Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits

[kimmy]

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.

BC Sapper posed the question about how people would feel about publishing lists declaring innocent people threats based on arbitrary criteria.

Bryan's enthusiastic support for the concept indicated that he didn't actually understand the premise being proposed.

And your ongoing effort to quibble what criteria make one a potential rapist indicate that you don't actually understand the premise being proposed either.

Whether having a penis is really sufficient grounds to declare someone a potential rapist is completely beside the point. The premise in itself is unfair. And the premise would generate great offense if it were directed at some group other than people with gun permits (not gun owners with criminal records, not gun owners, but people with gun permits). Because in the hype surrounding the gun control debate, law abiding citizens with gun permits are apparently less deserving of consideration than sex criminals who have been released from prison.

I ask again: Where can I get a list of convicted rapists living in my town? What about accused rapists who were not convicted in court? Maybe my safety would be improved if I had access to information about which men have been accused of sexual assault, even if they weren't convicted of anything.

-k

[msj]

And your ongoing effort to quibble what criteria make one a potential rapist indicate that you don't actually understand the premise being proposed either.

I would not have quibbled if I did not find your and bcsapper's sexist replies so incredibly .

You and bcsapper brought up the "penis" and "adult male" after the fact which is why it has continued to play a role in this discussion.

Once again - bcsapper could have made the point that is being claimed (and for which I largely agree) without resorting to an ad hominem attack on Bryan (no matter how indirect).

We are supposed to focus on the idea and not the person and I object to bcsapper implying another member is a rapist and a child molester even if such association is based on some abstract point of "potential" and it is supposedly linked to some greater point related to the topic at hand.

My point is keep the greater point and state it in such a way that has no implications for another member.

State it so that no one can come along and accuse one of violating the forum rules.

[betsy]

If the newspaper thinks it fair to publish the names and addresses of all those with gun permits....then I think the public have the right to know the names and addresses of all those involved in the publications of those private information.

Fair is fair.

These publication had deliberately endangered numeorus lives for such irresponsible and callous action.

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[dre]

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

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

No that logic would only apply to adult males that had obtained licenses for some kind of item specifically made to use in rapes.

[betsy]

I would not have quibbled if I did not find your and bcsapper's sexist replies so incredibly .

You and bcsapper brought up the "penis" and "adult male" after the fact which is why it has continued to play a role in this discussion.

Once again - bcsapper could have made the point that is being claimed (and for which I largely agree) without resorting to an ad hominem attack on Bryan (no matter how indirect).

We are supposed to focus on the idea and not the person and I object to bcsapper implying another member is a rapist and a child molester even if such association is based on some abstract point of "potential" and it is supposedly linked to some greater point related to the topic at hand.

My point is keep the greater point and state it in such a way that has no implications for another member.

State it so that no one can come along and accuse one of violating the forum rules.

Oh you're so full of it....Mr. Bull! Will you read what you wrote in the other topic?

There is no consistency about you at all.....

msj:

No, the problem is that people like you who have never taken a professional oath in your life, who is completely ignorant as to what it means to take such an oath and to conduct oneself as a professional, who thinks that we professionals can just fall back and use typical excuses that ordinary people get away with.

Professionals must be held to higher standards because we are in positions that require higher standards.

Trying to deflect accountability away from her lack of professionalism is a cop out.

If I was hearing these excuses from other professionals then I would be concerned.

But hearing it from people who don't know any better shouldn't surprise me.

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

So, what happened to, "focus on the idea and not the person," and "My point is keep the greater point and state it in such a way that has no implications for another member?"

You belittled and insulted not only me....but all those whom you claim to have not taken any oath....and therefore, "un-professional." And now you give a sanctimonious sermon to BCSapper and Kimmy????

Go ahead....the more you open your mouth, the deeper you seem to sink!

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[msj]

Oh you're so full of it....Mr. Bull! Will you read what you wrote in the other topic?

There is no consistency about you at all.....

You belittled and insulted not only me....but all those whom you claim to have not taken any oath....and therefore, "un-professional."

Go ahead....the more you open you mouth, the deeper you seem to sink!

What I stated were facts. You can dispute these facts if you like in that thread.

Nevertheless, I will remind you again that it is against forum rules to cross post.

[betsy]

What I stated were facts. You can dispute these facts if you like in that thread.

