Gross violation of privacy of people who have handgun permits

[Guest American Woman]

The valuables on display are for the most part more valuable than the gun(s) Whether one has a gun or not, it wont matter if they are burglarized. A home invasion would be different.

A home invasion is a burglary. I"m not sure what you're saying here.

Oh...easy.

Considering that 6 times (or more) more cars are stolen than guns, and people leave their autos in the driveway in full view.

You don't have to burglarize a house to steal a car.

4% or burglaries involve guns being stolen, seems to me then the gun is not the hot item some think it is.

I suppose the same percentages can mean little or a lot - depending on the viewpoint/issue, but I've not said much about the desire to steal a gun - I've mostly spoken of the vulnerability of those now known not to have guns vs. those known to have guns.

What I am trying to say is most of the people upset need not be overtly that way. The stats dont bear out the angst they want to show. But I will concede it is their angst they have to deal with .

I don't think there are any stats on the issue - whether such a public, media-frenzy outing such as this make one more or less vulnerable to burglary or not. In the meantime, human emotions are often a natural reaction, often justified - whether those not affected feel the same way or not.

Because a gun would not matter in a burglary, ergo my non concern. I would not be worried about a nickle being stolen when I have a $100 sitting beside the nickle.

I really don't know what this means, what you're saying/getting at.

All those houses, all those weapons, info overload. Not to mention there are no concerns past the fact this has been done before,

pissed off whom?

Yeah, it's been done before - but not under the same heated conditions.

Gunowners? What are they gonna do about it? Shoot someone?

Is that all you think the newspaper is concerned about - the extra security is because they're afraid a gun owner is going to shoot someone? Surely you're aware that raised emotions can lead to harm other than "shooting someone." There's destruction of property, demonstrations which sometimes it gets out of hand, for starters.

At any rate, you wouldn't be concerned. Fine. But again, that doesn't mean other people's concern is unfounded.

[guyser]

Would you at least agree that it's hypocritical hire armed guards after publicly outing people for being armed?

Only if they advocated for people to be disarmed , and or they thought guns had no purpose.

Or is it OK to be protected by firearms only when you receive death threats.

Doubt that the newspaper advocated that.

As for me, I wouldnt agree with what you proposed. People have guns cuz they can and they like them,

[Boges]

As for me, I wouldnt agree with what you proposed. People have guns cuz they can and they like them,

Well we don't know why these people own the guns. It's not like this newspaper asked them or anything did they?

[Guest American Woman]

Well we don't know why these people own the guns. It's not like this newspaper asked them or anything did they?

The headline certainly made it sound sinister, though, don't you think?

[guyser]

A home invasion is a burglary. I"m not sure what you're saying here.

No it isn't.

They are mutually exclusive.

You don't have to burglarize a house to steal a car.

Correct, but no one seems overly concerned with their car being stolen in spite of the fact it happens more than 6 times more often.

I suppose the same percentages can mean little or a lot - depending on the viewpoint/issue, but I've not said much about the desire to steal a gun - I've mostly spoken of the vulnerability of those now known not to have guns vs. those known to have guns.

This is a bit of a misnomer.

The article published those addresses on file. In no case did it say these are the only ones who have guns. Lots of people know others who do not have reg'd guns. Maybe half of them just completed face to face transactions where no record is kept officially.

So, someone isnt on the list, yet has many guns. Now what?

I don't think there are any stats on the issue - whether such a public, media-frenzy outing such as this make one more or less vulnerable to burglary or not. In the meantime, human emotions are often a natural reaction, often justified - whether those not affected feel the same way or not.

Stats are 6+ more times cars stolen vs guns.

Stats say 4% of thefts have guns as the stolen loot.

The math is easy, people should not worry.

Doomsday preppers are worried, what for I have no idea nor do I care how valid it may seem, it is a trivial concern, obviously more so to them in spite of the fact it really shouldnt be.

But yes, people, justified or not are worried, Silly perhaps, but its their nerves and problem.

I really don't know what this means, what you're saying/getting at.

What I am saying is it doesnt matter that a burglarized house has one gun , no guns, 10,000 guns.

It simply doesnt matter. The end result will be exactly the same. Stuff is gone

Yeah, it's been done before - but not under the same heated conditions.

Probably not on the exact same level, but after the U of Tenn shootings a local paper did the same. From what i know, nothing happened.

