terms) for carrying concealed, illegal, and unregistered weapons.

The 2nd Amendment does not include a secrecy, or a confidentiality clause, nor does it guarantee the right to carry a gun anywhere, at anytime, and for any reason. You have a gun? I want to know about it.

[Buns_of_Fire]

232. Okay, that's a valid reason. I was just wondering about the newspaper's reason.

For the record, I tend to agree with you for the most part. And no, I don't have a gun; I have something far more lethal -- my recipe for bean and cheese burritos.

[patrice]

191. If guns are so good, why are "we" trying to CONCEAL them? Concealment is the problem.

This newspaper has done a service for the truth.

[slackmaster]

193. You should read the article, patrice. It has nothing to do with concealed carry permits.

[patrice]

202. k, got it. It's like saying, TTE, "These people own big diamonds". ABC is trolling this issue :-((((

[graham4anything]

199. I like this idea. As they say, if you see something suspicious report it. Bravo idea

This way I know if I went to any of these people's homes, they have a gun, and I can choose or not choose to enter. Most times I would choose not to enter.



[img][/img]

[HooptieWagon]

205. How would you feel about a newspaper publishing your health records, tax returns,

or vehicle ownership? Why the double standard on privacy issues? Seems very hypocritical to me.

[graham4anything]

211. Why protect a WMD?

I am not hiding anything
Anyone who wants to enter my house, has to pass my outdoor garage, they see my car.
Therefore you are reinforcing my statement.

If a kid enters a home with a pool, damn wish there was a sign saying so, so they could be warned.

And why do I care if my health records are told? They would see I am now the last year undretaking a major wellness program and my blood pressure is doing fine and dandy.


BTW-
why do people have stickers saying they have alarms in their home?
If the reason for having guns is protection- WHAT THE HELL ARE people with guns SO AFRAID OF TO TELL A PERSON THEY HAVE A GUN.


HECK, A CRIMINAL WOULD PROBABLY BYPASS a house knowing it has a gun there

oh wait...that isn't the reason they have a gun
oh, I see (I am talking to the Eastwood chair here)...it isn't sport, collecting or protection they have guns for you say?
It's, what did you say, oh, I see, like the Wackos at Waco, it is stockpiling guns to overthrow an alien invation and that was why they didn't arrest DK outside, because the people inside were the actual unreasonable scary people...
gotcha chair, sometimes you give good answers.

[Socal31]

207. Exactly! Now you know what home you can enter with no problem.

If you are attempting home invasion at night, you will not encounter a gun.

If you scope the home of the people WITH guns, and see when they go on work/vacation, well you get to go "acquire" a free gun!


What a wonderful idea this is.

[graham4anything]

212. People with alarms have stickers outside warning people in bright neon colors outside

ya see, the dirty little secret

guns are not being purchased in record numbers for protection

guns are being purchased for their intended purpose- to kill.
something or someone.

it's all out in the open and transparent now.

[Socal31]

218. That just doesn't hold water, sorry.

nt

[HooptieWagon]

213. Let's see people's health records published also.

We can then avoid people with a previous history of certain diseases.
Wow, there's no limit to the potential posed by publishing private information.

[ZombieHorde]

215. I'm a very private person, and I don't like the idea of

having my possessions known to the general public. The fact that I choose not to own guns should my own business, in my opinion. I personally find it distasteful.

[mike_c]

227. I think that's a excellent idea-- my county newspaper did it four years ago....

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

Not sure the list of registered gun owners is in the linked article-- the paper published it on their front cover. Like the present case, lots of gun owners objected vigorously, and had to have the meaning of "public record" explained to them.

[Lizzie Poppet]

246. If this is that's going to happen with registration and licensing...

..then expect it to be used as an argument against these measures in the many states where they are not currently required and any such proposal at the federal level.

[farminator3000]

228. and that matters to anyone at all because?

so robbers will stay away from your house if they know for sure you are packing.

Great, sounds like a good idea!

[Posteritatis]

243. I wonder what other groups people would like to see receive that treatment. (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

244. I posted upthread that teacher salaries are online now.

And it's no fun at all. Downright creepy.

[Posteritatis]

245. Yeah, can't say I'm comfortable with that one

Universities in my neck of the woods do so for senior administrative officials and I think the chairs and deans in the professional schools, which I can sort of get when they're public universities, but I wouldn't like seeing that happen with K-12 teachers. They get as much idiotic contempt from the public where I'm at as you've no doubt encountered where you are; it's one of the dumber universals in this continent, I think.

I shudder to think of what would happen if their home addresses were posted. Or those of other groups of people who are disliked for one reason or another, for that matter.

[RomneyLies]

248. This would be a better country if EVERY gun owner's name and address was publicly published.

I resoundingly commend newspapers that do this.

[NashvilleLefty]

250. I would think that gun owners would WELCOME this.

If owning a gun is a deterrent to crime, shouldn't they be happy that potential criminals know they own such a deterrent?

What was that line from Dr. Strangelove, something about the whole purpose of a deterrent is letting everyone else know about it?

