Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Privacy Government United States Your Rights Online

New York Paper Uses Public Records To Publish Gun-Owner Map 1232

New submitter Isaac-1 writes "First it was the sex offenders being mapped using public records, now it seems to be gun owners — I wonder who will be next? It seems a newspaper in New York has published an interactive map with the names and addresses of people with [handguns]." It's happened before: In 2007, Virginia's Roanoke Times raised the ire of many gun owners by publishing a database of Virginia's gun permit holders that it assembled based on public records inquiries. (The paper later withdrew that database.) Similarly, WRAL-TV in North Carolina published a database earlier this year with searchable map of (partially redacted) information about permit holders in that state, and Philadelphia made the news for a similar disclosure — complete with interactive map and addresses — of hundreds of gun permit applicants and holders.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New York Paper Uses Public Records To Publish Gun-Owner Map

Comments Filter:
  • A map for crime (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Python ( 1141 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:23AM (#42387243)

    So basically its a map of people without guns, and therefore excellent homes to invade and rob. Thanks Journal News! Douch bags.

  • by micron ( 164661 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:23AM (#42387245)

    This is just a great example of responsible journalism. Now the criminals know exactly where to go to get firearms that will never be traced back to them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:25AM (#42387259)

    Ha! very good initiative from this New York newspaper.
    There's nothing illegal publishing public records, and it has one heavy effect. It puts shame on gun owners.
    Make it a socially reprehensible act to possess fire arms (even though it's not illegal) and you'll see how fast people's attitude towards guns will change for the better. And the good news ? You don't have to get Congress involved, or the NRA etc...
    Just public shame.

  • by Scutter ( 18425 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:27AM (#42387269) Journal

    Or it's a list of prospective homeowners with property worth stealing. Or a list of people who are trying to hide from abusive exes who got gun permits to protect themselves. Why is the list of permit holders anybody else's business?

  • by Major Blud ( 789630 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:28AM (#42387277) Homepage
    According to the article, they obtained the information through "Freedom of Information" laws. By your reasoning, shouldn't I be able to obtain your social security number, credit score, and medical information through the same laws?
  • by Scutter ( 18425 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:31AM (#42387309) Journal

    So, the best response you could come up with is an ad hominem attack and profanity? Nice.

  • by wombatmobile ( 623057 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:32AM (#42387317)
    Does gun ownership make for a safer, better, society, or something else? Statistical correlation is not the same thing as causality, but what do these facts [goo.gl] tell us?
  • by Python ( 1141 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:33AM (#42387321)

    Indeed. I don't understand why this is public information to begin with. It's no ones business what products I buy or own.

  • by romco ( 61131 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:35AM (#42387325) Homepage

    >AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

    Unless you are looking for guns.

  • by Python ( 1141 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:37AM (#42387337)

    That, and which homes are also the safest to rob. All in all, a bang up job for the journal! Really, this should call attention to the poor privacy laws in New York. This kind of information should not be public.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:41AM (#42387371)

    This article is one example.

  • Re:So... Question, (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Smallpond ( 221300 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:48AM (#42387423) Homepage Journal

    Columbine and Newtown school shootings were both with legally acquired guns in the wrong hands. Robberies and drug deal shootings frequently use illegal (hence less traceable) guns.

  • Re:I quit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheekyjohnson ( 1873388 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:50AM (#42387439)

    That's what happens when people get obsessed with safety. Freedoms are sacrificed to get safety, and sometimes the safety received isn't even real. That is precisely why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other such nonsense, and why people try so hard to get rid of guns. They'd rather remove people's freedoms than accept a few casualties.

  • by lightknight ( 213164 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:52AM (#42387459) Homepage

    OMFG, this is such a bad idea! They've just publicly announced, for every felon nearby, which homes to search for a weapon!

    It's going to be like the Walmart of guns! "Bob, age 32, drives to work every day at 9 AM...has a dog, Mr. Scruffles...leaves his garage door unlocked. Well, we know he has a gun, probably in the closet or under his pillow. Let's pick it up after he leaves for work, I feel naked walking around without a gun after prison..."

    Why don't you publish the names, addresses, and photos of children in the local area whose parents get home late! It's about that level of FAIL.

    They've single-handedly just increased the number of gun deaths and home invasions. *golf clap* Well played, well played.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:54AM (#42387479)

    It's in the second amendement, right? You can't have a WELL REGULATED militia without record keeping.

  • by flyneye ( 84093 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:54AM (#42387483) Homepage

    Well when the paper uses it's free speech to endanger the lives and property of others by noting for criminals which houses are unprotected and may be burglarized without fear of adding a felony gun crime to possible charges when a crowbar will do. On the other hand if one has a gun and wants another it becomes easier to do your shopping if you know where to go, which really amounts to the paper condoning, hell, even facilitating future " gun crimes", how extremely profitable for the paper. Not so much for free speech or free people. This is an example of the fatal error of slackly publicly educated liberals ignorantly shouting FIRE! in a theatre to generate headlines of people being trampled. UYYEAAAHHH , free speech alright.....Doh, Homer!

