I just wanted to know what murderous assholes believe in gun ownership enough to even bother with a license. That way I can discriminate against them more easily (though obviously I’ll come up with a legitimate reason to not hire them or whatever).
Thanks Dickhead Daily News!
What’s particularly irritating is that they could have published essentially the same article in a way that wouldn’t have violated anyone’s privacy. “We have discovered that X% of homeowners in Y county have a handgun permit” would have gotten the same point across.
(Although the article’s point is also irritating, to a lesser degree. Am I entitled to know my neighbors’ psychiatric history, and what medications they are taking? I don’t want to live next to a nutcase, after all - I wouldn’t feel safe! How about whether they have any pornography in their home - I don’t feel safe around perverts, either. I’m thoroughly sick of this “safety uber alles” mentality that seems to be creeping across the country.)
According to the cite in the OP, this article included the names of people who have gun permits because they are police officers. Presumably, it’s okay for them to have guns even if you don’t think other people should.
I thought about making a similar comparison, but you don’t have to register your psychiatric meds or your porn. You could probably make a database like this with car registrations except nobody would care.
I’m not a gun owner and I wouldn’t want my name and address listed in the paper for any particular reason let alone the owner of a gun. i have to believe most people feel as I do.
If the information is knowable to the public, then I want to know it.
Do you have a moral objection to the existence of the phone book?
Then I’m sure you are happy to have all the personal information for those who published and wrote the story. It’s right there in the link I provided above. I’m sure those involved are not going to be upset like the gun owners about their privacy being invaded.
Privacy is a dicey issue to me. I’m personally ambivalent about people stalking me as much as they want, there is little trouble they could make.
But I think at the same time, there are tons of things that are public information that I think most reasonable people wouldn’t want “publicized.” “Public information” and “publicized” are very different things.
Even the journalistic profession tends to recognize that it shouldn’t publicize things when they have no journalistic value and they might be unpleasant for the people involved. The biggest example is in cases of rape, the accuser’s name is not typically published unless it has been released in some other way or the accuser makes themselves known to the public.
As part of that, many of you are probably aware, if you have the desire to do the leg work, you can get trial transcripts from criminal trials. Most rape cases that means you would read the gory and extremely personal details of the victim’s rape. That is almost never publicized, even when the accuser has come forward, those painful details are rarely conveyed in print. A few exceptions to that rule would be cases such as Elizabeth Smart’s, but it’s very, very rare.
I’m happy with that stuff being left “public, but a pain to get to” and when a newspaper publishes stuff it is no longer a pain for every random Joe to get the details.
I even think societally there is some long term interest not only in the integrity of the press but in the freedom of the press to not publicize too much. I think if the press genuinely publicized everything it could get access to about every body who ever happened to be part of a news story legislation and even potentially constitutional actions would be taken that would limit freedom of speech–not an outcome I think any of us want to see.
I have no landline now, but when I did I paid extra for an unlisted number. Just sayin.
seriously, this is your argument.
Read the thread and you’ll see my argument. I was asking a question about your statement “I wouldn’t want my name and address listed in the paper for any particular reason.”
and again I’m asking if you’re serious about your question.
As kayaker has already stated, having your name, address, and telephone number published in the phone book is optional. So people who DO have problems with their information being there can take steps to see that it is not.
Unless you’re willing to break the law, the same is not true with regard to handgun permits in New York. If you want to own a handgun legally, you have to apply for that permit. Since opting out isn’t an option, I see no reason why that information should be available to anyone not associated with law enforcement (who may have a legitimate need for it).
Would you object if the phone book also listed you as being gay or black or a registered democrat or what your educational level was whether you wanted that info there or not?
IMO if a piece of information is something that you might tell SOMEONE was none of their business then its certainly not EVERYBODIES business either.
I’m seriously asking you if you actually object to having your name and address published for any particular reason, yes. I don’t think what the newspaper did is equivalent to putting you in the phone book. I’m asking if you made an overly broad statement about your own desire for privacy.
Ok, well the comparison to a phone book, which is voluntary and doesn’t list my possessions or any other information beyond phone# and address seemed pretty stupid. And a business that is in an industry struggling to survive the stupidity of it will be noticeable.
I was only asking if you objected to that information being made public because your wording implied that maybe you did. The answer is obviously no, so that answers my question. I wasn’t implying that’s similar to publishing this gun permit information; that’s considerably more invasive and it didn’t serve any public interest.
You’d think gun owners would welcome a little publicity, no? I mean owning a gun is a way of showing you have a big penis, and now everyone knows it.
well my apologies but it seemed like a comparison.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Editor finds himself reading his own paper’s job ads over this.