Nevertheless, I will remind you again that it is against forum rules to cross post.

I like the way you bring up forum rules like a a sexy bimbo holds up the garlic to Dracula!

And for the record, all you stated were a bunch of bs! AS SHOWN.

Edited December 26, 2012 by betsy

[msj]

I like the way you bring up forum rules like a a sexy bimbo holds up the garlic to Dracula!

And for the record, all you stated were a bunch of bs! AS SHOWN.

If I have violated forum rules then report it and/or discuss it within that thread. Do not cross post.

[Signals.Cpl]

No that logic would only apply to adult males that had obtained licenses for some kind of item specifically made to use in rapes.

What about cars? Drunk drivers kill people all the time, should we punish all drivers for the actions of a few?

[dre]

What about cars? Drunk drivers kill people all the time, should we punish all drivers for the actions of a few?

Nobody is being punished here. This information is not private otherwise a request for it by a media organization would not have yielded any information. I think this was a rather frivalous excersize and I dont see the information being particularly usefull for anything but I dont think it constitutes any kind of "publishment" either.

[Bryan]

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.

See posts # 21-23 in this thread:

Actually, the equivalent list would be of potential rapists and child molestors.

I can't see those who find nothing wrong with the rag's actions in this case agreeing to those articles.

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.

But you would be on two of them.

You said I would be on the lists of potential rapists and child molestors. Despite your simplistic attempt to back-pedal and pretend you meant no offence, that is a clear and direct attack. Read it again.

Why is your attempt to explain your attack away simplistic? Because such lists actually exist. Aside from the Sex Offender Registry, family service agencies and the like keep their lists, as do police agencies They track people based on their actions, and on people reporting their suspicions of them. Criminal Records, suspicious activities, agency reports, neighbour reports, all get recorded. You do not have to be convicted of a rape or assault to get on many of these lists, you just have to have suspicious enough behaviour that people in authority want to keep their eye on you.

What those lists DON'T keep track of is "people with penises".

[Signals.Cpl]

Nobody is being punished here. This information is not private otherwise a request for it by a media organization would not have yielded any information. I think this was a rather frivalous excersize and I dont see the information being particularly usefull for anything but I dont think it constitutes any kind of "publishment" either.

It does constitute as punishment, it was printed for the world to see so that now intelligent criminals have a go to guide as to the likely location of weapons. This is dangerous to people of all political beliefs and affiliations, think about it, someone wants a gun they can pick one of thousands of random houses do a recce of the house and I can go in and arm myself at my leisure. One scenario you have a criminal walking down the street and wondering which house to hit to get a firearm, on the other hand you have a criminal walking down the street with the address as to which house likely has a weapon in it. The internet is a powerful tool, using that tool with the information provided you can discover a lot of interesting things about people some of them very relaxed as far as data security is concerned.

[Guest]

See posts # 21-23 in this thread:

You said I would be on the lists of potential rapists and child molestors. Despite your simplistic attempt to back-pedal and pretend you meant no offence, that is a clear and direct attack. Read it again.

Why is your attempt to explain your attack away simplistic? Because such lists actually exist. Aside from the Sex Offender Registry, family service agencies and the like keep their lists, as do police agencies They track people based on their actions, and on people reporting their suspicions of them. Criminal Records, suspicious activities, agency reports, neighbour reports, all get recorded. You do not have to be convicted of a rape or assault to get on many of these lists, you just have to have suspicious enough behaviour that people in authority want to keep their eye on you.

What those lists DON'T keep track of is "people with penises".

Did I accuse you of being a rapist or a child molestor or did I say you would end up on a list of potential rapists and child molestors if a list equivalent to the gun owners list was published.

There's nothing worse than conversing with people who are either too dense to read the posts they complain about or too obtuse to acknowledge that they acted too soon with their knee jerk reply. You and msj both.

By the way, when you said print all three of those lists, to which lists were you referring?

Edited December 26, 2012 by bcsapper

[Bryan]

bcsapper, just because you keep digging, doesn't mean you're any closer to getting out of the hole. You are not nearly as clever as you think you are.

You said I would be on the lists of potential molesters and abusers. Lists that actually do exist. Lists that do not include all males as a default.

Edited December 26, 2012 by Bryan

[Guest]

I'm not in a hole. You didn't read the posts. Which lists did you think should be published?

When you made that statement you made it obvious that you hadn't read the posts.

