This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Gun Control Thread

1679111253

Comments

  • edited January 2013
    It says it was Westchester and Rockland County, rich people territory mostly. Don't see any stories about robberies though.
    http://newyork.newsday.com/westchester/journal-news-map-listed-guns-permits-stolen-from-new-city-home-cops-say-1.4463741

    It's not the best link but it's all i could pull up on short notice.


    Edit: More details here, but i'm not sure of the veracity of the source. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/13/house-identified-on-ny-papers-gun-map-burglarized-and-the-robbers-went-straight-for-the-guns/
    Post edited by Drunken Butler on
  • I guess a gun safe is not so safe if the safe can be stolen? Were the permits in the safe or were they targeted for stealing?
  • Ahh there they are! Yeah those arent bad areas at all as far as I know. Wouldn't be too surprised if it was linked to the map.
  • I guess a gun safe is not so safe if the safe can be stolen? Were the permits in the safe or were they targeted for stealing?
    any determined criminal is gonna get what they come for. Most gun safes are heavy a large yes, but unless they're bolted down (and in that case you'd just need a drill) they can be carried off with the right equipment.
  • edited January 2013
    Well let's hope they're learning from that. Seriously who thought it would be a good idea to list for public consumption who has potentialy thousands of dollars in any kind of merchandise? Let alone dangerous merchandise that can now no longer be traced.
    Post edited by spikespiguel1 on
  • Someone retaliated by listing the home address information for the journalists and management of the paper. Paper was less than ammussed.
  • edited January 2013
    Turn about is fair play.

    Edit: OK I didn't mean that entirely. Just cause the paper endangered people doesn't mean that the staff's family deserves the same.
    Post edited by spikespiguel1 on
  • Still rather hypocritical to hide behind the guise of journalism when you invade someone else's privacy, then cry foul when they turn around and invade your privacy. I'd prefer prosecution of the journalists involved and maybe a hefty fine on the paper itself, but we all know that won't be happening <_<
  • My question is: why do people think that registration --> confiscation? Has our government actually ever made overtures in a direction of confiscating all the guns? Where is this scenario rooted? Is there a rational basis for it?
    I believe Hitler's Germany did something very similar.
    Hitler was actually very much in favor of looser gun laws - for him and his friends, and no one else.
  • edited January 2013
    Still rather hypocritical to hide behind the guise of journalism when you invade someone else's privacy, then cry foul when they turn around and invade your privacy. I'd prefer prosecution of the journalists involved and maybe a hefty fine on the paper itself, but we all know that won't be happening <_<</p>
    Yeah, because they didn't do anything illegal. They republished publically availiable information that they obtained from the government. As borderline unethical as it was, and as difficult-if-not-impossible to justify as it was, and as incredibly fucking questionable as their motives were, they've not broken any laws by republishing publically availiable information, it's that simple.

    If you want to argue that it should be illegal, essentially going after freedom of the press, then I think we're going to have a minor disagreement.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • I would respond to that, but I think George was making the point facetiously so I don't want to dwell on it any longer than we already have.
  • Still rather hypocritical to hide behind the guise of journalism when you invade someone else's privacy, then cry foul when they turn around and invade your privacy. I'd prefer prosecution of the journalists involved and maybe a hefty fine on the paper itself, but we all know that won't be happening <_<</p>
    Yeah, because they didn't do anything illegal. They republished publically availiable information that they obtained from the government. As borderline unethical as it was, and as difficult-if-not-impossible to justify as it was, and as incredibly fucking questionable as their motives were, they've not broken any laws by republishing publically availiable information, it's that simple.

    If you want to argue that it should be illegal, essentially going after freedom of the press, then I think we're going to have a minor disagreement.
    I don't think the information should be publicly available.
  • I would respond to that, but I think George was making the point facetiously so I don't want to dwell on it any longer than we already have.
    Oh, I have no doubt he was being facetious, I was just curious as to what Hitler's gun policies actually were and thought the forum would like to know what I'd found.
  • I don't think the information should be publicly available.
    And how precisely is prosecuting the journalists and fining the paper going to do a single thing about that, considering that it's the government releasing the information?
  • I agree with Jack? NINE!, I don't think freedom of the press includes invasions of privacy like that. Even people on COPS have to sign a waver to not have the mosaic over their faces.
  • I don't think the information should be publicly available.
    And how precisely is prosecuting the journalists and fining the paper going to do a single thing about that, considering that it's the government releasing the information?
    Prosecution may be a bit too far I admit, but I fully expect a class-action lawsuit by the ordinary citizens who now have to live in fear of being burglarized or worse, robbed, because the paper published this information. And not just the gun owners, but the non-gun owners as well. Free press isn't different from free speech; just because you CAN publish it doesn't mean you SHOULD publish it.
  • I'm with Churba here. What they did was clearly unethical, but it is not and should not be illegal.
  • I'm with Churba here. What they did was clearly unethical, but it is not and should not be illegal.
    So shouting fire in a crowded theater is perfectly fine as well?
  • edited January 2013
    I'm with Churba here. What they did was clearly unethical, but it is not and should not be illegal.
    So shouting fire in a crowded theater is perfectly fine as well?
    The two situations are simply not analogous. Try again.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Publishing that list is just a radical interpretation of the First Amendment. If you can do it with the second, we'll do it with the first. ;^)

