Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits

[The_Squid]

Certainly the newspaper was wrong. So are the idiots publishing the newspaper employees addresses, even though you can simply look them up in a directory.

Anyone calling this justice while decrying the poor gun owners is a hypocrite, as has been stated.

[guyser]

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.

Its been done many times before, and will occur many times in the future. AFAIK, nothing untoward has occurred.

[betsy]

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.

Well, the newspaper says there's nothing wrong in publishing the names of those people. Those who support the newspaper don't find anything wrong with that either. So, what's the big deal now that they're all on the same boat?

If agreeing with them is being a hypocrite.....then, I'm a HYPOCRITE! And darn proud of it!

I find the irony amusing....and you guys can't make up your minds.

Edited December 28, 2012 by betsy

[Black Dog]

Well, the newspaper says there's nothing wrong in publishing the names of those people. Those who support the newspaper don't find anything wrong with that either. So, what's the big deal now that they're all on the same boat?

If agreeing with them is being a hypocrite.....then, I'm a HYPOCRITE! And darn proud of it!

I find the irony amusing....and you guys can't make up your minds.

Actually it's you who seems to have a problem with consistency here.

[cybercoma]

Well, the newspaper says there's nothing wrong in publishing the names of those people. Those who support the newspaper don't find anything wrong with that either. So, what's the big deal now that they're all on the same boat?

If agreeing with them is being a hypocrite.....then, I'm a HYPOCRITE! And darn proud of it!

I find the irony amusing....and you guys can't make up your minds.

You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I made it as clear as possible why you are a hypocrite: you condemn what the gun owners did, then condone it when someone else does the exact same thing. That's hypocrisy.

Secondly, you imply that I support what the newspapers did and not once did I say that. In fact, I have been saying repeatedly that the newspaper did a stupid, careless, and dangerous thing publishing those people's information. Since I don't condone infringing on a person's privacy like that, I also don't condone releasing the publisher's personal information either. So, no. I don't support the newspaper and I sure as hell don't support the other side for doing the same idiotic thing that the paper did.

[Spiderfish]

You have some serious reading comprehension issues. I made it as clear as possible why you are a hypocrite: you condemn what the gun owners did, then condone it when someone else does the exact same thing. That's hypocrisy.

Regardless of what betsy condones or condemns, the newspaper obviously condones the practice of publishing personal names and address information, so they should have no problem with having their own information published. Apparently, if it's not illegal, it's fair game.

Edited December 28, 2012 by Spiderfish

[cybercoma]

Regardless of what betsy condones or condemns, the newspaper obviously condones the practice of publishing personal names and address information, so they should have no problem with having their own information published. Apparently, if it's not illegal, it's fair game.

That's nice and all, but I wasn't responding to that. My responses that you're wading into are threaded to betsy's cheerleading for the publisher's information being put out there after condemning the paper for doing the exact same thing.

[Spiderfish]

That's nice and all, but I wasn't responding to that. My responses that you're wading into are threaded to betsy's cheerleading for the publisher's information being put out there after condemning the paper for doing the exact same thing.

Fair enough, my apologies for wading in...

[Spiderfish]

This post is directed at no one in particular...the newspaper obviously condones the practice of publishing personal names and address information, so they should have no problem with having their own information published. Apparently, if it's not illegal, it's fair game.

[Signals.Cpl]

There should be consequences for their actions, if they see nothing wrong with their practice and there is nothing much that people can do about it other than put them in the same situation.

I have a problem with someone throwing punches at random but the second you swing on me you are going to the hospital, same principle applies here, when you start publishing private information you lose your right to privacy as well. I should not expect any protection if I dont offer people the same protection.

[betsy]

You have some serious reading comprehension issues.

I have?

I made it as clear as possible why you are a hypocrite: you condemn what the gun owners did, then condone it when someone else does the exact same thing. That's hypocrisy.

What do you mean I condemn what the gun owners did? I never condemned the gun owners! I support them!

ha-ha-ha!

Secondly, you imply that I support what the newspapers did and not once did I say that. In fact, I have been saying repeatedly that the newspaper did a stupid, careless, and dangerous thing publishing those people's information.

