Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 16:51
    Another example of liberal idiocy and its unintended consequences. Let's not forget that these liberal idiots then hired armed guards for protection.

    Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says


    Published January 04, 2013

    | FoxNews.com


    advertisement

    Law enforcement officials from a New York region where a local paper published a map identifying gun owners say prisoners are using the information to intimidate guards.

    Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco, who spoke at a news conference flanked by other county officials, said the Journal News' decision to post an online map of names and addresses of handgun owners Dec. 23 has put law enforcement officers in danger.

    "They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said, according to Newsday.

    Robert Riley, an officer with the White Plains Police Department and president of its Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, agreed.

    "You have guys who work in New York City who live up here. Now their names and addresses are out there, too," he said adding that there are 8,000 active and retired NYPD officers currently living in Rockland County.

    Local lawmakers also say that they intend to introduce legislation that prevents information about legal gun owners from being released to the public.

    The newspaper published the online map last month alongside an article titled, "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood." The map included the names and addresses of pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

    While the paper ostensibly sought to make a point about gun proliferation in the wake of the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., the effort may have backfired. A blogger reacted with a map showing where key editorial staffers live, and some outraged groups have called for a boycott of parent company Gannett’s national advertisers. Ironically, the newspaper has now stationed armed guards outside at least one of its offices.


    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/04/law-enforcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/print#ixzz2H7WXrSh4
  2. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Jan '13 17:01
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Another example of liberal idiocy and its unintended consequences. Let's not forget that these liberal idiots then hired armed guards for protection.

    Inmates using newspaper's gun owner map to threaten guards, sheriff says


    Published January 04, 2013

    | FoxNews.com


    advertisement

    Law enforcement officials from a New York region wher ...[text shortened]... orcement-latest-critics-on-public-display-gun-owner-data-officers/print#ixzz2H7WXrSh4
    Prisoners could find the addresses of guards in many ways these days.
  3. Standard member vivify
    rain
    05 Jan '13 17:13
    I thought this information was only available if you look up the adress, to see whether the home has a gun or not? Are you saying that all you need is the name of a gun owner, and you can look them up to find their address?

    If that's the case, that's really stupid.
  4. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:15 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Prisoners could find the addresses of guards in many ways these days.
    Why make it easier? Why be a vehicle of that? One or two, you can probably find them. Why would you choose to endanger the very people who protect you?

    I'll tell you why. Because you're a freaking liberal idiot that doesn't think about the consequences of their actions, you feel all self-righteous, you're a crusader, you're ruled by your emotions, and you happen to have a job at a newspaper where you can do it.
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:19
    Originally posted by vivify
    I thought this information was only available if you look up the adress, to see whether the home has a gun or not? Are you saying that all you need is the name of a gun owner, and you can look them up to find their address?

    If that's the case, that's really stupid.
    My understanding is that it's an interactive map. Little dots on a webpage, you click on the dot, you get the name and address. Not sure. Didn't look. It sounds searchable too.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Jan '13 17:32 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    My understanding is that it's an interactive map. Little dots on a webpage, you click on the dot, you get the name and address. Not sure. Didn't look. It sounds searchable too.
    http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/news01/121221011/map-where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-


    You claim to have a "strict interpretation" of the Second Amendment. Do you also have a "strict interpretation" of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and of the Press? Or do you support measures to block such information being made public by private citizens?

    EDIT: From the first post:

    Local lawmakers also say that they intend to introduce legislation that prevents information about legal gun owners from being released to the public.


    Do you support this legislation?
  7. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:35 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/news01/121221011/map-where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-


    You claim to have a "strict interpretation" of the Second Amendment. Do you also have a "strict interpretation" of the First Amendment Freedom of Speech and of the Press? Or do you support measures to block such information being m ...[text shortened]... ners from being released to the public.


    Do you support this legislation?
    What this paper did was constitutional. That does not mean it was responsible. It was irresponsible in the extreme. That action endangered thousands of people. And these people are self-righteous, self-important scum.

