Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Published Voting Lists (by gun ownership)...Follow

#1 Feb 19 2013 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Our legislature just passed an emergency bill to ensure one of the local newspapers doesn't publish the names of licensed gun owners. Apparently New York has published such a list. Our lawmakers will be crafting a bill, though the newspaper has already done the FOIA request and legally obtained the list - so meh. Im not a registered gun owner. I'd not bother looking at a list. I kind of like the idea of the information being public record. However I see no good reason for media organizations to be obtaining and advertising such lists.

Is it wise to put a little quest circles above all the guns? It doesn't seem necessary, and seems like it could prove detrimental to our peacefulness.

Should gun registration files be public record?

Edit to add the newspaper had agreed not to publish the names before the emergency measure was passed or probably even debated on.



Edited, Feb 20th 2013 12:17am by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Feb 19 2013 at 5:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as it's made out to be. Remember when people got in a tizzy about how an online phonebook combined with mapquest would make everyone a target?

Still waiting for that.

Along those lines: illegal guns not in database, people home at odd hours, need the keys to the gun safe, something horrifying, etc.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#3 Feb 20 2013 at 1:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,905 posts
Gun ownership aside, I'd be ****** if someone printed a map saying "Hey, Kao officially has an expensive thingy located at this address here, maybe you should go steal it" If those lists contain the make and model of guns registered, and give potentially well armed thieves a list of high dollar targets. Especially those higher dollar collector weapons that have no intrinsic self defense value but are worth large sums of money.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#4 Feb 20 2013 at 1:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Repressed Memories
******
20,587 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
"Hey, Kao officially has an expensive thingy located at this address here, maybe you should go steal it"

Exactly, everyone knows guns actively invite crime.
#5 Feb 20 2013 at 5:51 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,099 posts
I think people make a big deal about stuff like this just because guns are involved. But there is a lot of stuff that is public information that deals with matters that people sometimes assume are private. If criminals really wanted to hunt down gun owners to attack them or steal their guns, it sounds like that information is already available to them.

I can look up information on the county's website and find out exactly how much someone pays in property taxes, what properties they own, how much they are worth, whether or not they have ever been delinquent in paying them, etc. I can look up and see anything about them that has been filed with the Register of Deeds. I can do all this in moments online without ever telling the document holder who I am or why I need the information. ****, I could be someone living in California and look up that information.

I wouldn't be surprised if Vehicle Registration information was similarly available from your DMV or Secretary of State offices/websites.

Edited, Feb 20th 2013 6:55am by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#6 Feb 20 2013 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I think people make a big deal about stuff like this just because guns are involved. But there is a lot of stuff that is public information that deals with matters that people sometimes assume are private. If criminals really wanted to hunt down gun owners to attack them or steal their guns, it sounds like that information is already available to them.

I can look up information on the county's website and find out exactly how much someone pays in property taxes, what properties they own, how much they are worth, whether or not they have ever been delinquent in paying them, etc. I can look up and see anything about them that has been filed with the Register of Deeds. I can do all this in moments online without ever telling the document holder who I am or why I need the information. ****, I could be someone living in California and look up that information.

I wouldn't be surprised if Vehicle Registration information was similarly available from your DMV or Secretary of State offices/websites.

Edited, Feb 20th 2013 6:55am by TirithRR

Yeah most any information the government collects has to be public record. I imagine once the furor over gun regulations dies down it will indeed go back to being a non-deal.

Here in Maine, the emergency action keeps the information private until April 30th. There was already a bill that was being crafted to make the files private (permanently). The Sportsman's Alliance of Maine (SAM) is a pretty strong lobby in this state - they're largely responsible for the privacy bill. I guess I don't see a big deal with the info being private either as along as statistics can still be gleaned from the data.

KJ wrote:
The move by lawmakers came as advocates for the state's sunshine law warned that the information should remain public to ensure that officials who award the permits have been diligent in screening applicants. In some cases, town governing boards, and not law enforcement agencies, are reviewing applications and granting permits to residents.