Read carefully. Again! I gotta enlarge the fonts, cyber! The better for you to see.

betsy:

Well, the newspaper says there's nothing wrong in publishing the names of those people. Those who support the newspaper don't find anything wrong with that either. So, what's the big deal now that they're all on the same boat?

If you don't support the newpapers, then obviously I was not referring to you. Come again about someone having comprehension problems?.....

Oh boy.....feels like comedy central. Priceless.

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[Guest]

It's not hypocrisy to condone an action you otherwise condemn, if circumstances differ.

I condemn the shooting of those kids and teachers in Connecticut. I would have condoned someone shooting the little git as soon as he entered the school armed.

[betsy]

That's nice and all, but I wasn't responding to that. My responses that you're wading into are threaded to betsy's cheerleading for the publisher's information being put out there after condemning the paper for doing the exact same thing.

Well, how many here feels the same way I do? How many of us are outraged over what the newspaper did, and now find that if the newspaper /and their supporters feel that they did nothing wrong in publishing those information....then they shouldn't be finding anything wrong now that they're on the same boat!

So how come you criticise me for feeling the same way that others do? What? You think I should not have the same right to express how I feel??? Everybody else can express...except me???

You're not making any sense....

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[Guest Derek L]

Regardless of what betsy condones or condemns, the newspaper obviously condones the practice of publishing personal names and address information, so they should have no problem with having their own information published. Apparently, if it's not illegal, it's fair game.

For sure.....Did they think it a good idea to not only piss off other people, but other people with guns………Like they say about those that live in glass houses…….

[cybercoma]

So how come you criticise me for feeling the same way that others do? What? You think I should not have the same right to express how I feel??? Everybody else can express...except me???

Do you think your opinions should be exempt from criticism?

I don't care who feels the same way you do. You're all hypocrites. If you think it's wrong that private information gets published publicly because it's dangerous, then condoning the gun owners' lawyer for publicizing the publisher's information is by definition hypocrisy. It's completely indefensible and goes to show just how little reflexivity you have. The fact that you now throw a tantrum, complete with your bold font and army of smilies just goes to show that you know I'm right.

Your posts explode with yellow and black goo every time you have to critically reflect upon your arguments. It's hilarious.

[Merlin]

Do you think your opinions should be exempt from criticism?

I don't care who feels the same way you do. You're all hypocrites. If you think it's wrong that private information gets published publicly because it's dangerous, then condoning the gun owners' lawyer for publicizing the publisher's information is by definition hypocrisy. It's completely indefensible and goes to show just how little reflexivity you have. The fact that you now throw a tantrum, complete with your bold font and army of smilies just goes to show that you know I'm right.

Your posts explode with yellow and black goo every time you have to critically reflect upon your arguments. It's hilarious.

Would you be ok with the admins of this forum doing a little research on the members here and posting your personal details for all to see?

[Guest Derek L]

Would you be ok with the admins of this forum doing a little research on the members here and posting your personal details for all to see?

Far be it for me to answer and/or stick-up for Cybercoma, but he suggested that the paper publishing permit holders info was wrong…….soooooooo

[betsy]

Do you think your opinions should be exempt from criticism?

I don't care who feels the same way you do. You're all hypocrites. If you think it's wrong that private information gets published publicly because it's dangerous, then condoning the gun owners' lawyer for publicizing the publisher's information is by definition hypocrisy. It's completely indefensible and goes to show just how little reflexivity you have. The fact that you now throw a tantrum, complete with your bold font and army of smilies just goes to show that you know I'm right.

Your posts explode with yellow and black goo every time you have to critically reflect upon your arguments. It's hilarious.

Well....let's not skip the comprehension problem you've brought up....and my reply to you on that.

Don't try to subtly push it under the rug.

Now, that's hilarious!

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

cyber

If you think it's wrong that private information gets published publicly because it's dangerous, then condoning the gun owners' lawyer for publicizing the publisher's information is by definition hypocrisy

No, it's not hypocrisy. It's about fairness.

The newspaper has a great advantage and abused that by ramming its powers down people's throats. There was outrage over their action - even the law enforcers gave their views why it's wrong - yet they staunchly justify their action, and even promise to bring out more names from other counties.

