Jump to content

Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits


betsy

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

I would never imagine that someone would randomely make such an accusation. I would default to the obvious and then make sure I fully understood the posts in question before believing such a thing.

People have accused others of some pretty ugly things on this forum - even some you really wouldn't expect it of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is checks and balances. This information could have not been released to the media... but once it is the media is certainly free to print it.

Yep, and you can be sure they will. And if there's a rash of gun thefts from residences in the area in the next few months, they will be triping over each other to get the story out and make a buck off their own irresponsible act. And if violence results from it, there will be more finger pointing by the media, but you can be sure they won't be pointing the finger at themselves.

Edited by Spiderfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if there's a rash of gun thefts from residences in the area in the next few months, they will be triping over each other to get the story out and make a buck off their own irresponsible act.

Yup and when that doesnt happen all the doomsayers will sheepishly slink off to some other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The journalist owns a gun!

Posted on Lohud.com, the Journal News site, the map was part of a larger feature story addressing citizens’ concerns over which of their neighbors might own firearms. The story was written by Journal News reporter Dwight R. Worley (whom the paper identified as the owner of a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 Magnum).

http://www.ibtimes.c...ted-back-971330

But according to some comment, the site conveniently left out the address of Worley. Anyway, somebody posted his address, phone number AND PHOTO.

http://christopherfo...-pistol-permit/

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup and when that doesnt happen all the doomsayers will sheepishly slink off to some other thread.

Until the next deranged person picks up a gun and starts killing innocent people and advocates of this inflamitory act of branding every legal gun owner as a potential threat start blaming legal gun owners as the cause of the violence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are comments from law enforcers:

JARVIS: So what do they not like about it, law enforcement specifically?

MILLER: Well the police chiefs look at this and say, look, 40 percent of the people who are holding these gun permits are either active or retired law enforcement. And these are people who have put people in jail for a long time, these are people who could be targets. These are people who might be the prison guards. In Ossining, the corrections officers who some inmate might be looking for their home address, and now it's just point and click. The other thing is that 8,000 – I mean if you just take Rockland County, 8,000 either active or retired NYPD officers live there. So within the law enforcement community, they say in the law of unintended consequences, you're giving people a map to our names and home addresses that's searchable.

GLOR: In addition to law enforcement, and that effect, one of the criticisms here is that potential robbers are going to know who has guns and who aren't, so they know which homes to target. If you're law enforcement looking at all the homes, not just where former law enforcement live and work, how does this make the job more difficult for them?

MILLER: This is one of the things, you know I talked to the sheriffs and the chiefs about. And they said, you know, for a robber it's a double-edged sword. If you're going to burglarize that home, you run the risk that there's a homeowner there with a weapon. On the other hand, if you're a robber looking to burglarize a home where you might steal guns, now you have a map. Now the average crackhead probably doesn't read the Journal The average meth user, they get up at noon, they drink grape soda and eat Cheetos and try to figure out who to knock off on the corner. But when you look at maybe the teenager on that street or the troubled youth, who actually knows the patterns in that neighborhood, who's home, who's not. Now they can look where are the guns on my block?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/12/27/nbc-cbs-report-outrage-over-papers-gun-map-abc-ignores#ixzz2GJ3SvdIIRead more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2012/12/27/nbc-cbs-report-outrage-over-papers-gun-map-abc-ignores#ixzz2GJ2gTySU

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

Well unsettling in some respects I imagine to the permit holders, these kind of “tactics”, like claiming gun owners are supportive of “gun violence”, are hardly surprising ……….I seem to recall not too long ago a Canadian paper published the postal codes and types of restricted firearms in each given area………As an RPAL holder, though not supportive of such actions, it’s not quite the end of the world………I mean, if a thief broke into my home well we were on vacation, first they’d have to contend with our home alarm then would require a plasma torch to open our safes…..If they succeeded, well that’s what home insurance is for…………Now if said thief attempted to liberate my collection well we were home, the band will strike up El Degüello

and I'll take my chances.....

For a deterrence point of view, tis a nice list for thieves on what homes to avoid…….

GunBan.jpg

Edited by Derek L
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha-ha-ha! Good!

It's terrible that they published gun owners' names and addresses. A complete invasion of privacy and totally unethical.

So why would it be good that the publisher's information was made public? That's not good at all. And it's quite hypocritical that you would condemn one party for doing it, but not the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's terrible that they published gun owners' names and addresses. A complete invasion of privacy and totally unethical.

So why would it be good that the publisher's information was made public? That's not good at all. And it's quite hypocritical that you would condemn one party for doing it, but not the other.

Well simple, they invaded a lot of people's privacy and put them in danger so they should face the same problem(s). If they find nothing wrong with their actions then they cannot complain about the same actions levelled agains them. If you put my family in danger right along with the thousands of of legal owners in the state as well as countless of innocent people who might one day face the stolen weapons then by all means you and your families could take your share in the problem, since they think that they can get their political point across by attempting to ostracize gun owners then they need to be put in their place and they need to understand that breaching people's privacy and destroying their sense of security will not be tolerated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's terrible that they published gun owners' names and addresses. A complete invasion of privacy and totally unethical.

