I still have an issue with the paper, because I think what they did could and probably did put at least some people in danger.
Meh. That's a separate issue on the fact that our society assumes a lot of data isn't easily available but is. Aggregating perfectly legal and available data is not a crime, nor should it be. We need to evolve social structures to deal with that reality generally.
It's not a crime to pay attention to things you can see. It's not a crime to write down things about things you pay attention to. it's not a crime to aggregate all the things you write down about all the things you pay attention to.
Follow that thread, and I guarantee we will have a database within the next decade that, with unnerving accuracy, automatically generates a list of people who are in fact homo/bi-sexual based solely on their posts on forums and websites (regardless of if they post under pseudonyms or not), with their real names, addresses, and phone numbers.
So clearly we should gather that information and forward it to groups who will use it to hassle and or harm the folks listed. Lets just use that system to figure out who in Texas is homosexual and forward their addresses to all those skinhead fellas. That's not ethically questionable at all.
Aggregation of data is a reality we have to face, but that doesn't absolve someone of the responsibility to consider the implications of their actions. What the paper did might not have been Illegal, but it's still a dick move.
Edit: To clarify, this sort of thing shouldn't be made illegal. It just needs to be applied responsibly. If the newspapers actions caused damage let the civil courts figure it out.
This kind of reminds me about how many lines of work have ethics commissions that go over things that, while not technically illegal, are certainly unethical within their line of work. I'm not sure of journalism has such an ethics commission, but if there was one, then these journalists should probably be censured by it.
Meh. That's a separate issue on the fact that our society assumes a lot of data isn't easily available but is. Aggregating perfectly legal and available data is not a crime, nor should it be. We need to evolve social structures to deal with that reality generally.
I agree with Rym and Drunken Butler. This kind of data farming will happen and we have to deal with it in a realistic manner.
I just think I have a strong reaction to outing people for no good reason, because I went through the repeal of don't ask don't tell here in the navy. Some of my class mates at A school were gay and trusted me with that knowledge, and a list like the ones mentioned could have ruined their careers.
I still have an issue with the paper, because I think what they did could and probably did put at least some people in danger.
I feel like even this is debateable. Are you putting someone in danger for announcing that they won the lottery? They may become the target of a robbery! 50 years ago, outing someone as gay may have put them in serious danger, but what about now? What if a serial killer started targeting every critic who slammed Resident Evil 6? Does metacritic now need to anonymize every Resident Evil 6 review? If that list were revealed one week before Sandy Hook, would anyone have cared?
EDIT: I hadn't read spike's last post when I made this comment.
Wouldn't the police take some steps to anonymize them? I'm actually asking here. Is there president for that kind of action if you know a killer or stalker is going off a list like that?
I still have an issue with the paper, because I think what they did could and probably did put at least some people in danger.
I feel like even this is debateable. Are you putting someone in danger for announcing that they won the lottery?
Yes, but by participating in a lottery you've unequivocally agreed to that danger. That said, running a lottery is relatively unethical in the first place.
I still have an issue with the paper, because I think what they did could and probably did put at least some people in danger.
I feel like even this is debateable. Are you putting someone in danger for announcing that they won the lottery? They may become the target of a robbery! 50 years ago, outing someone as gay may have put them in serious danger, but what about now? What if a serial killer started targeting every critic who slammed Resident Evil 6? Does metacritic now need to anonymize every Resident Evil 6 review? If that list were revealed one week before Sandy Hook, would anyone have cared?
If it was one week before Sandy Hook, then it wouldn't have been revealed. Sandy Hook was the explicit motivation for publishing the list. If it hadn't happened, then this would have never been an issue.
Alright, seriously, after seeing the news of at least four accounts of deluded, irresponsible jackasses bringing assault rifles along on shopping trips in grocery stores and J.C. Penny's, one of the questions on any form for anyone going to try and buy an assault rifle should be "Are you going to bring your assault rifle to public areas to show how responsible of a gun owner you are?"
If anyone answers yes, they're not allowed to have a gun. Fucking seriously. This is stupid on so many levels.
Additionally, LaPierre needs to be punched in the face. Hard. He just suggested that we shouldn't have background checks for anyone because, and I quote "Criminals won't submit themselves to background checks."
WOW I love shooting and guns and even I'm made uncomfortable by what I'm hearing.
