New York Paper Publishes Names, Addresses of Handgun Owners.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Donahue
This has to be the dumbest thing i have ever seen. A newspaper has posted the address to every legally licensed pistol owners in two counties in the state of new york. Wouldn't these revealings be targets for criminals to steal licensed guns and use them in criminal acts? Where's the invasion of privacy stop?



The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.


Check out the map here -> www.lohud.com...


Lol, if I were a criminal I sure as hell wouldn't attempt any burglary at a home where I knew the owner was armed. That would earn the tard award of the decade.




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Its not clear why this has been done.

Incorrect...

TRUE history makes it very VERY clear why this was done...



Our governments are the REAL mass murderers.

Mass murder by gun control has happened over and over throughout history.


- 262,000,000 Murdered: [20th Century Democide]

- Over 133,147,000 Murdered: [Pre-Twentieth Century Democide]

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century.

DEATH BY GOVERNMENT

Government killed 262 million people in the 20th century


- Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined.

- Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals.

How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist. The victims were unarmed.

Death by "Gun Control"


"...the tragic fact is that disarming victims leads to great bloodshed. I'm referring to the millions of people who died at the hands of their government over the past century. Most of these mass murders were preceded by a cynical and calculating "gun control" program, leading to eventual disarmament. Genocide followed soon thereafter."

Leave Mass Murder to the Professionals






edit on 25-12-2012 by Murgatroid because: I felt like it..



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by solidguy

Originally posted by Donahue
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


I still think its ridiculous to just blatantly shove this information in front of people's faces. A criminal could jot down the address, wait in a car, check out the law abiding citizens daily routine, wait for the right time, break in and steal their gun.


Would be much easier to check the list to make sure potential target is not on it.

This is why gun registration is unconstitutional.

Yep, to me it reads like a roadmap of who to avoid.
It is the ones not on the list that will be the safest to home invade.
Homeowners a couple of decades back proudly displayed signs on their front lawns that their homes were proudly gun free.

Boy that backfired baaad.
To the robbers, these signs just said, "rob us, we cannot defend"!!!



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by g146541

Originally posted by solidguy

Originally posted by Donahue
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


I still think its ridiculous to just blatantly shove this information in front of people's faces. A criminal could jot down the address, wait in a car, check out the law abiding citizens daily routine, wait for the right time, break in and steal their gun.


Would be much easier to check the list to make sure potential target is not on it.

This is why gun registration is unconstitutional.

Yep, to me it reads like a roadmap of who to avoid.
It is the ones not on the list that will be the safest to home invade.
Homeowners a couple of decades back proudly displayed signs on their front lawns that their homes were proudly gun free.

Boy that backfired baaad.
To the robbers, these signs just said, "rob us, we cannot defend"!!!


Can you imagine robbing a house NOT on the list which just happens to have a registered weapon in the house, and getting shot? People move, people loan guns, information is inaccurate. I'd be one pissed off criminal if I got shot at a 'safe' house.


I hope no other cities or states pull this crap. By the way, if one moves from one state to another and brings their weapons with them, isn't that a federal crime? I wonder how many innocent gun trasporters there are.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   



I suppose it depends on the State (it wouldn't be federal) as you have a time limit to register (or if your State does not require registration it does not matter)

You can purchase firearms out of State and bring them back. The problem comes (per State) when you do not register your weapon (and many do not) because if you ever are caught with it or have to use it- Its Prison in most cases.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


because if you ever are caught with it or have to use it- Its Prison in most cases.
source ??
gun registry doesn't even exist in every state so how could someone go to jail when their respective state doesn't require such registry ?

ps ... residents of this state are not required to register any gun crafted and/or sold/bought from/sold to citizens located in same state, so how does what you said even apply ?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Donahue
 


I agree the newspaper (i use that term loosly) was stupid doing this...it serves no purpose.

Well...it does serve at least one purpose i suppose...criminals will be going for properties that are NOT listed as having gun owners present at the address!

If you were a burglar looking for a likely home to break into and rob, perhaps do worse to the people inside...which property would you consider an easier target...a house occupied by people listed as having guns, or a house NOT listed as having guns?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

Wanna know what else?

