Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits

[msj]

You should try and understand what a post is saying before you quote it and reply to it.

Report away!

While you may think it is acceptable to call Bryan a "potential" child molester or a "potential" rapist it is still an inappropriate remark and an ad hominem type attack and I am reporting it so that it sits on your record (I doubt it is worth a suspension depending on your posting history record).

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[Guest]

Oh dear. I didn't.

Let's go back to Kimmy's post, where she said:

Personally, I'm far more concerned about rapists than gun owners. Can I get a list of convicted rapists in my city? I'm sure that most parents are more worried about child molestors than gun owners. Can we also get a list of convicted child molestors?

It seems to me that when sex criminals are released from prison, their locations are made available only in the rarest situations. There's this belief that they should be given a chance to live normal lives. Why do convicted sex criminals get more consideration than law-abiding gun owners?

The equivalent of a legal gun owner who has broken no law would not be a convicted rapist or child molestor, but a potential rapist or child molestor. Basically, anyone. That's the problem with the newspaper publishing what it did, and that's what I meant with my post. A gun owner who has not used his gun in the commission of a crime has as much right to privacy as a man who has not used his penis in the commission of a crime. You don't out "potential" criminals.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bcsapper

[Signals.Cpl]

I say print all three of those lists.

I like the idea of publishing the gun owners. If people think they have a right to own guns, I should have the right to know who they are.

So you like the idea that any criminal would know where to get their pistols and ammunition from? If I was a criminal I have thousands of choices to pick up weapons and ammunition and with a little research I can do so safely. Think about it, where do a large portion of the guns on Canadian streets come from? A lot of them come from thefts, so do you think its the greatest idea to write up the target list for the criminals? Santa has been busy since every gang banger with a brain and some patience now has a source of weapons and ammunition for the taking.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[kimmy]

BC Sapper's point is that these gun owners have been targetted as potential threats to shoot; the same logic would make any adult male a potential rapist.

My own point was to contrast the vindictiveness these law abiding gun owners have been treated with against the sympathy that released sex criminals are given. That seems to me to be the result of a political agenda (specifically: guns BAD, rehabilitation GOOD), rather than a concern with public safety.

-k

[msj]

The equivalent of a legal gun owner who has broken no law would not be a convicted rapist or child molestor, but a potential rapist or child molestor. Basically, anyone. That's the problem with the newspaper publishing what it did. and that's what I meant with my post. A gun owner who has not used his gun in the commission of a crime has as much right to privacy as a man who has not used his penis in the commission of a crime. You don't out "potential" criminals.

So now you are showing just how sexist you are.

One does not have to have a penis to be a child molester or a rapist (even a "potential" one).

While rare, women can be both (including "potential").

Regardless, to use such "logic" to effectively insult someone, which is what you are doing, is a violation of the rules and has been reported.

You can justify it all you want by saying that "all humans are potential molesters or rapists" but this does not change the fact that you specifically singled out another member to effectively accuse him of being one.

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[Guest American Woman]

From what I've read, the guy who shot the firemen couldn't own firearms because he was a convicted felon, so supposedly the guns were stolen from the area. Having such a handy list - with names and addresses - would likely have helped him - and may very well help others like him.

[msj]

BC Sapper's point is that these gun owners have been targetted as potential threats to shoot; the same logic would make any adult male a potential rapist.

Oh, I see you exhibiting the same sexist line too.

I'm surprised, kimmy.

I though any human was capable of any crime.

It does not take a penis to molest children or even rape women - as sad as that makes humanity.

Nevertheless, to go from the generic (all humans are potential criminals/monsters) to the specific (Bryan is on at "least two of those lists") is deeply insulting to him and is attacking the person and not the ideas.

As for your and bcsapper's line about having a penis automatically makes men "potential" molesters and rapists - I personally find that extremely offensive and ignorant.

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[Guest]

So now you are showing just how sexist you are.

One does not have to have a penis to be a child molester or a rapist.

While rare, women can be both.

Regardless, to use such "logic" to effectively insult someone, which is what you are doing, is a violation of the rules and has been reported.