I saw a video of a guy carrying a semi auto AK-47 on his back because his state had a open carry law, and he felt perturbed about people being uncomfortable with guns. All I could ask is who do these people think (or hope) they'll be exchanging fire with? If I lived in an open carry state I would probably carry a pistol, but anyone with half a brain knows any assault riffle is meant for the range or wilderness, and the latter is a stretch at times.
This kind of behavior is why we need good gun laws and training, and the talk mentioned by GreatTeacherMacRoss is why we cant seem to get those things.
I'm not getting the point behind "criminals won't get background checks" argument. Criminals will get their guns illegally so why not have the background checks in place for the legal market?
Adam, I don't disagree with you, but I'm gonna have to do the same thing I do to everyone else to be fair - Not Assault rifles, if you must use a term for them, simply "rifles" or "assault weapons"(in most of those specific cases.) While I'm not fond of the term Assault Weapon, the rifles that these fucking dickheads were carrying in public do fall under the definition of Assault Weapon, not Assault Rifle. They're not the same thing, and it's important to be clear on our terms, just as it is when speaking about any other issue.
No need to Adress LaPierre's latest open-mouth-stupid-falls-out, because we already know my stance on licensing and registration for firearm owners and firearms respectively - 100% in favor, and it's ludicrous that you don't currently have it universally. Background checks are a part of that, it's not like we lack the technology to do so practically instantly on the spot, either.
Now, with that out of the way - Jesus fuck, fuck those fucking shitbags. They're not protesting, they're not making a stand, they're effectively trying to make a fucking issue, so that they can try and become the next best thing to martyrs for the cause. I support civilian firearm ownership, but I don't support this fuckery, because not only is it just a cockamamie stunt to try and cause a problem to make people attack you for the stupid fucking stunt you're pulling, to thus try and get people over to your side of the fence, it's also incredibly harmful to both the side you're on, and the debate as a whole. What the fuck are you thinking next, shooting up a shopping mall with a bow and arrow to prove that it's not guns that are the problem? You fucking wankers.
Adam, I don't disagree with you, but I'm gonna have to do the same thing I do to everyone else to be fair - Not Assault rifles, if you must use a term for them, simply "rifles" or "assault weapons"(in most of those specific cases.) While I'm not fond of the term Assault Weapon, the rifles that these fucking dickheads were carrying in public do fall under the definition of Assault Weapon, not Assault Rifle. They're not the same thing, and it's important to be clear on our terms, just as it is when speaking about any other issue.
Consider me needing education. What is the technical difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle? I'm going to assume that the AR-15 is not, in fact, a rifle by technical classifications or something? (I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, I genuinely didn't know there was a difference.)
I also agree with your later statement. They're essentially taunting the rest of society to 'come at me bro', be it legally, physically, or emotionally.
Here's my additional thought on that: Just because you have that type of weapon on you does not mean you will be able to use it effectively before an assailant disables you and, oh I dunno, steals your tool of ranged death making. If I'm a gang member or some other violence inclined individual and I can not under normal circumstances get me an AR-15, and I see some jackass walking around with an assault weapon, I could casually walk up, blast him in the back of the head with a handgun (or mace him or disable him in some other manner) and then *poof*! Captain 'responsible gun owner' just allowed said weapon to get in the hands of someone who we would all rather not have it. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of the myriad of ways that could be misused.
EDIT: I also see this open-carry-mah-assault-weapon-'MURICA dumbassery ending in one of several ways: 1. Open carry douchebag causes ruckus, society shakes its head. 2. Open carry douchebag gets uppity and more douchebaggy, points rifle to prove how harmless it is, accidentally shoots someone or something. 3. Open carry douchebag gets confrontational resulting in exchanging shots with law enforcement and is killed or injured. 4. Open carry douchebag get blasted by someone else with concealed carry or open carry because they thought he was a threat, and is killed or injured. Or, they miss, and a shootout ensues. Comedy gold, that one.
Or any combination of those with some innocent bystander getting winged in the process.
EDIT 2: I just thought of a comparison with the government of Japan banning swords several times in their history. I'm not sure if the comparison is a good one, but it's one I'm starting to think on.