There is also growing sentiment that the dust-up has been inflamed by some lawmakers and the Maine Republican Party for political gain and to conflate a privacy debate with the sensitive topic of gun ownership. The belief was reinforced among some when the Maine Republican Party used the newspaper flap to appeal for donations.

The Democratic co-sponsors of Tuesday's emergency bill, Sen. Troy Jackson, of Allagash, and Rep. Jeff McCabe, of Skowhegan, said the moratorium was necessary so that lawmakers could consider thoroughly a separate bill by Rep. Corey Wilson, R-Augusta, that would make the shield permanent.

There are some concerns among members of the Maine Freedom of Information Coalition that Tuesday's vote, and the inflamed controversy that preceded it, have made passage of Wilson's bill inevitable.

Lawmakers have been lobbied vigorously by the Sportsman's Alliance of Maine -- the hunting and conservation group that drafted Wilson's bill. The National Rifle Association has sent action alerts urging members to contact lawmakers to pass Wilson's bill since the records request by the Bangor Daily News ignited the firestorm.
LINK
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#7 Feb 20 2013 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Allegory wrote:
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
"Hey, Kao officially has an expensive thingy located at this address here, maybe you should go steal it"

Exactly, everyone knows guns actively invite crime.

As do cookie jars.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#8 Feb 20 2013 at 7:43 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Elinda wrote:
I guess I don't see a big deal with the info being private either as along as statistics can still be gleaned from the data.

Because government should be as transparent as possible and government information should be public record unless there's a good reason to have it otherwise. I haven't heard a good reason for this not being public.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#9 Feb 20 2013 at 8:16 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't heard a good reason for this not being public.
Oh my god second amendment!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Feb 20 2013 at 10:47 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't heard a good reason for this not being public.
Oh my god second amendment!

I'm a citizen! I deserve a hidden secret gun!

The law enforcement folks are speaking up wanting to be able to access the info as needed.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#11 Feb 20 2013 at 10:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't heard a good reason for this not being public.
Oh my god second amendment!

I'm a citizen! I deserve a hidden secret gun!

The law enforcement folks are speaking up wanting to be able to access the info as needed.

They couldn't access it before? That's somewhat unsettling.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#12 Feb 20 2013 at 12:31 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Elinda wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't heard a good reason for this not being public.
Oh my god second amendment!

I'm a citizen! I deserve a hidden secret gun!

The law enforcement folks are speaking up wanting to be able to access the info as needed.

They couldn't access it before? That's somewhat unsettling.
They can now. Or could until yesterday. If the bill that is being bandied about is passed however it will likely be more difficult for them.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#13 Feb 20 2013 at 3:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I don't think it's nearly as big of a deal as it's made out to be. Remember when people got in a tizzy about how an online phonebook combined with mapquest would make everyone a target?


While I'm sure some people did, I don't understand why. It's not like this was any different than regular phone books where you could look up people's names and get their addresses and phone numbers. You know, like have been around for nearly a century.

The issue with releasing names and addresses of registered gun owners is partly the privacy angle (why do other people need to know this at all?), but also frankly the implication inherent in doing it in the first place. Quick! Name one other registry of people who've engaged in a specific past behavior that you can look up on some kind of map on the internet.

That's why people are a bit peeved about this. There's tons of information out there that is technically public, but that no one bothers to file for and accumulate into a list and present said list on an online map correlating names/addresses to that information. It's a lot of time and expense, and for what? So that everyone can look up which of their neighbors have been divorced? Or which have criminal records? Or what education they have? Or how many dependents? Or anything else?

The decision to spend the time/money doing so in this case and with this specific bit of information creates an impression that tracing such information is somehow important to the public at large (despite there never having been any sort of call by the public to do so). Which I would imagine was exactly the point if doing it. Which gets us back to why people are upset about this.