[Jamastiene]

251. One reason that is a bad idea...

Now, every criminal and potential criminal who may have been denied a gun when they tried to get one legally, now knows the addresses of plenty of guns they can go steal.

[arely staircase]

257. well i guess burglars and other felons can use this

information to get guns. what idiots.

[HooptieWagon]

264. And gun-owners less likely to register them.

This is going to have a lot of unintended consequences. Suppose retired LEO, FBI, DEA, or Judges are on that list, and now criminals have their addresses? Suppose an abused woman is hiding from her ex and bought a gun...now her ex knows where she lives and where to get the gun to shoot her with. This is just really fucked up, but is typical of the self-righteous anti-gun zealots who are targetting the legal, responsible owners while aiding criminals.

[Spryguy]

265. Who cares?

If you pack a death spewer, I have a RIGHT to know that you are a public safety threat. How awesome would it be for home owners associations and apartment complexes to start banning guns for insurance purposes ( since they are an attractive nuisance to children and criminals)? +1k to this newspaper! I hope this list goes national!

[HooptieWagon]

267. So endangering a retired LEO or abused woman is just collateral damage?

You all are sick fascists. The chances of a legal gun-owner committing homicide is extremely low...that is from the DoJ's own website. By targeting them, not only will ZERO gun control legislation get passed, but Dems are going to take a bloodbath in '14. Did you not see what happened to the rethugs when they started their legitimate rape comments? You are in a similar extreme track.

[billh58]

269. Someone who keeps equating the outing of gun ownership

with rape is calling those of us seeking sane gun laws sick fascists? You do see the irony in that don't you? There is absolutely nothing "extreme" about exposing those who promote the gun culture in this country. The NRA and Gungeon threat that the Democratic Party will lose votes over the introduction of sane gun control measures is more bullshit. In light of the recent atrocious and mind-numbing mass killings with guns, most gun owners support stricter gun laws.

The fact that people are "legal gun owners" does nothing to reduce the problem if they are not responsible and accountable for their lethal weapon. Maybe a "legal gun owner" is a low risk for committing homicide, and maybe not -- no one knows until it's too late. The NRA and the Gungeon crowd are very quick to quote pointless statistics in order to justify their love of guns. The fact remains, however, that at some point ALL fucking guns were "legal" until they were not. How does that happen do you think?

What part of "public information" do you not understand? What part of "lethal weapon" do you not understand? What part of NRA gun manufacturer promotion for profit do you not understand? The simple truth is that there are far too many unnecessary guns in this country, and the American people are beginning to call for an end to the madness.

[HooptieWagon]

270. Do you call Dept of Justice statistics pointless?

That seems like pretty impeachable data. I have no idea if NRA cites their data or not...if so, good for them for sticking to the facts. You are NOT entitled to make up your own set of facts.

[billh58]

273. Neither are you, and tell that

to the victims who have died due to the negligence of "legal gun owners." Statistics can only measure the information which is reported and available. Another DOJ and CDC statistic you gun apologists often fail to recognize is the 30,000 gun deaths in the USA annually, plus the thousands of additional gun injures.

The NRA, and self-righteous people like you, have seen to it that millions of private sales of lethal weapons at gun shows and by unscrupulous "collectors" are all undocumented and done out of sight. The DOJ has no idea how many loose unaccountable weapons are out there, or what they are used for -- until there's another mass killing.

And finally, the only thing you could answer from my entire post was to support your use of (yes, pointless -- not inaccurate, but pointless in the grand scheme of things) statistics? Try again.

[HooptieWagon]

284. "Fail to recognize"?

Dude, I've brought it up repeatedly. It's a number which has been steadly decreasing...which YOU fail to recognize. 60% of those are suicides. Of the remainder, homicides, the vast majority are being commited by career criminals, convicted felons, who already aren't permitted to own firearms. How does targeting legal gun owners reduce guns getting into the hands of criminals? And any legislation that addresses guns getting in the hands of criminals is going to require support and cooperation from at least SOME legal gun owners. Can this be accomplished by antagonizing them?

[Cynicus Emeritus]

312. The newspaper was exposed too.

I couldn't agree more. The public and independents will be turned off by extremism in the media, and the pendulum will only swing again. The average member of society despises extremists and that is what this newspaper that published this and some others have attempted to use.

The media itself not only profits by over-hyping tragedies, but harms society too by creating copycats in other disturbed individuals who desire for celebrity even if it is infamous. Hollywood and the media have too many believing that any publicity and celebrity is good. Too many sickos have come to believe it.

BTW the tables were turned on this newspaper and their personal identities disclosed too which is as it should be for those who have a bully pulpit. http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/160286/

[HooptieWagon]

319. Karma is a bitch.

They brought that upon themselves...though I hope they aren't subject to any violence or vandalism.