The owners or occupiers of homes that are NOT listed, better get out asap and buy some guns for protection..because at the moment, they are looking like a soft and very easy target.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


because if you ever are caught with it or have to use it- Its Prison in most cases.
source ??
gun registry doesn't even exist in every state so how could someone go to jail when their respective state doesn't require such registry ?

ps ... residents of this state are not required to register any gun crafted and/or sold/bought from/sold to citizens located in same state, so how does what you said even apply ?

Dude you misquoted me- read the WHOLE THING I SAID.

I totally agree and even said some States do not require registry IN THE SAME THREAD YOU QUOTED. The "prioson" was regarding States which DO.
Please read my entire post next time before taking the last sentence and claiming I am mistaken.

EDIT : You left THIS out (or if your State does not require registration it does not matter)
which was pertinent to the entire statement...How could you possibly take the time to quote part of my post but miss that part????
edit on 25-12-2012 by DarKPenguiN because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 

dude, i did not misquote you ... i replied to your mis-statement.
say what you mean instead of expecting others to decipher it.

to answer the question of another, you did say

if your State does not require registration it does not matter
and that is NOT true.

i cannot move to NY with my un-registered guns and be 'legal' within the state borders of NY.
you lie.
i cannot even travel through the state with my 'legal' guns, registered or not.

i cannot move to another state with a registry and choose to not register the guns ... that would be illegal.

you cannot purchase a firearm out of state (without registry) and return to a state with a registry and fail to register the firearm ... that is also illegal.

you cannot purchase a firearm out of state and return to a home state that requires registry and choose not to follow through ... unless you are intentionally skirting the law.

attack me all you want ... it won't change your mis-direction one bit.

point being, so long as the guns remain in the non-registry state, you are correct, otherwise you're wrong.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX
I agree the newspaper (i use that term loosly) was stupid doing this...it serves no purpose.

It DOES indeed serve a purpose...

This post makes that VERY clear.

I recommend that EVERYONE watch the video in that post, for your OWN sake...



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 

dude, i did not misquote you ... i replied to your mis-statement.
say what you mean instead of expecting others to decipher it.

to answer the question of another, you did say

if your State does not require registration it does not matter
and that is NOT true.

i cannot move to NY with my un-registered guns and be 'legal' within the state borders of NY.
you lie.
i cannot even travel through the state with my 'legal' guns, registered or not.

i cannot move to another state with a registry and choose to not register the guns ... that would be illegal.

you cannot purchase a firearm out of state (without registry) and return to a state with a registry and fail to register the firearm ... that is also illegal.

you cannot purchase a firearm out of state and return to a home state that requires registry and choose not to follow through ... unless you are intentionally skirting the law.

attack me all you want ... it won't change your mis-direction one bit.

point being, so long as the guns remain in the non-registry state, you are correct, otherwise you're wrong.

Well thats interesting because I moved from Kentucky (with unregistered handguns) and registered them in Michigan and there was zero problems. I have friends who go to Gun Shows (sometimes out of State) and buy firearms and register them once they get back to Michigan .

When I lived in Kentucky I could have (but did not) buy a weapon in Michigan and not register it (since registration was not required)

So we are either saying the same thing in different ways or you are being overly technical or I wasn't clear in my meaning (which has happened once or twice)- But I am not seeing the difference in what we are saying- I am also tired, so...



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
It's not accurate. I'm not listed and I've lived in the same location and had my license for 13 years.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Donahue
 


I think this has just made those gun permit holders and their homes safer. If i were a seasoned criminal i would print a list of the areas that i intended to work and avoid those houses. I would also avoid their neighbors houses and the areas that had the most guns, why take a chance of getting killed or arrested by some lunatic with a gun.
How dare they have a gun my job is dangerous enough as it is.

This newspaper has not hurt gun owners it will help us in the end.

Br Ben



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by BrBen
 


Correct. There is a very old police saying..

"Crime always flows down the path of least resistance."