Quote:
Along those lines: illegal guns not in database, people home at odd hours, need the keys to the gun safe, something horrifying, etc.


Yes. The point is to make law abiding citizens appear to be like criminals. And not just any criminals, but some kind of social pariah level criminal. I'm hoping no one missed that, but I'll say it just in case.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Feb 20 2013 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I guess I don't see a big deal with the info being private either as along as statistics can still be gleaned from the data.

Because government should be as transparent as possible and government information should be public record unless there's a good reason to have it otherwise. I haven't heard a good reason for this not being public.


Information on what the government is doing should be public. Information the government collects about citizens should *not* be public. Otherwise you make real the concern that many people have of government getting involved in licensing/registration of legal activities by making those activities, for which others have no right to know about, public.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#15 Feb 20 2013 at 3:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
While I'm sure some people did, I don't understand why. It's not like this was any different than regular phone books where you could look up people's names and get their addresses and phone numbers. You know, like have been around for nearly a century.


Ease of access mostly I recall. Google a phone number, get an address, enter into mapquest. It takes all of 30 seconds, compared to time it would normally take for acommon person to track down that information back in the 80s or something. Mostly silly in retrospect of course.

gbaji wrote:
It's a lot of time and expense, and for what? So that everyone can look up which of their neighbors have been divorced? Or which have criminal records? Or what education they have? Or how many dependents? Or anything else?


Add a like button and you have a multi-billion dollar company. Smiley: wink

gbaji wrote:
Yes. The point is to make law abiding citizens appear to be like criminals. And not just any criminals, but some kind of social pariah level criminal. I'm hoping no one missed that, but I'll say it just in case.


Or hopefully, and this is where my money is, people will realize that normal people everywhere own guns and there's no reason to get all in a tizzy about it. Public data is public data, if it's out there you have to realize people are going to see it. You put your name in the phone book and... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#16 Feb 20 2013 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Information on what the government is doing should be public. Information the government collects about citizens should *not* be public.

Baring pressing reasons to the contrary, of course it should. It's amazing that you'd think otherwise.

"Public" meaning "subject to FOIA" and the like, not "sitting in a big book in the local town hall lobby".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Feb 20 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While I'm sure some people did, I don't understand why. It's not like this was any different than regular phone books where you could look up people's names and get their addresses and phone numbers. You know, like have been around for nearly a century.


Ease of access mostly I recall. Google a phone number, get an address, enter into mapquest. It takes all of 30 seconds, compared to time it would normally take for acommon person to track down that information back in the 80s or something. Mostly silly in retrospect of course.


Actually, it was a lot easier to track someone down back then than it is right now. You picked up a phone book and looked for the name of the person, and got a list of names and addresses. If you already knew one of the other bits of information, you got the third. It took all of 10 seconds. Today, lots of people just have cell phones, so they aren't in local phone books. Online books are sketchy at best, and again aren't as likely to have complete information. If you want to not show up on those kinds of searches, it's not terribly difficult to do so.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. The point is to make law abiding citizens appear to be like criminals. And not just any criminals, but some kind of social pariah level criminal. I'm hoping no one missed that, but I'll say it just in case.


Or hopefully, and this is where my money is, people will realize that normal people everywhere own guns and there's no reason to get all in a tizzy about it. Public data is public data, if it's out there you have to realize people are going to see it. You put your name in the phone book and... Smiley: rolleyes


Difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specifically enumerated right in the constitution. We should be alarmed at anything that might infringe it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Feb 20 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specifically enumerated right in the constitution. We should be alarmed at anything that might infringe it.

This doesn't so... alarm averted.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Feb 20 2013 at 3:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
Difference is that the right to keep and bear arms is a specifically enumerated right in the constitution. We should be alarmed at anything that might infringe it.

You'll have to explain to me again how this infringes on the right to own and shoot a gun. I don't remember anywhere in the constitution there being a right to own a gun secretly.