Consider me needing education. What is the technical difference between an assault weapon and an assault rifle? I'm going to assume that the AR-15 is not, in fact, a rifle by technical classifications or something? (I'm not being snarky or sarcastic, I genuinely didn't know there was a difference.)
No worries, man. It's a common mistake, and the terms are very similar, it's easy to mix the two up if you're not familiar with the definitions. It's like this:
An Assault rifle, by Definition, must have the of the following characteristics.
1)It must be capable of being fired from the shoulder - Or in other words, it must have a stock of some type, be it fixed, folding, wire, what have you.
2)It must be capable of selective fire - Or in other words, it must be capable of firing fully automatically, or burst firing - essentially, firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger by design.
3)It has to fire an intermediate cartridge - more power than a pistol, less power than a full-sized rifle round. 5.56 is the typical round used, but it's not limited to that round.
4)It must be supplied from a detachable magazine, rather than a belt or clip.
5)And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters, or 1000 feet.
That's been the term and definition since the first Assault rifles were invented, in WW2.
The term "Assault Weapon" was first defined in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and is defined as "a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:
- a folding or telescoping stock - a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon - a bayonet mount - a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor - a grenade launcher "
According to the definition laid out in the Assault weapons ban - An Assault rifle by definition cannot be an Assault Weapon, and vice versa. The reason for this is that there was no need to regulate Assault rifles at the time, as they were already all but banned between the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 - of course, the only reason I say "all but banned" is because assault rifles that were already in civilian possession were not confiscated, but were grandfathered in, but they're almost never on the market, they're extremely highly sought after collector items.
Oh, I don't know, hunting, sport shooting, display...
Lack of teleportation technology to get your firearms from your house to the range...
We need a two-tierd approach to background checks. Have a list of instant disqualifiers (illegal resident, previous felonies), and a list of warning signs (history of agressive [though not criminal] behavior, use of antidepressants, etc.) and put the onus on the purveyor of fine weaponry to decide if they are going to sell a firearm to this person who, while they haven't committed a felony, they have several indicators that they might cause harm to themselves or someone else.
Adam, I don't disagree with you, but I'm gonna have to do the same thing I do to everyone else to be fair - Not Assault rifles, if you must use a term for them, simply "rifles" or "assault weapons"(in most of those specific cases.) While I'm not fond of the term Assault Weapon, the rifles that these fucking dickheads were carrying in public do fall under the definition of Assault Weapon, not Assault Rifle. They're not the same thing, and it's important to be clear on our terms, just as it is when speaking about any other issue.
Most of the time, I think "semi-automatic rifle" covers what people actually have in mind.
Comments
And yea the government needs to adapt the laws to a time where you cant cross section guns and addresses so easily.
It's not a crime to pay attention to things you can see. It's not a crime to write down things about things you pay attention to. it's not a crime to aggregate all the things you write down about all the things you pay attention to.
Follow that thread, and I guarantee we will have a database within the next decade that, with unnerving accuracy, automatically generates a list of people who are in fact homo/bi-sexual based solely on their posts on forums and websites (regardless of if they post under pseudonyms or not), with their real names, addresses, and phone numbers.
Replace sexuality with basically anything. Pregnant. Gun owner. BSDM ABDP Furry.
Aggregation of data is a reality we have to face, but that doesn't absolve someone of the responsibility to consider the implications of their actions. What the paper did might not have been Illegal, but it's still a dick move.
Edit: To clarify, this sort of thing shouldn't be made illegal. It just needs to be applied responsibly. If the newspapers actions caused damage let the civil courts figure it out.
I just think I have a strong reaction to outing people for no good reason, because I went through the repeal of don't ask don't tell here in the navy. Some of my class mates at A school were gay and trusted me with that knowledge, and a list like the ones mentioned could have ruined their careers.
EDIT: I hadn't read spike's last post when I made this comment.
It is a "precedent" not a "president"!!!
If anyone answers yes, they're not allowed to have a gun. Fucking seriously. This is stupid on so many levels.
Additionally, LaPierre needs to be punched in the face. Hard. He just suggested that we shouldn't have background checks for anyone because, and I quote "Criminals won't submit themselves to background checks."
THAT'S THE FUCKING POINT YOU FUCKING MORON.
