Break in while I’m gone? My shit’s locked up tight.
Break in while I’m here? It’s not.
Bring it.
What’s the big deal? Gun owners always think they’re safe with a gun, and everyone’s safer with them. In fact, now people will know which houses to avoid, right? I assume that’s the logic behind more guns in the wake of the recent tragedy. So the newspaper did you guys a favor, now everyone knows you have guns and you’re much safer as a result. We should publish all gun owners’ information this way, prove that we believe it when they say they’re safer with guns
NICS requests are saved. The retention period is unknown. Not all data in a NICS request is subject to a FOIA request.
And this, more than any other reason, is why I generally oppose registration.
Selling newspapers by playing to public nervousness. I doubt there’s anything else to it.
No, they went beyond that and listed individuals who hadn’t actually done anything other than exercise a right in a lawful manner.
Should we also publish tax returns? Prescription information etc.? Here’s the thing, the issue is that a newspaper published information that should ostensibly be private other than a compelling public interest.
Did I say otherwise? We were discussing the reason they published this information.
I would laugh my ass silly if someone countered with a public posting of the names, addresses, and phone numbers of the reporters, press operators, management, and major stockholders of that paper.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
What’s a newspaper?
I have no idea what the concern is. All of these names and addresses are in the phone book. This just tags anyone, using completely public information, who has a gun permit. I don’t get the outrage.
Who cares?
I could get a list of people who have parking tickets or building permits or a pilots license and do a similar map. Unless it contains any personally identifiable information (PII) like SSN or heath information (HIPAA) all information the government has about you is, generally speaking, public.
If you own a smart phone Apple knows which bars you visited Friday night. Why should you be surprised or alarmed that a newspaper knows you own a gun?
He is comparing this situation to the Nuremberg Files, a website that listed the names, pictures, and personal information of doctors who provided abortions, compared them to Nazis, and called for them to be “brought to justice” and things like that. Perhaps not surprisingly some of the doctors were killed, and when that happened their names would be crossed out on the website. I believe a court ultimately ruled that the website was a threat and was not protected speech, and I’m inclined to agree based on that last element. I agree that’s the obvious comparison here. I see no good reason for the newspaper to print this information but the information itself is publicly available. There’s no gun owner Google site, but anybody could get it through FOIL.
This. They just put more guns on the streets in the hands of criminals.
I’d post the editor’s name,address, and picture on the internet along with all family members plus type of cars driven and license plate numbers.
Do you have your electricity locked up too? Check this videostarting at 3:30.
would you laugh yourself silly if there was a rash of burglaries and the stolen guns ended up used in a murder?
That’s the point of the outrage at the dick move by the newspaper.
I guess you have to equip your safe wtih a Frederick to shoot the robbers when they cut through the safe. 6:30
“this” being what? (Other than a vague pronoun with no clear antecedent.)
You missed the whole point. People who pay taxes and have prescription drugs don’t go around telling other people about how safe they are and that paying taxes and having drugs is the only way to prevent other tax-paying, drug-buying people from killing them. This cuts directly to the heart of the NRA and gun rights people’s argument: that they are safer with guns, that if everyone had guns and criminals knew it, everyone would be much safer. That is their argument, and their response after Newtown doubled down on that despite the insanity of it all.
The paper’s calling their bluff. These people think they’re safer with guns if people know they have guns right? Well here are those who have guns then, criminals should all avoid them now, right? Or maybe people complaining about it here just know in the way back recesses of their brains that having a gun means little if you’re a target, that it invites confrontation, that even if you have a ton of guns at home and on you, someone can simply come up behind you and stab you in the neck and it would mean nothing. Unless you guys are ready to admit having a gun doesn’t make you that much safer, I think the paper’s doing you guys a favor. You should all be thanking them. In fact, its odd that none of you have ever published the fact that you’re armed yet
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say that. (Have you?) The argument usually goes like this: the possibility that some community members are armed will deter criminals in a general way, and that if someone does break in, they are safer with a gun. And if you want to debate them on those safety issues, there’s little to be gained from publishing addresses and registration information. You’d want crime statistics, not the names and addresses of gun owners. I’m not comfortable with the idea that people who exercise a right need to have their “bluff” called.