But this is a perfect example of why we shouldn't let emotions drive us towards knee-jerk reactions. The antis at this point are nothing more than a hysterical mob. There is no rational thought behind how they can get their desires passed through a highly partisan Congress, or the unintentional ramifications that may result. If they do manage to get any legislation passed, it will be at a huge political cost, and likely have little or no effect...or even the opposite effect of what was intended.

[arely staircase]

266. can't wait to see next week's edition

maybe they'll list everyone with expensive jewelry.

[lynne]

268. Bad for gun owners but also bad for those without guns -

- Gun owners may fear that thieves will target their homes for the guns but there is another side to the coin. Those intent upon burglary, home invasion, rape, etc. now know exactly who does NOT have any handgun protection.

Not good for anyone, IMO.

[tabbycat31]

278. This is where I grew up

I almost want to read the people and see who I know

[Bucky]

286. I'm pro-gun regulation, but this just feels wrong to me.

The vast number of people having weapons in their homes is interesting. Naming them that way, while probably not illegal, seems unethical, or at least gratuitously provocative. It doesn't seem to serve any purpose.

[HooptieWagon]

313. Its actually dangerous.

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

Her stalker got her address from public records. There are plenty of good reasons for private citizens to want to keep information private.
And if gun-control legislation is proposed, its not going to pass without some support from legal registered owners...thats just pure numbers. Pissing them off is not the way to get that support.

[Cynicus Emeritus]

333. The MSM (and I include 24/7 news and Facebook)

have a primary agenda to strip away the veil of anonymity and privacy from every American, except themselves.

A part of their mission is to make us comfortable with zero privacy, and to profit by selling data analyticals and everything about "our lives" to greedy corporations that will subsequently commercialize it. They profit by creating demand for stuff we don't really want or can afford, or even need. It is aka propaganda and they probably grabbed this gun info ultimately for the same reason.

[mzmolly]

289. Why?

I don't get the point, frankly.

[friendly_iconoclast]

290. You wouldn't mind then if I published a list of Brady Campaign members?

It's for sale right here:

http://lists.nextmark.com/market;jsessionid=E69014D77785E6A51ACACD005EEF45C8?page=order/online/datacard&id=163065

Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - Donors/Members Mailing List

Founded in 1974 (Formerly known as Handgun Control) this public citizens lobby works for legislative controls and governmental regulations on the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer, and civilian possesion of guns. Activists are individuals who have responded by mail on a gun control issue.

Sauce for goose, et cetera...

[Spryguy]

293. Big Difference

Brady campaign members aren't a bunch of mass murderers in waiting!

[LooseWilly]

302. Public Information is... public. Yes, this list can be acquired by anyone by filling out a form...

- and quite rightly so.

List Name: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence - Donors/Members
List ID: 163065
First Name:
Last Name:
Job Title:
Company Name:
Your Industry:
Country:
Phone:
Email:
Your Needs:

Likewise with any other campaign donor list. Do a search and you can find a list of Mitt Romney's donors. That is public information... and that is precisely what is so insidious about Rove's Cross Roads group- their donors list isn't Public Record.

It is the "protection of privacy" of that list that I find far more disturbing than the possibility of someone finding out that I've donated to some political action group or campaign, or other.

Wouldn't you agree?

[Remmah2]

329. All six of them? nt

nt

[Atman]

296. A serious downside to this...the extreme right.

Just look over at our parallel universe site or the Freeper sites. They've posted the newspaper publisher's home address, e-mail address, etc. That's probably fair game, all things considered. But it's much MUCH worst than that. They've published her home address with many responses advocating burning her house down, ,"paying her a visit," suggesting they visit her but "I hope 'nothing bad happens to her'," etc. All but publicly calling out for some gun nut to go take her out.

The publisher probably acted too soon without really thinking through the ramifications of what she did. She isn't dealing with rational, sane people. The true nutters, the cave dwellers and sewer crawlers, love their guns far more than their country. But they'll say "no, we love our guns because we want to PROTECT our country," without even realizing that they are the ones hurling the nation into the abyss. It's not the Muslim Christian Fascist Socialist Kenyan Hawaiian Liberal Communist lefties who want to overthrow the government. It's not the pacifists shooting up 6-year olds and volunteer firefighters. It's not teh gays calling for intolerance of our neighbors.

Just sayin'.

[proud2BlibKansan]

300. I was afraid of that.

Thanks for not posting the link.

[LooseWilly]

303. Ironically... her home address is NOT a Public Record... so this is invasion of privacy

... and once again the nutters have shown themselves to be threats to the public safety and reinforcing the perception of a need to register them as potential threats to the public.

The "law abiding" gun owners ought to see to this behavior, and "police their own community", before raising a hue and cry about having their public information publicized. (But- what are the odds of that happening?)

[friendly_iconoclast]

328. It could have been gotten from tax records, which *are* public (and online in some places)

Punish those that incite crimes, and as for the rest- well, guess what? They've got the
same rights outlined by the First Amendment as the publisher does...

[Floyd_Gondolli]

325. I thought gun nuts were proud of their home armories?

Not seeing what the problem is.

[Deep13]

327. WTF?! Here you go burglars....nt