Oh well, in the end publicity stunt is a publicity stunt or something. Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Feb 20th 2013 1:47pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#20 Feb 20 2013 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts

The issue with releasing names and addresses of registered gun owners is partly the privacy angle (why do other people need to know this at all?), but also frankly the implication inherent in doing it in the first place. Quick! Name one other registry of people who've engaged in a specific past behavior that you can look up on some kind of map on the internet.


Buying a house? This is identical. Someone owns property there is a public interest in maintaining a record of. Why are deeds and titles public record? Oh right, I know, it's not primarily quivering terrified cowards who buy houses "for protection" against...I don't know really...what is it you idiots are afraid of this week? Bears?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Feb 20 2013 at 5:54 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,243 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

The issue with releasing names and addresses of registered gun owners is partly the privacy angle (why do other people need to know this at all?), but also frankly the implication inherent in doing it in the first place. Quick! Name one other registry of people who've engaged in a specific past behavior that you can look up on some kind of map on the internet.


Buying a house? This is identical. Someone owns property there is a public interest in maintaining a record of. Why are deeds and titles public record? Oh right, I know, it's not primarily quivering terrified cowards who buy houses "for protection" against...I don't know really...what is it you idiots are afraid of this week? Bears?

The polar bears are coming, and they're *******
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#22 Feb 20 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,318 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

The issue with releasing names and addresses of registered gun owners is partly the privacy angle (why do other people need to know this at all?), but also frankly the implication inherent in doing it in the first place. Quick! Name one other registry of people who've engaged in a specific past behavior that you can look up on some kind of map on the internet.


Buying a house? This is identical. Someone owns property there is a public interest in maintaining a record of. Why are deeds and titles public record? Oh right, I know, it's not primarily quivering terrified cowards who buy houses "for protection" against...I don't know really...what is it you idiots are afraid of this week? Bears?



Squirrel.

Moose... and squirrel.

Edited, Feb 20th 2013 5:42pm by Samira
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Feb 20 2013 at 7:52 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
*****
11,358 posts
Samira wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:

The issue with releasing names and addresses of registered gun owners is partly the privacy angle (why do other people need to know this at all?), but also frankly the implication inherent in doing it in the first place. Quick! Name one other registry of people who've engaged in a specific past behavior that you can look up on some kind of map on the internet.


Buying a house? This is identical. Someone owns property there is a public interest in maintaining a record of. Why are deeds and titles public record? Oh right, I know, it's not primarily quivering terrified cowards who buy houses "for protection" against...I don't know really...what is it you idiots are afraid of this week? Bears?



Squirrel.

Moose... and squirrel.

Edited, Feb 20th 2013 5:42pm by Samira


Natasha, is that you?


Edit: Someone isn't a Rocky and Bullwinkle fan...

Edited, Feb 21st 2013 9:18am by Shaowstrike
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#24gbaji, Posted: Feb 20 2013 at 8:03 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Which is the end of the slippery slope caused when people are taught that rights are things given to you rather than things you have which may be taken away. You have the right to do anything you want, secretly or not as you want, until and unless that right is taken from you. Where in the law does it say that I *cant* own a firearm without having to disclose that fact to every other person in the country? It doesn't, does it? Therefore, I have a right to own a firearm without my neighbors knowing and the government has no authority to pass that information on to them without my permission.
#25gbaji, Posted: Feb 20 2013 at 8:10 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Because there's an eminent domain aspect to owning property, so there's a need to track who has title to any given parcel of land at any given time.
#26 Feb 20 2013 at 8:11 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because the government is collecting data which may then be used to intimidate those who own, or consider owning, a firearm.
So we're jumping straight to irrational fear mongering and conspiracy theories this time? I mean, it's not like you ever actually use facts, but sometimes you at least pretend to use logic and common sense. I'm actually really disappointed in you right now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#27 Feb 20 2013 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Hate to break it to you gbaji, but Facebook already has a detailed map of people who own guns (or who are thinking about owning guns). All of your likes and dislikes are thoroughly cataloged. And even if you yourself aren't on Facebook, you're just a minute exclusion from the data. And consequently if you're afraid of people targeting break-ins to steal guns, well, then guns aren't functioning as intended, are they?
#28 Feb 20 2013 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why don't we create an interactive map that shows the names and addresses of everyone who currently receives food stamps and wait to see what the ACLU has to say about that. Then you can get back to me about how this is just fine and dandy.

