Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper

[davjohns 1]

Quote

There are plenty of arguments going around. Some of the more silly are similar to, “If she didn’t have a purse then her purse would not have been snatched.” Or, “If she didn’t have a car then she wouldn’t have been carjacked.”

All matters of but-for. But for the fella having a gun he wouldn’t have been published on the list. But-for the publication of the list then he wouldn’t have been burgled. Blah. Quade, of course, makes a point that we certainly have a correlation but little evidence of “causation.” And Quade’s point is quite valid.

Meanwhile, I am looking at the issue differently. Said a legislator:

Quote

“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Ball. “If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens.”

The article went on that:

Quote

Ball is introducing legislation Monday to protect the names of New Yorkers who have legally obtained gun permits.

This, to me, presents some First Amendment issues. Like it or not, such a law would be a prior restraint of free speech. I don’t like those. Unless the law is to prevent the state or localities from releasing the names of those with gun permits. That I don’t have a problem with.

I agree with you. But isn't that where this information came from? Surely the gun owners were not registered with the paper? They were registered with the government; who then released that information in violation of the privacy of the individuals. We protect information of owners of car plates because it put Jodi Foster in danger once. Do gun owners have to be threatened with violence before the same thought process applies?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

There are plenty of arguments going around. Some of the more silly are similar to, “If she didn’t have a purse then her purse would not have been snatched.” Or, “If she didn’t have a car then she wouldn’t have been carjacked.”

All matters of but-for. But for the fella having a gun he wouldn’t have been published on the list. But-for the publication of the list then he wouldn’t have been burgled. Blah. Quade, of course, makes a point that we certainly have a correlation but little evidence of “causation.” And Quade’s point is quite valid.

Meanwhile, I am looking at the issue differently. Said a legislator:

Quote

“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Ball. “If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens.”

The article went on that:

Quote

Ball is introducing legislation Monday to protect the names of New Yorkers who have legally obtained gun permits.

This, to me, presents some First Amendment issues. Like it or not, such a law would be a prior restraint of free speech. I don’t like those. Unless the law is to prevent the state or localities from releasing the names of those with gun permits. That I don’t have a problem with.

I agree with you. But isn't that where this information came from? Surely the gun owners were not registered with the paper? They were registered with the government; who then released that information in violation of the privacy of the individuals. We protect information of owners of car plates because it put Jodi Foster in danger once. Do gun owners have to be threatened with violence before the same thought process applies?

Airplane owners and home owners have their data freely available on the internet. Why not gun owners?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Airplane owners and home owners have their data freely available on the internet. Why not gun owners?

Except all pilots always want everyone to know they are pilots. So that's easy.

And I've never really seen someone hide their home in a safe......in their home. Different physics involved there.


I know that your comment is clearly a tactic to propose that everyone has ALL their property listed publicly - since, obviously, the government owns it all and people are just borrowing. i.e., there is no such thing as private property in the perfect world - per some people.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,991]

>Except all pilots always want everyone to know they are pilots.

Going by people here, all gun owners want everyone to know they are gun owners, and further how many guns they have, how cool they are, where they got them, how accurate they are and how much criminals fear their mighty power.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Except all pilots always want everyone to know they are pilots.

Going by people here, all gun owners want everyone to know they are gun owners, and further how many guns they have, how cool they are, where they got them, how accurate they are and how much criminals fear their mighty power.

great....I make a standing joke that even pilots (at least all those I know) find funny - and you do that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Anvilbrother 0]

I am still waiting on my answer, or do you always post lies to provoke users into an argument Mr. Kallend?

You have officially met the criteria for being a troll.
Quote
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

Find one post where someone actually said that a gun by it self without anyone holding is deterrent. Just a gun sitting in a safe or on a counter is what you are saying someone said here, so please back it up.

You made a statement I have called you out to back up what you say.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

I am still waiting on my answer, or do you always post lies to provoke users into an argument Mr. Kallend?

You have officially met the criteria for being a troll.
Quote
with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response

Find one post where someone actually said that a gun by it self without anyone holding is deterrent. Just a gun sitting in a safe or on a counter is what you are saying someone said here, so please back it up.

You made a statement I have called you out to back up what you say.

Get real and stop inventing strawmen.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

I'm saying this ONCE, "Do NOT call other people names." You will be banned. This is not a threat; simply the rules.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Anvilbrother 0]

What name did I call him?

When people post statistics, or random quotes from news sites the left here want everyone to back it up with a link showing proof. He stated something that I believe is not true, and I am asking to prove it.

If he posted it intentionally just to get people worked up that's the definition of trolling I did not call him a name.

Saying that is calling someone a name is very weak compared to the insults flung around here.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[champu 1]

Quote

What name did I call him?

Mr.

[regulator 0]

Might be from when you said he was a troll...however in the context you used it wasn't name calling. I don't know of any real trolls that live under bridges. Perhaps under the authority of a moderator this was be a serious infraction.

[Anvilbrother 0]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)
Welcome to the Internet. You can throw your aol disk here in the trash, we have a new browser for you to use thanks.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

Quote

...

Quote

Ball is introducing legislation Monday to protect the names of New Yorkers who have legally obtained gun permits.

This, to me, presents some First Amendment issues. Like it or not, such a law would be a prior restraint of free speech. I don’t like those. Unless the law is to prevent the state or localities from releasing the names of those with gun permits. That I don’t have a problem with.

That's how Wisconsin law for carry permits is written.
Those with legitimate need (law enforcement, judicial system) can access the information for offical purposes only
There are some fairly severe penalties for accessing it (just accessing, not necessarily sharing or publishing) for non-official reasons.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Anvilbrother 0]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5N_iUcdR6lw/UPclF8e2JvI/AAAAAAAAYdE/zRTJOsOReKs/s1600/1.gif

Correct use of shotgun

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

[dpreguy 14]

When there is a "formal probate" filing, there is a duty to list the INVENTORY of the items in an estate, and of course, the address of the residence is part of the filing. Clever burglars would go, or have someone else go, to the probate clerk's files and see what juicy items were listed in the probate inventory. How did they know which files to look at? The required newspaper "legals" which list all probate filings. Then they'd simply go to the residences with the most valuable stuff as listed in the inventories. Because of the burglaries, this access to ostensibly public civil filings was stopped by appropriate state legislation. Now, the probate clerks do not allow anyone without a legit interest to look into those parts of their 'public' records- the probate inventories.

What is the point of telling this? The probate clerks were/are legally able to keep the inventories of these probate files private and not accessible to the general public because of the abuse and the damage and loss that could result.

Civil records, or parts of the civil records, (in this case, the names and addresses of concealed carry persons) can be made private/secret if there is a good reason to do so. Surely the concealed carry list of persons and their addresses could be made similarly secret/private to the general public if there was a demonstrable harm. The freedom of information requests sound harmless at first, bur in practice, should not be allowed to put residences or people in danger. It can be done in the case of concealed carry lists as it is now done with probate files. This is done by appropriate legislation. Hopefully it will be done in every state, as now, for example - prison guards and police officers and deputy sheriffs are told by prison/jail inmates" Your home address is ...... and I know where your family lives"....etc etc.

This is so wrong. And this is only one example of the types of people who would like to know where 'concealed carry' persons or their families live. Burglars, revenge seekers, stalkers, ex spouses who have restraining orders against them, and in general, all of those who want to know where someone lives for malevolent purposes are so happy to find the person's address publically available! Each state legislature should immediately act to privatize these lists.