You can justify it all you want by saying that "all humans are potential molesters or rapists" but this does not change the fact that you specifically singled out another member to effectively accuse him of being one.

If you realise you posted too quickly and perhaps without fully understanding the post to which you were replying you should just admit it instead off going of on a random tangent.

I would like to know if Bryan actually thinks I accused him of anything. I would like to know if anyone else on this forum thinks I accused him of anyhting.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bcsapper

[msj]

If you realise you posted too quickly and perhaps without fully understanding the post to which you were replying you should just admit it instead of going of on a random tangent.

I would like to know if Bryan actually thinks I accused him of anything. I would like to know if anyone else on this forum thinks I accused him of anyhting.

This is a matter of violating the rules.

Your analogy works in one sense however it fails in that it assumes that by virtue of having a penis this automatically means one is a "potential" rapist and/or child molester. This is sexist, btw.

You also specifically use the poor analogy as an insult specifically against Bryan which is against the forum rules.

Hence my reporting of it.

If you want to rephrase your point so that you make the same point without being sexist, without tarring an entire gender, and without specifically tying Bryan's name with being a "rapist" or "molester" even though you have so carefully covered up your insult by couching it in the manner that you have then go ahead and do the right thing.

[kimmy]

It does not take a penis to molest children or even rape women -

Maybe not, but if you were placing bets on who might be a potential rapist, the odds vastly favor a male.

Nevertheless, to go from the generic (all humans are potential criminals/monsters) to the specific (Bryan is on at "least two of those lists") is deeply insulting to him and is attacking the person and not the ideas.

Nonsense.

As for your and bcsapper's line about having a penis automatically makes men "potential" molesters and rapists - I personally find that extremely offensive and ignorant.

It's entirely analogous to the logic that somebody with a gun permit is a potential shooter.

-k

[msj]

BTW, bcsapper, I don't think it is ever a good idea to imply anyone is a "potential" rapist or "potential child molester" as you ought to know just how emotionally charged the words "rapist" and "child molester" are.

To couch it in the abstract way that you have done could be a simple case of you just being innocent (albeit flippant).

Or you could be doing a smear campaign and trying to get away with it.

IMV, no one should ever have their name associated with the words "rapist" or "child molester" no matter how convoluted the reasoning unless the reasoning is because they are, in fact, convicted as one.

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[kimmy]

If you grasp why it might be offensive and inflammatory to brand people as potential rapists based on arbitrary criteria, then perhaps you might also grasp why it is offensive and inflammatory to brand people as potential gun murderers based on arbitrary criteria.

-k

[betsy]

Oh, I see you exhibiting the same sexist line too.

Why do you call posters sexists when all they show is try to apply logic to the discussion? We all know what a child molester is. Yes, you don't need a penis to be a molester....but we all know that's not what they're saying! Stick to the issue and stop making petty irrelevant accusations!

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[Guest]

BTW, bcsapper, I don't think it is ever a good idea to imply anyone is a "potential" rapist or "potential child molester" as you ought to know just how emotionally charged the words "rapist" and "child molester" are.

To couch it in the abstract way that you have done could be a simple case of you just being innocent (albeit flippant).

Or you could be doing a smear campaign and trying to get away with it.

IMV, no one should ever have their name associated with the words "rapist" or "child molester" no matter how convoluted the reasoning unless the reasoning is because they are, in fact, convicted as one.

You still don't get it, do you. I said he would be on the lists. We all would be . That's the problem with publishing the list of gun owners, which was what I was aiming my point at. They have done nothing wrong, but they are singled out.

As Bryan would have done nothing wrong, but would be on the list. As I would be. As you would be. As we all would be.

I ask again: Does anyone think I accused Bryan of being a rapist or a child molestor.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bcsapper

[msj]

Maybe not, but if you were placing bets on who might be a potential rapist, the odds vastly favor a male.

Then that is strange logic, indeed.

If we really are talking about "potential" and you are admitting that most actual rapists are men then it is strange to exclude the female gender as being within the potential since it only takes one actual female with some kind of phallus (vegetative or otherwise) to realizing the full raping and/or child molesting "potential" of the entire female gender.