People are endangered - regardless of their stance on the matter.

With that logic, you're saying people who hate violence and yet take up arms in a revolution to overthrow a sadistic dictator are hypocrites!

The real hypocrites are those who support the newspapers, and yet when the newspaper staff were dragged into the same leaky boat, they now cry foul!

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

Its been done many times before, and will occur many times in the future. AFAIK, nothing untoward has occurred.

I think having all the names and addresses and personal contact information/locations of the employees put out there might give the media pause before publishing such information again. Note that the author admitted to owning a gun, but didn't include his address, pinpointed on a map. Why do you think that is? Now that that information has been put out there, how happy do you think he and/or his neighbors are?

Edited December 29, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

I think having all the names and addresses and personal contact information/locations of the employees put out there might give the media pause before publishing such information again. Note that the author admitted to owning a gun, but didn't include his address, pinpointed on a map. Why do you think that is? Now that that information has been put out there, how happy do you think he and/or his neighbors are?

I wonder how many of the published gun permit holders are policemen, prosecutors and Judges? Or what about permit holders that have passed on, leaving a unarmed widow at home? What about those, namely women, that have escaped an abusive relationship and got a gun for self protection?

Here's the blogger that published the newspapers staff info:

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/

[betsy]

I wonder how many of the published gun permit holders are policemen, prosecutors and Judges? Or what about permit holders that have passed on, leaving a unarmed widow at home? What about those, namely women, that have escaped an abusive relationship and got a gun for self protection?

Here's the blogger that published the newspapers staff info:

http://christopherfo...-for-the-goose/

Also. an article I linked somewhere indicated that a lot of retired cops/investigators/law enforcers and correctional officers would be included in that list...and these people may've even put criminals behind bars.

Edited December 29, 2012 by betsy

[BubberMiley]

Also. an article I linked somewhere indicated that a lot of retired cops/investigators/law enforcers and correctional officers would be included in that list...and these people may've even put criminals behind bars.

Well, then it's good for those criminals to know they're armed so they'll leave them alone. Guns make them safe from those people, don't they?

[Guest Derek L]

Also. an article I linked somewhere indicated that a lot of retired cops/investigators/law enforcers and correctional officers would be included in that list...and these people may've even put criminals behind bars.

On the surface, it was clearly a “tactical error” on the part of the paper…….If for no other reason then all the angry people that will cancel subscriptions and send nasty letters to the papers advertising sponsors….I read in one of the numerous articles that the paper was in financial trouble prior to the storey and that they’ve been laying off staff……..If you peek at some of the homes and condos, and locations they sit upon, of the papers staff then cross reference with local real estate prices, you’ll find that many of the staff are living in swanky homes…….They should be able to afford security systems or heaven forbid, a gun.

With the release of all the handgun permit holders info, I wonder how many are now applying for a concealed carry permit within the State, county and city they live in……New York was far more “restrictive” in allowing said permits, with the applicants requiring to demonstrate a “need” for a concealed handgun…….Well I think they shouldn’t have a problem demonstrating said need any longer……And the same goes for the staff of the paper……

[betsy]

On the surface, it was clearly a “tactical error” on the part of the paper…….If for no other reason then all the angry people that will cancel subscriptions and send nasty letters to the papers advertising sponsors….I read in one of the numerous articles that the paper was in financial trouble prior to the storey and that they’ve been laying off staff……..If you peek at some of the homes and condos, and locations they sit upon, of the papers staff then cross reference with local real estate prices, you’ll find that many of the staff are living in swanky homes…….They should be able to afford security systems or heaven forbid, a gun.

With the release of all the handgun permit holders info, I wonder how many are now applying for a concealed carry permit within the State, county and city they live in……New York was far more “restrictive” in allowing said permits, with the applicants requiring to demonstrate a “need” for a concealed handgun…….Well I think they shouldn’t have a problem demonstrating said need any longer……And the same goes for the staff of the paper……

Yes, I can see now that there is really a need for guns! I'd be very surprised if the newspaper continues with its plan to publish more names from other counties.