    Though actually, it's a pretty bog standard interpretation.
  • edited January 2013
    The two situations are simply not analogous. Try again.
    I think the point is that the first amendment doesn't cover all forms of speech. For instance I can't take pictures of people through there windows and post them on line without consent.
    Post edited by spikespiguel1 on
  • edited January 2013
    Just like I think anyone who wants to go out and buy a missile needs to take a 24 hour safety course so we know they're properly trained to handle high explosives (also any gun they may want to use as well)

    Edit: Maybe a little longer for the missile than the handgun.
    Post edited by Jack Draigo on
  • The two situations are simply not analogous. Try again.
    I think the point is that the first amendment doesn't cover all forms of speech. For instance I can't take pictures of people through there windows and post them on line without consent.
    Sure it doesn't, but the mere fact that some exceptions are reasonable doesn't justify all other exceptions.

    It makes sense to restrict shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire because:
    1) You're lying.
    2) It causes an imminent danger.
    3) It serves no useful purpose.

    By contrast, if there actually was a fire in the theatre, shouting "fire" would be a big mistake compared to attempting to maintain order. Indeed, I'd say that it would be unethical to do so if you knew better. Even so, I don't think it is sensible to make it illegal.
  • edited January 2013
    Still rather hypocritical to hide behind the guise of journalism when you invade someone else's privacy, then cry foul when they turn around and invade your privacy. I'd prefer prosecution of the journalists involved and maybe a hefty fine on the paper itself, but we all know that won't be happening <_<</p>
    Yeah, because they didn't do anything illegal. They republished publically availiable information that they obtained from the government. As borderline unethical as it was, and as difficult-if-not-impossible to justify as it was, and as incredibly fucking questionable as their motives were, they've not broken any laws by republishing publically availiable information, it's that simple.

    If you want to argue that it should be illegal, essentially going after freedom of the press, then I think we're going to have a minor disagreement.
    Two examples of citizens foolishly complaining about security by obscurity.

    Gun owners were fine with registration, and those who were aware that the information was public probably assumed no one would learn unless the searcher went into a huge investigation of the owner himself. They weren't concerned when this information was in a record in some Westchester Town Hall, but once it's in a convenient Google Map, they're up in arms. The journalists were assholes for publishing records of private citizens, but they did nothing unethical.

    If this were one specific person of interest, no one would bat an eye to a newspaper saying All 1,502 of Bobby Foo's Rifles Registered in Adherence of the Law or Local Hunting Expert Joey Bar not Registered with Local Authorities, but because so many people were published, it's evil? Don't whine to the newspaper - go to the local authorities and have that law changed so the information is private as quickly as possible!


    The second example is the nationally uniform registration, and there really shouldn't be any argument against this. It seems like states are trying to hide behind their own implementations of varying effectiveness, and can't make an argument beyond some slippery slope fallacy. Both of these stories have the same moral: Don't hide behind bureaucratic incompetence. If you expect a piece of legislation will be handled by anything less than the superhuman team of perfectionists, (that, admittedly, the government will never have) don't get butthurt when information is broadcast effectively.
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • Well considering I don't LIVE in New York there isn't much more I CAN do. sure I can start a petition on Change.org, but how well will that go over if they find out I'm two states over?
  • edited January 2013
    I think the greatest problem is with the sudden availability of the information, and not the availability itself. Perhaps it's attracting attention to the information that causes a problem rather than the information itself?

    With that in mind, I don't think it's ethical to attract attention to information in such a manner while knowing the consequences, unless you can reasonably argue that the benefits of doing so outweigh the costs.

    I wonder how this would compare to a situation in which the information was public, easily available, and everyone knew it was easily available, and all of this had already been the case for a prolonged period of time?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • edited January 2013
    Well considering I don't LIVE in New York there isn't much more I CAN do. sure I can start a petition on Change.org, but how well will that go over if they find out I'm two states over?
    The advice was directed at the people who were affected by the journalists (who, admittedly, will never read this).

    As for you, and I don't even know why I'm making suggestions, but if you feel so adamantly, why not check your own local and state laws to make sure other people won't fall in this trap? Why not white-hat your own investigation and see how much information you can find?
    Post edited by Schnevets on
  • Well now that actually is a good suggestion.
  • edited January 2013
    I agree with Jack? NINE!, I don't think freedom of the press includes invasions of privacy like that. Even people on COPS have to sign a waver to not have the mosaic over their faces.
    Nope - Republishing publically available information is not an invasion of privacy, because the information is in a public space, there is no privacy to be invaded.

    COPS is absolutely not the same, it's not even worth mentioning in this situation, because they're not a journalistic entity, they're an Entertainment show. The same rules do not apply. You're comparing Reality TV to a Newspaper.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • OK I guess I just don't think that that information should be available to just anyone outside of law enforcement.
Sign In or Register to comment.