[betsy]

Or you could be doing a smear campaign and trying to get away with it.

IMV, no one should ever have their name associated with the words "rapist" or "child molester" no matter how convoluted the reasoning unless the reasoning is because they are, in fact, convicted as one.

Well ladida....I hope you had that same view with regards to the nurses whom you'd already smeared and convicted as negligent in the other topic. Without knowing the full details!

http://www.mapleleaf...ic=22077&st=135

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[msj]

You still don't get it, do you. I said he would be on the lists. We all would be . That's the problem with publishing the list of gun owners, which was what I was aiming my point at.

I as again: Does anyone think I accused Bryan of being a rapist or a child molestor.

That's the thing - you have clearly associated another members' name with the terms "rapist" and "child molester."

There are many ways one can interpret that association and I think one of those "potential" ways is that you wanted to insult him so you found a clever and convoluted way to do so.

Even if you are innocent (and I really don't think you are nearly as innocent as you claim) you should be able to see this and realize it is bad form to associate emotionally charged terms to a specific member in a way that can be perceived as an insult and as a violation of the forum rules.

[msj]

Well ladida....I hope you had that same view with regards to the nurses whom you'd already convicted as negligent in the other topic.

Did I call the second nurse a "potential" rapist or "potential" child molester?

No, I put down specific reasons for why I thought she was unprofessional based on listening to the actual event in question.

If you want to discuss that further then I suggest you keep it to that thread.

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[msj]

Why do you call posters sexists when all they show is try to apply logic to the discussion?

I'm calling it sexist because it is sexist to claim that only men are capable of being child molesters and/or rapists when, in fact, I know that AW has shown this to not be the case in a different thread (and for which I know kimmy saw the reply).

So, yes, it is sexist to claim that only men are "potential" rapists when one knows that women have been convicted of rape and, therefore, may have less "potential" but are still, theoretically, just as capable as men.

And this leads to one more thing - one has to either carefully construct what the word "rape" means to only include a penis in the act (thus justifying kimmy and bcsapper) or understanding that "rape" has a meaning that goes beyond simply using a penis.

This is a further problem with bcsappers very poor analogy but then definitions are always a weakness for this type of thing.

Edited December 26, 2012 by msj

[Bryan]

I ask again: Does anyone think I accused Bryan of being a rapist or a child molestor.

You very clearly and directly did. It was a deliberate inflammatory personal attack. You just thought you could get away with it with a not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are explanation.

[msj]

I ask again: Does anyone think I accused Bryan of being a rapist or a child molestor.

The fact that you have to ask the question should be a sign as to just how inappropriate your remark is.

[betsy]

Well I think it's just simply a misunderstanding. I'm referring to his explanation:

BCSapper

The equivalent of a legal gun owner who has broken no law would not be a convicted rapist or child molestor, but a potential rapist or child molestor. Basically, anyone. That's the problem with the newspaper publishing what it did, and that's what I meant with my post. A gun owner who has not used his gun in the commission of a crime has as much right to privacy as a man who has not used his penis in the commission of a crime. You don't out "potential" criminals.

I see the logic in this explanation. It is true. In a way.

They're not even potential criminals! That's like saying everyone who owns a hammer, a knife, an ax, etc.., is a potential criminal. But we all know only a few percentage would commit the crime.

[msj]

It's entirely analogous to the logic that somebody with a gun permit is a potential shooter.

What I'm saying is that it is possible to create an analogy without specifically insulting a member with what is effectively an ad hominem attack.

[betsy]

Maybe the question should be: by what means would you rather be killed? By a gun? Knife? Chainsaw? Ax?

Molotov cocktails? Fire?

If someone is determined to kill you....he'll use any weapon he wants to. And if he wants to kill en masse - all it takes is a little creativity.

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[Guest]

You very clearly and directly did. It was a deliberate inflammatory personal attack. You just thought you could get away with it with a not-as-clever-as-you-think-you-are explanation.

I challenge you to show how I did. Take as much time and space as you like. Show it, and I'll leave the forum.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bcsapper