Is that all you think the newspaper is concerned about - the extra security is because they're afraid a gun owner is going to shoot someone? Surely you're aware that raised emotions can lead to harm other than "shooting someone." There's destruction of property, demonstrations which sometimes it gets out of hand, for starters.

At any rate, you wouldn't be concerned. Fine. But again, that doesn't mean other people's concern is unfounded.

Well you posited that he 'pissed off a lot of people' suggesting that revenge in some way may come the newspapers direction, thus I posed to you a few questions connotated by the question mark and asked what are they going to do?

[guyser]

The headline certainly made it sound sinister, though, don't you think?

The headline to this thread is sinister, suggesting privacy was breached. Someone has an agenda I guess.

ETA: I see now who started this thread..... Another complete logic fail, like all the others. Qu'elle surpise!

Edited January 3, 2013 by guyser

[guyser]

Well we don't know why these people own the guns. It's not like this newspaper asked them or anything did they?

I doubt they did ask.

None of their business to know why and they know that....2A and all that.

[Guest American Woman]

No it isn't.

They are mutually exclusive.

Breaking and entering is a home invasion, so I don't get that you say they are mutually exclusive.

Correct, but no one seems overly concerned with their car being stolen in spite of the fact it happens more than 6 times more often.

It doesn't involve breaking and entering; it's a different type of crime. It's much more personal to have someone break into your house, especially if you are there. I would be much more concerned about a criminal in my home than in my driveway, while I have the protection of my house.

This is a bit of a misnomer.

The article published those addresses on file. In no case did it say these are the only ones who have guns. Lots of people know others who do not have reg'd guns. Maybe half of them just completed face to face transactions where no record is kept officially.

That may be of little comfort to those who don't have guns. But given that reality, what purpose did the article serve? Certainly not what it's pretending to do, that being the case.

So, someone isnt on the list, yet has many guns. Now what?

They don't have the same concern as someone who actually doesn't have a gun?

Stats are 6+ more times cars stolen vs guns.

Stats say 4% of thefts have guns as the stolen loot.

So what? I don't know what that has to do with the points I've been making.

The math is easy, people should not worry.

If that's the case, if it's all about "stats," why should we even buckle our seat belts? The stats would be in our favor even if we didn't.

Doomsday preppers are worried, what for I have no idea nor do I care how valid it may seem, it is a trivial concern, obviously more so to them in spite of the fact it really shouldnt be.

That's simply your opinion, you do realize that, right? Who are you to determine what is - or isn't - a legitimate concern for someone else?

But yes, people, justified or not are worried, Silly perhaps, but its their nerves and problem.

What I am saying is it doesnt matter that a burglarized house has one gun , no guns, 10,000 guns.

It simply doesnt matter. The end result will be exactly the same. Stuff is gone.

It mattered in the instances where the burglary was thwarted by a gun - or the person without a gun became a statistic. To say "it doesn't matter" as a blanket statement is false.

Probably not on the exact same level, but after the U of Tenn shootings a local paper did the same. From what i know, nothing happened.

It wasn't nearly on the same level - I doubt most people never heard of it. I know I didn't. Doesn't mean nothing happened because we didn't hear about it, either.

Well you posited that he 'pissed off a lot of people' suggesting that revenge in some way may come the newspapers direction, thus I posed to you a few questions connotated by the question mark and asked what are they going to do?

]

Who knows what they are going to do? I gave a couple of examples of what has happened when a lot of people have been pissed off. Evidently the newspaper is concerned enough that they hired extra security - so perhaps that question should be asked of them.

[Guest American Woman]

The headline to this thread is sinister, suggesting privacy was breached. Someone has an agenda I guess.

Some feel as if privacy was breached: ...Senator Ball said. “This is clearly a violation of privacy and needs to be corrected immediately.”

Saying privacy was breached isn't saying that laws were broken - that they didn't have the legal right to publish the information.

[guyser]

Breaking and entering is a home invasion, so I don't get that you say they are mutually exclusive.

You said '. A home invasion is a burglary' It is not. A home invasion has to have someone inside.

It doesn't involve breaking and entering; it's a different type of crime. It's much more personal to have someone break into your house, especially if you are there. I would be much more concerned about a criminal in my home than in my driveway, while I have the protection of my house.

