A Gun Owner Map for Westchester and Rockland Counties in New York was published by the paper. There were some interesting reasons used for objecting to publishing, and quite a bit of ridiculous debate in the comments. Do you think those people listed are more likely to be robbed by someone wanting the gun, or less likely if the perp fears getting shot by the gun owner?
Can't it be both? Can't we all agree that guns are the single most efficient method of murder available to the masses? This is coming from an owner of multiple firearms. This issue isn't about stopping a murder, it's about stopping *mass* murder. Yes, someone could go in with a razor or axe and hack people up, but the numbers would decline significantly. Personally, I was put off a bit when I bought my first firearm within a matter of 30 minutes with nothing more than a background check. Mass murderers aren't repeat offenders, so we have zero security measures in place for them.
Think of all the poor women and children who will now be displaced just for being gun owners. The ones hiding from their abusive boyfriends and ex-husbands. Now their addresses are published without permission and they are forced into hotels or shelters.......Just an example of how such a foolish act from a newspaper can and will blow back.
Im sure the people with expensive gun collections are happy to know their valuables are placed on a map for everyone to see. It doesn't display the number per household YET, but they're still trying to publish that. I really can't see any other purpose but some underhanded attempt to spread fear or derision in the publications readership, or to grab page clicks with a questionable stunt... Their explanation is weak at best.
How can they even get away with this? We're not talking about sex offenders here. It's nothing short of a HORRIBLE idea: endangering people AND an invasion of privacy. What self-righteous turd thought this up? Do they think it will just get gun owners to throw their wares in the trash? This is a recipe for fear, panic and home invasions. I wonder if they'll still think is was a bright idea if/when they find a family bound and beaten in their living room. This is a criminal-thief's wet dream: lots of small, expensive fence that can be sold quickly to an enormous base of unnamed buyers. There's no measure to how stupid and reactionary people can be.
At least now we have a concrete, real-life US example to point to of why we don't want to register our guns or have our names on a fucking list somewhere. I'm guessing the individuals on that list have a much lower chance of their house being broken into during the night and a much higher chance of it being broken into during a weekday. Another thing--this has probably already been brought up in this thread, but if you aren't American then your opinion on this topic (as it regards the US) carries about as much weight as my opinion on whether or not I'm going to have a threesome with Kate Upton and Shakira tonight. No offense to the many fine Canadians, Aussies, and others on this board, but it's not your debate. Finally--anyone see the jackass on Meet the Press wave a 30 round mag (illegal in DC, where the show is taped) in front of the camera while arguing for stricter gun control. Public outcry on pro-2A sites ensued, and the DC police are apparently currently "investigating", he's facing a large fine and a year in jail if charged and convicted. It's not gonna happen but personally I hope they throw the book at him, why the fuck should he not be subject to the same laws as the rest of us are?? Of course, now that he presumably sees how ridiculous those laws are, I'd be happy to call off the dogs (PR-wise, which will allow the "investigation" to fade away and all parties to save face) if he comes on his show this Sunday and publicly repudiates his previous anti-Constitutional stance. Not holding my breath. And this is the same jackass who was arguing against allowing armed guards in schools while his kids attend the same school as the Obamas' kids and consequently benefit from their Secret Service detail. (Not saying putting armed guards in every school is a cut-and-dry issue, there are valid points to be made both ways, but if your kids have the fucking Secret Service protecting their school then shut the fuck up and recuse yourself from that particular debate as it regards the rest of us.)
Heh heh. Nope: <a class="postlink" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_attacks_in_China_(2010%E2%80%932011" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_at ... %80%932011</a>) None of those attacks featured a gun, and in several, the victims were in double digits. Also, bombs, in my humble opinion, are much worse in terms of indiscriminate body count, mass terror and in the resources needed to investigate. The point is, gun/bomb/knife selection doesn't deter the killers, affect the body count or the social impact (significantly). The rational killer will select the weapon that provides them with the most lethality, reliability and comfortable use based on what they have available. I highly agree with you that prevention would border on the paranoid, since the behavioral pattern of these guys is so common and they never repeat or build up (ie, shoot 3 in a convenience store, shoot 8 in a mall and THEN shoot 20 in a school). Maybe this stuff keeps happening, all over the world and in higher numbers recently, because we keep making the killers more and more famous?
Aside from Wikistats, it's a lot easier to purchase a firearm than enough Ammonium Nitrate to do some damage.
In one version of the article about that incident, one of the producers checked with DC police first to see if it would be okay to use the magazine during the interview. The police said no, but then they did it anyway; hence, the investigation.
In one version of the article I read, people were commenting, "well, this is public information. they could publish a map of who owns what car, too." But, they didn't. Also, the author of the article is a gun owner, and his name was included on the map. Then, on another comment board about the article, after a poster said "It's public information! Tough." a poster followed that with "so is this:" and proceeded to publish the name, address and phone number of the girl who made that first comment.
I wonder if The White House checked with the DC police before George HW Bush pulled that big bag of crack from his desk on national television back in '89.
Not sure if you're serious, or how that's relevant to this thread, but that crack was in an evidence bag, wasn't it? And, is the White House under DC police jurisdiction? I would think not, but maybe. (I have seen Secret Service Agents with weapons that would be illegal to have in DC, so I'm guessing the Executive Branch may get a pass from the Department of Treasury or something anyway.) It's specifically illegal to posess that 30 round mag in DC. I imagine to remove something from an evidence locker, you've got to sign a form or something. Plus, I'm assuming GHW just gave it to his son to smoke up after the TV spot and wrote it off as a business expense.
Not really. I buy that stuff 20 lbs at a time off the internet with no credentials required, just my credit card number. 20 lbs of that shit will level a good sized house. It only takes 2-3 lbs to blow the roof off a car. It's perfectly legal to have it as long as you don't store it mixed. I buy it because it's nice to have around for blowing out tree stumps and shit like that, also it's really fun to play around with. On the website I get it from, you can order 200 lbs at a time. That's enough to do some serious fucking damage. A few years ago a guy in MN detonated 100 lbs in the back of a dump truck and it set off the alarms at a Nuclear plant 5 miles away. The only reason he got in trouble was because he was on probation and wasn't allowed to have guns at the time. http://www.weblowshituplegally.com/
This is exactly the type of foolishness I was afraid of. Fuck you if you think I'm registering any of my guns.
Fear not. The NRA will do what it always does; they'll put their boot on that jellyfish Harry Reid's neck. That bill won't go anywhere in it's current form.
Here's the bigger question- how many times has she tried to introduce new firearms legislation? I really don't know the answer.