The lists I was talking about included everybody who was not an actual rapist or child molestor. That much would be obvious to anyone with half a brain.

Anyway, I was reported. I'll wait and see if the mod, or admin agrees with you.

Edit> Just to be sure about the "hole" thing. I stand by every word I posted.

Edited December 26, 2012 by bcsapper

[cybercoma]

One of the things that my instructor mentioned was to NOT publicize the fact that you have firearms because it makes you a target for theft. As Signals Corporal mentions, burglars could easily figure out when you're not at home.

A class action lawsuit? I think that's a possibility.

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?

-k

Considering the gun-owner law is in the US where they have Megan's law... rapists aren't given more consideration and your argument becomes a strawman.

[dre]

It does constitute as punishment, it was printed for the world to see so that now intelligent criminals have a go to guide as to the likely location of weapons. This is dangerous to people of all political beliefs and affiliations, think about it, someone wants a gun they can pick one of thousands of random houses do a recce of the house and I can go in and arm myself at my leisure. One scenario you have a criminal walking down the street and wondering which house to hit to get a firearm, on the other hand you have a criminal walking down the street with the address as to which house likely has a weapon in it. The internet is a powerful tool, using that tool with the information provided you can discover a lot of interesting things about people some of them very relaxed as far as data security is concerned.

One scenario you have a criminal walking down the street and wondering which house to hit to get a firearm, on the other hand you have a criminal walking down the street with the address as to which house likely has a weapon in it.

Criminals done "walk down the street wondering which house to get a firearm". Theres a quarter of a billion guns in the US, and its easy to obtain them illegally.

This line of reasoning is just pure silliness.

[GostHacked]

The paper was wrong an very stupid to post that information publicly. I do hope they get sued.

[BC_chick]

You and msj both.

I read it the same way they did.

[BC_chick]

The paper was wrong an very stupid to post that information publicly. I do hope they get sued.

They had a constitutional right to print that information. Gun-owners exercise their personal freedoms and they don't seem to give a hoot that it makes others feel unsafe.

This incident drives in the point that freedoms should be exercised with caution and there are limits to one person's rights when it impacts other people's lives indirectly.

I think it's brilliant.

Edited December 27, 2012 by BC_chick

[Signals.Cpl]

Criminals done "walk down the street wondering which house to get a firearm". Theres a quarter of a billion guns in the US, and its easy to obtain them illegally.

This line of reasoning is just pure silliness.

That may be silliness to you, but if I knew where I can get firearms and ammunition with little effort on my part and without worry as to who and for what the weapon was used before I got my hands on it. And where exactly do you think the illegally purchased weapons come from? The Fields of Iowa?

[GostHacked]

They had a constitutional right to print that information. Gun-owners exercise their personal freedoms and they don't seem to give a hoot that it makes others feel unsafe.

This incident drives in the point that freedoms should be exercised with caution and there are limits to one person's rights when it impacts other people's lives.

I think it's brilliant.

It's not a constitutional right to print this information because this information is not publicly known. I question how they got this information in the first place. This is a breech of privacy plain and simple.

They have put many people at risk by pulling off this incredibly stupid stunt.

[Signals.Cpl]

They had a constitutional right to print that information. Gun-owners exercise their personal freedoms and they don't seem to give a hoot that it makes others feel unsafe.

This incident drives in the point that freedoms should be exercised with caution and there are limits to one person's rights when it impacts other people's lives indirectly.

I think it's brilliant.

And what if it becomes apparent that some bright criminal is using the interactive map as a guide? What happens when hundreds of gun owners end up being relieved of their weapons by the likes of William Spengler? The newspaper just gave them a comprehensive list of gun owners to choose from, why waste time and money to buy weapons and ammunition when I can just go in to someone's home and just take it?

[betsy]

Criminals done "walk down the street wondering which house to get a firearm".

They don't have to wonder about it, now that there's a list.

[betsy]

They had a constitutional right to print that information. Gun-owners exercise their personal freedoms and they don't seem to give a hoot that it makes others feel unsafe.

This incident drives in the point that freedoms should be exercised with caution and there are limits to one person's rights when it impacts other people's lives indirectly.

I think it's brilliant.

So, they should publish the names involved in the publishing of that list. The public's got the right to know which journalists/publishers didn't give a hoot about the safety of citizens in that area.