I guess having something that is stolen way more than a gun (cars) and the value of an avg car far exceeds the avg gun cost people are worried about the thing that only represents 4% of all thefts from homes.

I dont worry about losing a nickle when the $100 bill is right there beside it. Should I ?

That may be of little comfort to those who don't have guns. But given that reality, what purpose did the article serve? Certainly not what it's pretending to do, that being the case.

I have no idea what purpose the paper sought by printing the info.

They don't have the same concern as someone who actually doesn't have a gun?

The premise put forth is those without a gun now are a concern for burglaries, robberies or home invasions. Criminals , while stupid, are not stupid enough to think because house A is not on the list that the owner is inside and unarmed.

So what? I don't know what that has to do with the points I've been making.

You said there are no stats on the issue. I said there are, so I am countering your point.

96 of 100 thefts DO NOT involve a gun theft. So now people are afraid for what is a minor specific concern.

Yet cars are stolen day and night at a rate almost 7 times that of guns.

If that's the case, if it's all about "stats," why should we even buckle our seat belts? The stats would be in our favor even if we didn't.

They would?

I doubt that. NHTSA publishes numerous studies that suggest otherwise. However if one thought wearing a green sweater in a crash saved 4% of lives (guns) versus 30% of people who use seatbelts (cars) , then I really wouldnt put much stock in the green sweater. And I would question the sanity of one who thought otherwise.

It mattered in the instances where the burglary was thwarted by a gun - or the person without a gun became a statistic. To say "it doesn't matter" as a blanket statement is false.

No, the statement is valid.

If it was a burglary, then no amount of guns helped. Simple fact. Unless of course the guns inside went off on their own with some sort of security.

If is was thwarted then it is no longer a burglary.

It wasn't nearly on the same level - I doubt most people never heard of it. I know I didn't. Doesn't mean nothing happened because we didn't hear about it, either.

I agree with the bold above. Most people did.....except I erred, sorry, I meant Virginia Tech shootings., not U of Tenn.

Who knows what they are going to do? I gave a couple of examples of what has happened when a lot of people have been pissed off. Evidently the newspaper is concerned enough that they hired extra security - so perhaps that question should be asked of them.

And I have no idea what people are going to do, But pretty much any violence thrown against the paper by legal gun owners would be in the gun owners worst interests and they likely know that.

But the paper hired security for threats against them.

The paper would agree with people securing themselves should they need to .As I said before, that isnt ironic at all.

[guyser]

Some feel as if privacy was breached:

And some people feel the earth is flat.

The records are open records for anyone to search. So no privacy was breached, however a fair amount of sunshine was put on those records.

...Senator Ball said. “This is clearly a violation of privacy and needs to be corrected immediately.”

Saying privacy was breached isn't saying that laws were broken - that they didn't have the legal right to publish the information.

Well, Senator Ball knows better, but then I suspect he is playing to his minions like all politicos do, but I sure know Betsy thought it was a violation...excuse me, a gross violation of privacy meaning it broke laws.

[Guest American Woman]

And some people feel the earth is flat.

The records are open records for anyone to search. So no privacy was breached, however a fair amount of sunshine was put on those records.

Again, people can feel that privacy is breached even if no law is broken. In fact, people sometimes criticize laws for breaching privacy. It's a matter of opinion. If they had say they broke the law and had no right to print it, then they would be technically/legally wrong. But to say it breaches privacy is a matter of opinion.

As for whether or not the earth is flat, that's not really a matter of opinion/feelings; it's a provable issue, unlike this. You say no privacy was breached because they were within the law. Others feel that the law sometimes breaches one's privacy. Others feel that the law should be changed, as appears to the case regarding this issue; and perhaps the law will be changed. OTOH, one cannot change anything to make the world round or flat.

Well, Senator Ball knows better, but then I suspect he is playing to his minions like all politicos do, but I sure know Betsy thought it was a violation...excuse me, a gross violation of privacy meaning it broke laws.

I'm sure Senator Ball knows what he thinks. As for Betsy, did she say that she believes that it broke the law? If so, I missed it/don't recall.

[Guest American Woman]

You said '. A home invasion is a burglary' It is not. A home invasion has to have someone inside.

Yes, and sometimes burglaries do take place with someone inside.

I guess having something that is stolen way more than a gun (cars) and the value of an avg car far exceeds the avg gun cost people are worried about the thing that only represents 4% of all thefts from homes.