Translation: I can't actually argue this on the grounds of guns, so maybe I can move the debate to something else.

Hey, I've heard *** marriage will lead to pedophile dog marriage! So, you're in favor of pedophile dog marriage now?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#29 Feb 21 2013 at 8:25 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
Yeah, but if you don't think about it at all it sure sounds scary.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Feb 21 2013 at 11:09 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Guenny wrote:
Hate to break it to you gbaji, but Facebook already has a detailed map of people who own guns (or who are thinking about owning guns). All of your likes and dislikes are thoroughly cataloged.


So me "liking" a gun manufacturer equates to being a registered gun owner, now? If I like this page, does it indicate I'm a registered tank owner?

No. Facebook may outline some general population demographics, and certainly some people may share their whole life story and possessions with the world, but Facebook most definitely does not have a "detailed map" of gun owners.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#31 Feb 21 2013 at 11:10 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Edit: Someone isn't a Rocky and Bullwinkle fan...


People still edit posts to comment on rate downs? I thought that was so 00's.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#32 Feb 21 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Hate to break it to you gbaji, but Facebook already has a detailed map of people who own guns (or who are thinking about owning guns). All of your likes and dislikes are thoroughly cataloged.


So me "liking" a gun manufacturer equates to being a registered gun owner, now? If I like this page, does it indicate I'm a registered tank owner?

No. Facebook may outline some general population demographics, and certainly some people may share their whole life story and possessions with the world, but Facebook most definitely does not have a "detailed map" of gun owners.


Best bet is to ask Visa. They probably have the most accurate list, and are likely making a killing selling that information to advertisers.

Edited, Feb 21st 2013 9:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#33 Feb 21 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Decent
******
21,718 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Best bet is to ask Visa. They probably have the most accurate list, and are likely making a killing selling that information to advertisers.


Why Visa?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#34 Feb 21 2013 at 11:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Best bet is to ask Visa. They probably have the most accurate list, and are likely making a killing selling that information to advertisers.


Why Visa?


How'd you buy your gun?



Edited, Feb 21st 2013 9:30am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#35 Feb 21 2013 at 11:31 AM Rating: Good
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
I don't care about who owns a gun so long as they are a responsible owner and don't threaten others or cause injury. My opinion would be slightly different if I had children. I think that much like knowing that a *** offender is living in your neighborhood, I would like to know who on my block owned a gun so I could exercise caution if my child was going to that residence for some reason. Whether the lists should be published online or by news agencies doesn't really matter to me so long as the information was available through some government agency.
#36 Feb 21 2013 at 11:42 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I need this information so I can cross reference my *** offender list with my gun owners list.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Feb 21 2013 at 11:43 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I need this information so I can cross reference my *** offender list with my gun owners list.


Forming a local school protection posse, eh?
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#38 Feb 21 2013 at 11:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We're going to ring the school with high-powered weapons at the exact distance the No Gun Zone law allows. At any sign of trouble, we open fire into the building, trusting our ammo to penetrate the interior.

I figure that as long as we aim up at least 4' from the ground, all the kids will be safe and our plan is foolproof.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#39 Feb 21 2013 at 11:53 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We're going to ring the school with high-powered weapons at the exact distance the No Gun Zone law allows. At any sign of trouble, we open fire into the building, trusting our ammo to penetrate the interior.