So why would it be good that the publisher's information was made public? That's not good at all. And it's quite hypocritical that you would condemn one party for doing it, but not the other.

And talk about hypocritical....the journalists who made the story owns a smith and wesson....but the newspaper did not publish his address!!!

If the newspaper thinks there's nothing wrong to out all these folks who have gun permits....why didn't they treat this journalist the same way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This newspaper claimed it was going to expose more gun-permit holders from another county as soon as they'd compile the list.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57560938/too-far-newspaper-publishes-gun-owner-home-addresses/

If I were them, they better back off now. I'm telling you, this newspaper is flashing like a big neon sign! It's getting a lot of attention - and they just might attract the wrong guy who'd want to cash in on all the publicity.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

And talk about hypocritical....the journalists who made the story owns a smith and wesson....but the newspaper did not publish his address!!!

If the newspaper thinks there's nothing wrong to out all these folks who have gun permits....why didn't they treat this journalist the same way?

It's the height of hypocrisy, for sure. Obviously Worley didn't want his address published. dry.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well simple, they invaded a lot of people's privacy and put them in danger so they should face the same problem(s).

That's a pretty disgusting way to think. They put people in danger, so they should be put in danger.

Look. Either it's wrong to endanger people or it's not. You don't get to have it both ways. That makes you a hypocrite.

It was wrong when the publisher did it and it's wrong, arguably more wrong, that it was done to the publisher in response. What makes it potentially more wrong is that it's inciting angry gun-owners to confront someone. This could be considered more threatening and serious than the original publishing of addresses, since gun-owners argue their firearm ownership is a deterrent from theft and violence.

Regardless, they're both wrong for the exact same reasons. Supporting one over the other is completely hypocritical.

If they find nothing wrong with their actions then they cannot complain about the same actions levelled agains them.

I don't know what "they" think. I don't care. It doesn't matter whether they support it or not. I'm talking about betsy's completely ignorant response which cheerleads for the exact same actions she condemned. You talk about how the publisher can't complain because it's inconsistent with their position, well so is cheering on the same actions that you've criticized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And talk about hypocritical....the journalists who made the story owns a smith and wesson....but the newspaper did not publish his address!!!

If the newspaper thinks there's nothing wrong to out all these folks who have gun permits....why didn't they treat this journalist the same way?

Because they're being hypocrites, just like you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a pretty disgusting way to think. They put people in danger, so they should be put in danger.

Do to others what you would want done to you. I think if you want to cause issues for others, then you should expect it done to you as well.

Think of it this way, any other newspaper who wants to entertain the idea of publishing names of people who own guns will think twice about their actions.

Edited by GostHacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do to others what you would want done to you. I think if you want to cause issues for others, then you should expect it done to you as well.

Think of it this way, any other newspaper who wants to entertain the idea of publishing names of people who own guns will think twice about their actions.

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they're being hypocrites, just like you.

Let's admit it. The newspaper had made a stance - to be anti-guns. And publishing the names of these gun-permit holders is a way of intimidating the public.

If you think standing up for your rights and your security is being hypocritical....then call me a hypocrite in CAPITAL LETTERS! I surely wouldn't just fall over that easily and get the safety of my family trampled. Especially not by a sleazy tabloid who's also bent on sales!

Let this be a lesson: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You reap what you sow. Every action has consequences. The media should know better! They have a responsibility.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's admit it. The newspaper had made a stance - to be anti-guns. And publishing the names of these gun-permit holders is a way of intimidating the public.

If you think standing up for your rights and your security is being hypocritical....then call me a hypocrite in CAPITAL LETTERS! I surely wouldn't just fall over that easily and get the safety of my family trampled. Especially not by a sleazy tabloid who's also bent on sales!

Let this be a lesson: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You reap what you sow. Every action has consequences. The media should know better! They have a responsibility.

HYPOCRITE.

If something is wrong, it's always wrong.

Edited by Black Dog
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's admit it. The newspaper had made a stance - to be anti-guns. And publishing the names of these gun-permit holders is a way of intimidating the public.

If you think standing up for your rights and your security is being hypocritical....then call me a hypocrite in CAPITAL LETTERS! I surely wouldn't just fall over that easily and get the safety of my family trampled. Especially not by a sleazy tabloid who's also bent on sales!

Let this be a lesson: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You reap what you sow. Every action has consequences. The media should know better! They have a responsibility.

Way to completely miss the point.

You're a hypocrite because you condone the action you condemned. I don't think standing up for privacy is hypocritical at all. I think standing up for gun-owners' privacy then turning around and cheering for the violation of the publisher's privacy is hypocritical. Pretty simple.

I don't think anyone's private information should have been published. Period. And I think it makes the people who initially were concerned about their safety look like complete idiots when they go out and do exactly what it is that they're legitimately concerned about. That doesn't mean their concerns are any less valid. It just means they're every bit as much in the wrong as the person they're pissed at.

Edited by cybercoma
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...