    If you - not you, them - if you want to get on your freaking high horse about responsibility, trust, accountability - then you yourself sure as hell better display it in your actions. They're hypocritical, self-righteous, self-important scum.
  8. 05 Jan '13 17:36
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Why make it easier? Why be a vehicle of that? One or two, you can probably find them. Why would you choose to endanger the very people who protect you?

    I'll tell you why. Because you're a freaking liberal idiot that doesn't think about the consequences of their actions, you feel all self-righteous, you're a crusader, you're ruled by your emotions, and you happen to have a job at a newspaper where you can do it.
    "I'll tell you why. Because you're a freaking right wing conservative idiot that doesn't think about the consequences of their actions, you feel all self-righteous, you're a crusader, you're ruled by your emotions, and you happen to have an avatar on a chess website where you can do it.

    My edits in bold.

    Original thread post implied that the newspaper leaked otherwise unobtainable info on vulnerable public servants to blood thirsty convicts who are crazy enough to risk going back to prison for hurting a Bull and/or His family.
  9. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    "I'll tell you why. Because you're a freaking [b]right wing conservative idiot that doesn't think about the consequences of their actions, you feel all self-righteous, you're a crusader, you're ruled by your emotions, and you happen to have an avatar on a chess website where you can do it.

    My edits in bold.

    Original thread post implied that ...[text shortened]... s who are crazy enough to risk going back to prison for hurting a Bull and/or His family.[/b]
    Boring.

    You can't debate the merits? You have to attack me?

  10. 05 Jan '13 17:44
    If you were not ranting like a maniac you could make the point that the names of the gun owners were surplus to the papers original intention of supposedly alerting concerned citizens to the location of weapons in their neighbourhood.
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Jan '13 17:45
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    What this paper did was constitutional. That does not mean it was responsible. It was irresponsible in the extreme. That action endangered thousands of people. And these people are self-righteous, self-important scum.

    If you - not you, them - if you want to get on your freaking high horse about responsibility, trust, accountability - then you you ...[text shortened]... better display it in your actions. They're hypocritical, self-righteous, self-important scum.
    I can understand that neighbors might want to know which members of their community have handguns for many reasons so I'm not sure the map is "irresponsible". I have no idea if the Journal News is "liberal" or not; the area it is published in is a suburb of the city and generally elects Republicans.
  12. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:46
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    If you were not ranting like a maniac you could make the point that the names of the gun owners were surplus to the papers original intention of supposedly alerting concerned citizens to the location of weapons in their neighbourhood.
    That sentence makes no sense.

    "...you could make the point that the names of the gun owners were surplus to the papers..."

    What?

    And btw - you're still making it about me. Stay on topic or be gone.
  13. 05 Jan '13 17:48
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Boring.

    You can't debate the merits? You have to attack me?

    Surreal



    I was not attacking you I was given you the opportunity of seeing the world from the receiving of your own attacking style of debate.
  14. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:50
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    I can understand that neighbors might want to know which members of their community have handguns for many reasons so I'm not sure the map is "irresponsible". I have no idea if the Journal News is "liberal" or not; the area it is published in is a suburb of the city and generally elects Republicans.
    If I was a bad guy, I'd be very interested in that map. As it turns out, bad guys are in fact very interested in that map. A bad guy on the street could find out information about a couple of cops or guards, sure. But more than eight thousand? Why make it easy on them?

    You're looking at the first-level consequence - neighbors know where guns are. You're not looking at the unintended consequence - which is bad guys know where lots of cops live, and bad guys know what houses not only do have guns, but which ones do not.
  15. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    05 Jan '13 17:51
    Originally posted by kevcvs57
    Surreal



    I was not attacking you I was given you the opportunity of seeing the world from the receiving of your [b]own
    attacking style of debate.[/b]
    What nationality are you?

    "... I was given you the opportunity of seeing the world from the receiving of your own attacking..."

    Again - this is incoherent.

    I attacked the publishers of a newspaper. Jesus - respond to the thread. You're turning out to be another FMF.