I figure that as long as we aim up at least 4' from the ground, all the kids will be safe and our plan is foolproof.


Mmm...sounds almost exactly like a Get Out the Vote Early campaign. That's smart.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#40 Feb 21 2013 at 12:27 PM Rating: Default
******
21,718 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Best bet is to ask Visa. They probably have the most accurate list, and are likely making a killing selling that information to advertisers.


Why Visa?


How'd you buy your gun?


Oh that's cute. You think everyone in the world buys their guns via CC, and not just any CC, but Visa.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#41 Feb 21 2013 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Best bet is to ask Visa. They probably have the most accurate list, and are likely making a killing selling that information to advertisers.


Why Visa?


How'd you buy your gun?


Oh that's cute. You think everyone in the world buys their guns via CC, and not just any CC, but Visa.

Yes, that's obviously what I meant...

Smiley: rolleyes

Thinking more along the lines of many people will eventually buy a gun or firearm-related item using something with a VISA logo on it, and from that you could likely deduce many of the gun owners.

Is there another private entity you think would have a better list? Except the before-listed newspaper of course.

Edit: Why the heck is ZAM putting 2 copies of everything I quote up when I post? Is that happening to anyone else? Smiley: confused

Edited, Feb 21st 2013 10:50am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#42 Feb 21 2013 at 1:11 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
LTG. Chesty Puller, USMC wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
We're going to ring the school with high-powered weapons at the exact distance the No Gun Zone law allows. At any sign of trouble, we open fire into the building, trusting our ammo to penetrate the interior.
So they've got us surrounded, good! Now we can fire in any direction, those bastards won't get away this time!
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Feb 21 2013 at 1:13 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Guenny wrote:
Hate to break it to you gbaji, but Facebook already has a detailed map of people who own guns (or who are thinking about owning guns). All of your likes and dislikes are thoroughly cataloged.


So me "liking" a gun manufacturer equates to being a registered gun owner, now? If I like this page, does it indicate I'm a registered tank owner?

No. Facebook may outline some general population demographics, and certainly some people may share their whole life story and possessions with the world, but Facebook most definitely does not have a "detailed map" of gun owners.


It's not just your "likes". Facebook uses everything you type/post/discuss to add to your demographic profile. Like posting pictures with pro-gun sentiments? Facebook knows that. Like to say derogatory things about brown people? Facebook knows that too. Even information posted in "private" groups is collected and used. The information they collect and store is much more intricate and detailed than the current list of "likes" you choose to display.

How many people do you think have come home and updated their status with "I just bought a new gun!!" Likewise, how many people do you think are flagged as having said "I will NEVER own a gun!" Now THAT would be valuable information to criminals. A detailed map of all the pacifist pussies who aren't going to protect themselves if you come to take their loot.

Or, you know, Facebook's just a fun website where you can comment on your friends' baby pictures while letting them know you enjoy using Pledge furniture polish. Harmless and totally worth a 40 billion dollar net worth.



edit: I was totally hit by the double quote bug.

Edited, Feb 21st 2013 1:14pm by Guenny
#44 Feb 21 2013 at 3:40 PM Rating: Good
***
2,010 posts
gbaji wrote:


Because the government is collecting data which may then be used to intimidate those who own, or consider owning, a firearm. What did you think the motivation was for publishing this data? People will now think twice about becoming a gun owner because they will now be on a "list".


Well, paranoia aside, I don't see how it's such a bad thing. Most people will scan the list, not see much of interest or anything that was a huge surprise (we all have one of those ex army guys with the huge stockpile somewhere in town), and move on. The government already had the data it needed to intimidate gunowners if that was the goal, and the rest of us could give a flip.

I'd be interested to see how you handled being in a country that REALLY spied on its citizens and actively intimidated\oppressed\terrorized them. This just isn't that big a deal. A newspaper wants to publish a list. Big freaking whoop.
#45 Feb 21 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm a little amused by the idea that this list would be used to "intimidate" people who have firearms.

