guyser Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Please. You have no better response than that? Sadly no. The rules may suck, but they signed up anyway knowing full well what they are/were . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Perhaps then the anger should be directed to the Govt who made the rules on this?I have no issues with guns nor gun owners, but if they want to whine about this, then perhaps they shouldnt have bought a gun. Some have vowed to try to get the laws changes, so the public at large doesn't have access to the information. In the meantime, no reason why they can't be angry at both the government and those who published the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Perhaps then the anger should be directed to the Govt who made the rules on this? I have no issues with guns nor gun owners, but if they want to whine about this, then perhaps they shouldnt have bought a gun. Wow, really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 The releasing of the gun owners names may be legal, but it sure as hell is unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I still don't understand why they would not want anyone to know they have something that supposedly makes them safe. I guess if you're paranoid, you're paranoid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Perhaps then the anger should be directed to the Govt who made the rules on this? I have no issues with guns nor gun owners, but if they want to whine about this, then perhaps they shouldnt have bought a gun. What I'm saying is it's wrong for media organizations to print or post online such lists. I'm not sure if you have an opinion on whether you think it's right or wrong, or whether you care. You do seem to think that it is what it is, forgetting that for over 200 years, no newspaper has thought it newsworthy to print out such lists. At any rate, so now the police and all of the enforcement officers that have gun permits have no other recourse, but should hand in their guns and gun permits so as to protect themselves, their families and property in case a media oganization deems their community has too many gun permits? I do not concur, and the administration's continued silence on this since it helps their short term goals is sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I still don't understand why they would not want anyone to know they have something that supposedly makes them safe. I guess if you're paranoid, you're paranoid. Because several gang members can now attack a police officers home after they find his address. If he gets off a few shots before he's killed, so what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Because several gang members can now attack a police officers home after they find his address. If he gets off a few shots before he's killed, so what? You sound like a crazy person. How about you detail how this imaginary attack that would never happen would come about? Gang Member 1: Know what today....F going out and selling drugs I saw we pick a name out of this newspaper about where guns are and for no reason try to kill that person.....because you know they have a gun so lets do this things for no reason. Gang Member 2: Yes that sounds like a great plan that no one but Sharkman would ever think of because it makes no sense. Is that how that comes about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 What I'm saying is it's wrong for media organizations to print or post online such lists. I'm not sure if you have an opinion on whether you think it's right or wrong, or whether you care. You do seem to think that it is what it is, forgetting that for over 200 years, no newspaper has thought it newsworthy to print out such lists. The headline says it all, IMO: "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." If that wasn't supposed to invoke fear after what had just happened, it certainly was meant to sensationalize. It most definitely does make it all sound sinister. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 The headline says it all, IMO: "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." If that wasn't supposed to invoke fear after what had just happened, it certainly was meant to sensationalize. It most definitely does make it all sound sinister. There is that kind of effect indeed. Nothing like putting more fear into people when less fear should be the course of action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 What I'm saying is it's wrong for media organizations to print or post online such lists. I'm not sure if you have an opinion on whether you think it's right or wrong, or whether you care. You do seem to think that it is what it is, forgetting that for over 200 years, no newspaper has thought it newsworthy to print out such lists. Its not wrong in and of itself. It is public data, anyone could get a hold of it. It is afterall only a list of those who have applied so not a list of who has what . Nor did thr list include long guns. But the law stated this was public data and therefore can be seen by the public. It is to me neither right nor wrong. I do think without a clear objective it was kind of shitty, but beyond that I dont have any real concerns It has been done before so the 200 yrs thing is not true. At any rate, so now the police and all of the enforcement officers that have gun permits have no other recourse, but should hand in their guns and gun permits so as to protect themselves, their families and property in case a media oganization deems their community has too many gun permits? I do not concur, and the administration's continued silence on this since it helps their short term goals is sad. Not at allIf the police applied for a permit in Westshester, they will remain on the books. Handing in their guns, in the face of security concerns that they are saying exists (doubtful to me) then they best keep on CCW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Because several gang members can now attack a police officers home after they find his address. If he gets off a few shots before he's killed, so what? They could have done that before the publication. They know the job and all the concerns. This is merely window dressing for other reasons, deflection as it were.Dont blame them, but not buying it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 There is that kind of effect indeed. Nothing like putting more fear into people when less fear should be the course of action. I see it as an attempt to cash in on the tragedy. There's nothing about it that makes me feel as if the press was trying to provide a public service. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 (edited) The Journal has said they wanted to let people know who had guns in light of the recent Newtown shooting. Thats what they have said, so thats what they meant when they published info. Some people might be moving and want to know whats in the neighbourhood. Nothing wrong with that. Edited January 9, 2013 by guyser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 I see it as an attempt to cash in on the tragedy. There's nothing about it that makes me feel as if the press was trying to provide a public service. I read a report that said this paper's circulation has dropped significantly in the last year. They will be profiting by this unless mad gun owners cancel their subscriptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 They could have done that before the publication. They know the job and all the concerns. This is merely window dressing for other reasons, deflection as it were. Dont blame them, but not buying it. Yes that's true they could do it before, but now it's much easier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Yes that's true they could do it before, but now it's much easier. Yah because that evil thing that was just invented called the phone book. Come on you are reaching here very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 You must not be aware, cops do not list in the phone book. A friend of mine does administration work for Corrections Canada(prison system) and convicts can get addresses from those on the outside who might have inside connections with a telephone company or cable company, etc. But now any fool can get a name and look it up on this map The Journal has thoughtfully provided. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 You must not be aware, cops do not list in the phone book. Some do. The listing might be B. Jones and his official cop name is William Jones. But to say they dont as a blanket statement is not correct. But now any fool can get a name and look it up on this map The Journal has thoughtfully provided. Any fool could have done that before . Maybe they should do what Judges do in this country, they have to switch up their routes all the time to avoid stalking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 9, 2013 Report Share Posted January 9, 2013 Maybe they should print a list of judges and see how fast it gets canned! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Maybe they should print a list of judges and see how fast it gets canned! Do the judges own a weapon which has to be registered and is open to FOIP? If not it really is an apples to oranges comparison isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 What judges and law enforcement have in common is they both put away criminals and gang members that might have an interest in finding them out later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 (edited) What judges and law enforcement have in common is they both put away criminals and gang members that might have an interest in finding them out later. Cool story Bro. Again has really nothing to do with this. Again you act like Gang bangers go all this trouble to get addresses yet they can't fill out a freedom of information request? It takes all of 15 minutes and 25 dollars to do. It isn't rocket science like you would have me believe. Edited January 10, 2013 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Maybe they should print a list of judges and see how fast it gets canned! If they have a permit application in the file.....then sure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 10, 2013 Report Share Posted January 10, 2013 Cool story Bro. Again has really nothing to do with this. Again you act like Gang bangers go all this trouble to get addresses yet they can't fill out a freedom of information request? It takes all of 15 minutes and 25 dollars to do. It isn't rocket science like you would have me believe. You think a gang member would go fill out a freedom of information request? Or know where/how to do so? Guyser, I wasn't suggesting outing judges that carry, but outing judges period just because they are judges. They wouldn't like it and would abuse their powers to shut down the website in short order I think. But it was just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.