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 


Well thats interesting because I moved from Kentucky (with unregistered handguns) and registered them in Michigan and there was zero problems.
exactly ... you registered them in Michigan ... exactly.

your previously un-registered guns are not longer un-registered, are they ?
clearly, it makes a difference.

as i said, so long as the guns remain in the state where non-registry rules, you were correct. as soon as they leave the territory of non-registry, your guns may or may not remain un-registered, depending on your destination.


I have friends who go to Gun Shows (sometimes out of State) and buy firearms and register them once they get back to Michigan .
yeah so, they are registered, aren't they ?


When I lived in Kentucky I could have (but did not) buy a weapon in Michigan and not register it (since registration was not required)
same here but i cannot buy one in Michigan and have it shipped to my doorstep in FL and avoid registry ... it must be transferred through registry/FFL.

at the same time, i can also buy one in person in Michigan and risk driving it back to FL, however, i would be breaking the laws in several states to do so ... Federal ones too.
not saying it cannot be done but the risk doesn't change.


So we are either saying the same thing in different ways or you are being overly technical or I wasn't clear in my meaning (which has happened once or twice)- But I am not seeing the difference in what we are saying- I am also tired, so...
any of the above is possible but it still isn't a good reason to attack anyone.
happy holidays to you too.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN



Its Public information... It isnt really about privacy.

That said, I would say these people are now safer. Any criminal with a brain will keep this "list" handy and avoid those houses. =)


It's not safer but worse. It's like showing a pirate a treasure map.

Another criminal with a brain will keep the list handy for future break-ins, to steal the guns.

And jewelry, and Christmas presents, and car, and identity.

Besides, this is a list of where all the legal guns are. The illegal ones aren't on the list.

You might as well publish a list of all the pawn shops and gun shops. It would sure feel like an invasion of privacy if it were my name in the newspaper. How about a little respect for the innocent?



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Well if they target those homes and get shot then they cant blame anyone but themselves.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:52 AM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 

do you really think someone occupies each of those homes 24/7 ?
safes can be breached, some can be removed entirely and a thief with intent usually finds a way.

thieves are seldom confronted with guns, they steal them.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
Its Public information... It isnt really about privacy.

That said, I would say these people are now safer. Any criminal with a brain will keep this "list" handy and avoid those houses. =)


While it may very well be public information, to publish it may still not be legal. Anyone can look up those records if they want to take the time to do so, but putting it out in a public forum may get the newspaper in hot water.


When can an individual sue for public disclosure of private facts?

Generally, the material published must be private information that “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” Its disclosure must also be “highly offensive to a reasonable person.” Material private enough to trigger this tort claim could include disclosure of sexual orientation, medical history, or other personal, private facets of a person’s life. The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. Newsworthiness is evaluated by an examination of several factors, including the social value of the disclosed material, the depth of intrusion into personal life, and the extent to which the person is already in public view. Even Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren, authors of a famous 1890 law review article, “The Right To Privacy,” wrote: “The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest.”

First Amendment Center

According to the above, the published information must be newsworthy and have a legitimate concern to the public. The names of gun owners is neither. It exists only to raise concern or fear, and may actually cause harm to those in the article. It only lists people with permits to own guns, not people who actually own guns.

If some anti-gun loony decides to take action because of the article and one of those people in the list is harmed, he and the newspaper would both be liable.

This is yellow journalism at its finest.

/TOA



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Donahue
This has to be the dumbest thing i have ever seen. A newspaper has posted the address to every legally licensed pistol owners in two counties in the state of new york. Wouldn't these revealings be targets for criminals to steal licensed guns and use them in criminal acts? Where's the invasion of privacy stop?



The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.


Check out the map here -> www.lohud.com...


Lol, if I were a criminal I sure as hell wouldn't attempt any burglary at a home where I knew the owner was armed. That would earn the tard award of the decade.


What the map did unfortunately is manage to show criminals where the houses and places are that most likely do NOT have any licensed protection. YAY...nice going.
edit on 25-12-2012 by Opportunia because: hit enter too early





top topics
 
16
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join