"Hey, I see here you bought a gun! Lemme get up in your face and start trying to scare you!"

If you wish to subscribe to the theory that the government would come after you, fine. But they already have the list. How am I, Joseph Q. Middleclass, going to intimidate anyone?

Quote:
I'd be interested to see how you handled being in a country that REALLY spied on its citizens and actively intimidated\oppressed\terrorized them.

He'd shut up and not say a word. The paradox of freedom is that you can safely ***** and moan at length about how you're not really free since there's no consequences for it.

Edited, Feb 21st 2013 3:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Feb 21 2013 at 5:16 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,055 posts
Quote:
Some organization went through the trouble of creating an internet map that will show you every house and who owns it? I'm not aware of such a thing. You can go to a web site and type in addresses and get that information, but that's not the same. I'm pretty sure if someone slurped down property ownership records and assembled it into a google map overlay that allowed you to see information about who lives in each home, you'd hear a pretty huge uproar about that as well though.


Yes, I have an application that does this.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#47 Feb 21 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
An easy compromise is to track who have weapons but only push out the numbers and statistics for EASY public access, i.e. "There are 34 registered guns in X Town".

Gbaji wrote:

Actually, it was a lot easier to track someone down back then than it is right now. You picked up a phone book and looked for the name of the person, and got a list of names and addresses. If you already knew one of the other bits of information, you got the third. It took all of 10 seconds. Today, lots of people just have cell phones, so they aren't in local phone books. Online books are sketchy at best, and again aren't as likely to have complete information. If you want to not show up on those kinds of searches, it's not terribly difficult to do so.


Unless you had every local phone book in the nation, it would be quite difficult to get a person's number without using the Internet. With the increased usage of cell phones, people tend not to change their numbers as they move. So, the Internet makes it a lot easier to track someone today than it would using the phone books in the past.

Edited, Feb 22nd 2013 1:50am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#48 Feb 21 2013 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Quote:
Some organization went through the trouble of creating an internet map that will show you every house and who owns it? I'm not aware of such a thing. You can go to a web site and type in addresses and get that information, but that's not the same. I'm pretty sure if someone slurped down property ownership records and assembled it into a google map overlay that allowed you to see information about who lives in each home, you'd hear a pretty huge uproar about that as well though.


Yes, I have an application that does this.


Just as an aside, I was surprised how much information a realtor has access to.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#49 Feb 21 2013 at 6:23 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,047 posts
I remember people complaining about Facebook's News Feed "violating their privacy" when the only information that was shown was the information provided. Once people realize that their information is easily accessible regardless of their efforts, the complaints will decease.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#50gbaji, Posted: Feb 21 2013 at 7:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) This. There's a vast difference between information you volunteer on a public site and information you are required to provide to the government. The government should have an obligation to treat any information it requires us to provide it as personal and private.
#51 Feb 21 2013 at 7:36 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Paskil wrote:
I don't care about who owns a gun so long as they are a responsible owner and don't threaten others or cause injury.


And yet, a newspaper in NY thought it was important to create an interactive internet map with all registered gun owners on it, not just those who are irresponsible.

Quote:
My opinion would be slightly different if I had children. I think that much like knowing that a *** offender is living in your neighborhood, I would like to know who on my block owned a gun so I could exercise caution if my child was going to that residence for some reason.


I would like to think that a responsible parent wouldn't be allowing their child to go to someone's home they didn't know well enough to ask this information of directly if that's really that much of a concern for them.

Quote:
Whether the lists should be published online or by news agencies doesn't really matter to me so long as the information was available through some government agency.


Owning a gun is not a crime. There's no reason to have a "list" at all, much less allowing it to be published. Period. End of story.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 32 All times are in CST
Samira, Uglysasquatch, Anonymous Guests (30)