I saw a video of a guy carrying a semi auto AK-47 on his back because his state had a open carry law, and he felt perturbed about people being uncomfortable with guns. All I could ask is who do these people think (or hope) they'll be exchanging fire with? If I lived in an open carry state I would probably carry a pistol, but anyone with half a brain knows any assault riffle is meant for the range or wilderness, and the latter is a stretch at times.
This kind of behavior is why we need good gun laws and training, and the talk mentioned by GreatTeacherMacRoss is why we cant seem to get those things.
Edit: Found the video
No need to Adress LaPierre's latest open-mouth-stupid-falls-out, because we already know my stance on licensing and registration for firearm owners and firearms respectively - 100% in favor, and it's ludicrous that you don't currently have it universally. Background checks are a part of that, it's not like we lack the technology to do so practically instantly on the spot, either.
Now, with that out of the way - Jesus fuck, fuck those fucking shitbags. They're not protesting, they're not making a stand, they're effectively trying to make a fucking issue, so that they can try and become the next best thing to martyrs for the cause. I support civilian firearm ownership, but I don't support this fuckery, because not only is it just a cockamamie stunt to try and cause a problem to make people attack you for the stupid fucking stunt you're pulling, to thus try and get people over to your side of the fence, it's also incredibly harmful to both the side you're on, and the debate as a whole. What the fuck are you thinking next, shooting up a shopping mall with a bow and arrow to prove that it's not guns that are the problem? You fucking wankers.
I also agree with your later statement. They're essentially taunting the rest of society to 'come at me bro', be it legally, physically, or emotionally.
Here's my additional thought on that: Just because you have that type of weapon on you does not mean you will be able to use it effectively before an assailant disables you and, oh I dunno, steals your tool of ranged death making. If I'm a gang member or some other violence inclined individual and I can not under normal circumstances get me an AR-15, and I see some jackass walking around with an assault weapon, I could casually walk up, blast him in the back of the head with a handgun (or mace him or disable him in some other manner) and then *poof*! Captain 'responsible gun owner' just allowed said weapon to get in the hands of someone who we would all rather not have it. Doesn't take a lot of imagination to think of the myriad of ways that could be misused.
EDIT: I also see this open-carry-mah-assault-weapon-'MURICA dumbassery ending in one of several ways:
1. Open carry douchebag causes ruckus, society shakes its head.
2. Open carry douchebag gets uppity and more douchebaggy, points rifle to prove how harmless it is, accidentally shoots someone or something.
3. Open carry douchebag gets confrontational resulting in exchanging shots with law enforcement and is killed or injured.
4. Open carry douchebag get blasted by someone else with concealed carry or open carry because they thought he was a threat, and is killed or injured. Or, they miss, and a shootout ensues. Comedy gold, that one.
Or any combination of those with some innocent bystander getting winged in the process.
EDIT 2: I just thought of a comparison with the government of Japan banning swords several times in their history. I'm not sure if the comparison is a good one, but it's one I'm starting to think on.
An Assault rifle, by Definition, must have the of the following characteristics.
1)It must be capable of being fired from the shoulder - Or in other words, it must have a stock of some type, be it fixed, folding, wire, what have you.
2)It must be capable of selective fire - Or in other words, it must be capable of firing fully automatically, or burst firing - essentially, firing more than one round with a single pull of the trigger by design.
3)It has to fire an intermediate cartridge - more power than a pistol, less power than a full-sized rifle round. 5.56 is the typical round used, but it's not limited to that round.
4)It must be supplied from a detachable magazine, rather than a belt or clip.
5)And it should at least have a firing range of 300 meters, or 1000 feet.
That's been the term and definition since the first Assault rifles were invented, in WW2.
The term "Assault Weapon" was first defined in the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and is defined as "a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following:
- a folding or telescoping stock
- a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon
- a bayonet mount
- a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor
- a grenade launcher "
According to the definition laid out in the Assault weapons ban - An Assault rifle by definition cannot be an Assault Weapon, and vice versa. The reason for this is that there was no need to regulate Assault rifles at the time, as they were already all but banned between the National Firearms Act of 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 - of course, the only reason I say "all but banned" is because assault rifles that were already in civilian possession were not confiscated, but were grandfathered in, but they're almost never on the market, they're extremely highly sought after collector items. Lack of teleportation technology to get your firearms from your house to the range...
I kinda see scary black guns when I hear semi auto, but then again I like me an AR variant.