You keep going on about stealing guns, in spite of the fact that I've said repeatedly I'm not speaking of stealing guns. Furthermore, one normally steals a gun with for more dangerous reasons than one steals a car.

I dont worry about losing a nickle when the $100 bill is right there beside it. Should I ?

I doubt most burglars steal a nickel when there's a $100 bill right there beside it.

I have no idea what purpose the paper sought by printing the info.

To inform the communities who has gun permits in light of the Connecticut school shooting. If the information is useless, why print it? I see it as cashing in on a tragedy.

The premise put forth is those without a gun now are a concern for burglaries, robberies or home invasions. Criminals , while stupid, are not stupid enough to think because house A is not on the list that the owner is inside and unarmed.

If a criminal is going to burglarize a house, it makes sense that he would choose one where he thinks there is less of a chance that the owner is inside and armed.

You said there are no stats on the issue. I said there are, so I am countering your point.

96 of 100 thefts DO NOT involve a gun theft. So now people are afraid for what is a minor specific concern.

That's not what I was referring to.

Yet cars are stolen day and night at a rate almost 7 times that of guns

Again. It's burglary in general that I'm referring to - not just the theft of a gun. However, since you keep bringing it up, as the incident where the gunman shot at firemen proves, sometimes people who cannot get guns do steal guns - and use them to kill people.

They would?

I doubt that. NHTSA publishes numerous studies that suggest otherwise. However if one thought wearing a green sweater in a crash saved 4% of lives (guns) versus 30% of people who use seatbelts (cars) , then I really wouldnt put much stock in the green sweater. And I would question the sanity of one who thought otherwise.

They sure would, since everyone doesn't get in an accident.

No, the statement is valid.

If it was a burglary, then no amount of guns helped. Simple fact. Unless of course the guns inside went off on their own with some sort of security.

If is was thwarted then it is no longer a burglary.

So you keep saying, but that doesn't change the facts.

I agree with the bold above. Most people did.....except I erred, sorry, I meant Virginia Tech shootings., not U of Tenn.

Still never heard of the press releasing the names, addresses, and maps of gun permit holders. For whatever reason, it must not have created the stir that this did.

And I have no idea what people are going to do, But pretty much any violence thrown against the paper by legal gun owners would be in the gun owners worst interests and they likely know that.

And of course people never act foolishly in spite of what they "know," right? We both know that's not true.

But the paper hired security for threats against them.

The paper would agree with people securing themselves should they need to .As I said before, that isnt ironic at all.

The paper actually said that it received no threats. It is ironic to me, and to others - whether you perceive it that way or not.

Clearly this is an issue we are just not going to see eye to eye on.

[guyser]

Again, people can feel that privacy is breached even if no law is broken.

The people named filled out forms that are part of open records laws.

So they knew this was not private information.

They can feel all they want, wrongly I will add. It was never a private concern when they signed up and put it on paper.

I can figure out their angle and good for them, but they are not being truthful, or they are just ignorant, either way, they are wrong.

As for whether or not the earth is flat, that's not really a matter of opinion/feelings; it's a provable issue, unlike this. You say no privacy was breached because they were within the law. Others feel that the law sometimes breaches one's privacy. Others feel that the law should be changed, as appears to the case regarding this issue; and perhaps the law will be changed. OTOH, one cannot change anything to make the world round or flat.

This is a provable issue too, Check the forms they signed, It Wont say this is a private deal and public is not allowed to see it.

So there, its not a privacy issue no matter how anyone cuts it up and tries to frame it.

If the law gets changed, fine, thats probably a smart move politically.

Until then, not a privacy issue.

The records are open to the public!

I'm sure Senator Ball knows what he thinks. As for Betsy, did she say that she believes that it broke the law? If so, I missed it/don't recall.

Yes He does , hes a politician. It plays well with some of his constituents.

As for Betsy....I dont know what could be a gross violatio n of privacy unless it violated the law,

Edited January 4, 2013 by guyser

[guyser]

Yes, and sometimes burglaries do take place with someone inside.

They NEVER do. It just cannot happen.

If it is a burglary then no one is home.

You keep going on about stealing guns, in spite of the fact that I've said repeatedly I'm not speaking of stealing guns. Furthermore, one normally steals a gun with for more dangerous reasons than one steals a car.

Like for cash? It is the main purpose to steal anything.

I doubt most burglars steal a nickel when there's a $100 bill right there beside it.

Thank you! Now apply that to the guns vs cars,

.

If a criminal is going to burglarize a house, it makes sense that he would choose one where he thinks there is less of a chance that the owner is inside and armed.

Not quite there yet.

If he burglarizes the house, no one IS there.

That's not what I was referring to.

Fair enough, it was what you said though.

So you keep saying, but that doesn't change the facts.

The facts are if a burglary is done, no amount of guns helps.

None zero nada.

Those are facts, indisputable facts to boot,

Still never heard of the press releasing the names, addresses, and maps of gun permit holders. For whatever reason, it must not have created the stir that this did.

Fair enough.

This newspaper did this before too! And....?....nothing.

And of course people never act foolishly in spite of what they "know," right? We both know that's not true.

Very true

The paper actually said that it received no threats.

I read otherwise but if thats whats the truth now, then it does give pause for consdieration.

It is ironic to me, and to others - whether you perceive it that way or not.

Clearly this is an issue we are just not going to see eye to eye on.

Then whoever believes this to be ironic needs to look up the word Ironic in the dictionary because this aint it.

Oh I think we can see eye to eye on most of this.

Mainly you dont agree because you cant get your terminology straight and get jumbled up!

[Guest American Woman]

They NEVER do. It just cannot happen.

Yes, it can, and does.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year on average from 2003 to 2007.

In about 28% of these burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.

In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member experienced some form of violent victimization

http://crimeinameric...-violent-crime/

New Study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics

HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS EXPERIENCED VIOLENCE IN ABOUT SEVEN PERCENT OF HOUSEHOLD BURGLARIES FROM 2003 THROUGH 2007

WASHINGTON – An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each year from 2003 through 2007, and about seven percent (266,560) involved some form of violent victimization, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) in the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, announced today.

.

Edited January 4, 2013 by American Woman

[Signals.Cpl]

They NEVER do. It just cannot happen.

If it is a burglary then no one is home.

.

Not quite there yet.

If he burglarizes the house, no one IS there.

In what definition does it state that burglary occurs only if the building is empty?

Home invasion seems to mean burglary while the residents are home... wether or not there are people in the home does not seem to be relevant at all as in either event the action is burglary one just has a fancy name to be more specific.

[GostHacked]

In what definition does it state that burglary occurs only if the building is empty?

Home invasion seems to mean burglary while the residents are home... wether or not there are people in the home does not seem to be relevant at all as in either event the action is burglary one just has a fancy name to be more specific.

Break ins no matter if you call them burglary or home invasions, the perps are there to take something out of the house. In some cases it seems to be just cheap thrills for some to just break in and get out without leaving a trace and not stealing anything.

[Signals.Cpl]

Break ins no matter if you call them burglary or home invasions, the perps are there to take something out of the house. In some cases it seems to be just cheap thrills for some to just break in and get out without leaving a trace and not stealing anything.

I understand that, but wether the people are in the house or not it still is burglary in one form or another.

[GostHacked]

I understand that, but wether the people are in the house or not it still is burglary in one form or another.

In the end I would agree. It's an argument over semantics and language.

[Guest American Woman]

A gun made a difference in thwarting this burglary, perhaps protecting the victims from harm: Mom shoots intruder 5 times, protects young twins

,,,the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

.

When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

[Guest]

Great response, but she does need a little time down the range.

[Guest American Woman]

Great response, but she does need a little time down the range.

I Hear you. I can't believe the guy was shot that many times in the face - and lived.

[punked]

A gun made a difference in thwarting this burglary, perhaps protecting the victims from harm: Mom shoots intruder 5 times, protects young twins

,,,the intruder then forced his way into the home and started “rummaging” through the family’s belongings.

“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

.

When the suspect went into the closet where the family was hiding,the woman fired six bullets at the suspect, five of which hit alleged suspect Paul Ali Slater in the face and neck area.

Nice Story Bro!

“Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130106&_r=0

You still hating on Science?

[Signals.Cpl]

I Hear you. I can't believe the guy was shot that many times in the face - and lived.

I think it is better that the guy has to live with whatever scars and pain come from that injury. Since he is a criminal I assume he hangs around with a crowd like that and I would say this sends a serious message to them every time they see him...