  • by cervesaebraciator ( 2352888 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:58AM (#42387531)
    Which gives lie to this sort of stunt. Ostensibly, you do this sort of thing for public safety. But if you facilitate the theft of guns, by definition you're helping to remove guns from the hands of people who follow laws and put them in the hands of criminals. Nevertheless, this sort of stunt is done because the issue is political and you have to win political battles because the other side is full of bad people.
  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @11:59AM (#42387543) Homepage

    It just proves the right to privacy is meaningless if you have to tell the government what you are doing, buying and owning.

    This practice will just make gun owners buy their stuff "illegally."

  • by lightknight ( 213164 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:02PM (#42387567) Homepage

    Uhh, no. No shame in owning a weapon. Instead, they just announced who to rob, and who to rob during the day when the home's occupants are at work. Because a fair number of felons acquire guns after leaving prison, and this newspaper just handed them a holiday shopping list. Merry Christmas everyone!

    I'm sure the people with guns will be happy knowing that their homes may be ransacked by criminals looking for their guns (worth more than jewelry), while the people without will be happy knowing that criminals now know that they do not possess any firearm, and so can murder / rape / whatever them without fear of dad or mom busting out a .44. "My dad is going to shoot you!" "No he isn't; Bob here has that gun permit map thingy from that journal a while back loaded up on his phone, and it says neither you, nor any of your neighbors have any guns. Now Bob here...he hasn't seen a woman in years, on account of him being on the inside, so I'm gonna go make some popcorn while the two of you get comfortable."

  • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:03PM (#42387585) Homepage

    Which is an exceedingly important fact. While handguns and long guns go together like .... well, I'll leave it to your imaginations - lots of people have one or the other. So the only utility of this map is to annoy gun owners and make some sort of social noise (ooh, lots of people have guns).

    Let's rephrase it: This is a map of people with registered handguns. Not rifles, not caches of ammunition, diesel and ammonium nitrate (those are the people you want to have a reasonable buffer around), not unregistered guns. So it tells you - not much.

    Want to see who has more disposable income? Check out property values. Look at cars.
    Want to see how many people have alarm systems? Stumble around Google Maps or for heaven's sake, walk around a neighborhood ('case the joint').

    It's a dick move and won't help move the discussion very far, but that's journalism.

  • by JWSmythe ( 446288 ) <jwsmytheNO@SPAMjwsmythe.com> on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:04PM (#42387605) Homepage Journal

        I see this ass an introduction on how a newspaper can be involved as a conspirator or accomplice to a variety of crimes.

        I've known people who get firearms permits for all kinds of reasons. Some people get them to protect themselves because of their line of work. Like managers of stores carry because they are transporting the end of day cash to the bank. Some people get them for self defense after threat or action has threatened their lives. Some just do it because they do have the right.

        In one jurisdiction, at least it was, off-duty police couldn't carry their firearms unless they had a permit. Their weapon went in the trunk of their car at the end of the shift, and then they moved it from the trunk to their home. So virtually all police officers were also concealed carry permit holders.

        I am concealed weapons holder. I've carried a few times, for need. If I lived there, I really wouldn't want my name and address published. I'd be furious.

        This list is not a list to inform. A dot map without specific names and addresses would have done that job. What they've done is made public a shopping list for criminals. They know they can observe a residence for a while, learn the patterns of the occupants, and when they aren't home, rob it. There's an increased chance of finding a home containing firearms.

        While B&E to a home can get them some pretty high value items, not many items are as compact and easy to transport, and as valuable on the black market, as a firearm. A $500 pistol that can fit in your pocket can bring double that on the black market. A $500 TV doesn't fit in your pocket, and will only sell at a small percent of it's list price.

  • by Albanach ( 527650 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:12PM (#42387683) Homepage

    Really you should have no concern with someone else getting your social security number. The only reason you're concerned about keeping it private is because the finance industry have misused it as a secret personal identifier for decades.

    As for your credit score, that's private information created and held by private corporations. Why do you think that has any relevance to freedom of information?

    Medical information is much the same. That's between you, your doctor and your insurance company. I don't think you need to provide details of medical treatments to the government, or request government permission in advance to be allowed the treatment.

  • Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dolphinzilla ( 199489 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:14PM (#42387715) Journal

    maybe they should publish a list of homes with poisonous household chemicals, prescription drugs, swimming pools, razor blades, exposed A/C outlets, 6 foot ladders, ornamental samurai swords and anything else that might harm children... Do you not see how absurd this is ? IMHO this is utterly insane, it is NOT the same as publishing a list of registered sex offenders, protecting children from people is not the same as protecting them from objects. If your child goes over to a neighbors house its OK to ask them if they have guns and they are safe, in fact its YOUR responsibility as a parent !!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:15PM (#42387725)

    I guess the inverse of this map would be map of safe places to rob.

  • by cmdr_tofu ( 826352 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:25PM (#42387831) Homepage

    It becomes everyone's business when your property is a hazard or risk to others. If you on a sweater that's fine. A gun is more like a car. If you want to own it and operate it there some regulations to limit the risk that your neighbors have to endure.

  • by Arancaytar ( 966377 ) <arancaytar.ilyaran@gmail.com> on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:31PM (#42387895) Homepage

    Since they're so proud of their guns. And since guns are mainly intended to secure by deterrence, publicly advertising their presence makes a home that much safer from intruders.

  • by Rockoon ( 1252108 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:38PM (#42387947)

    It becomes everyone's business when your property is a hazard or risk to others.

    So that infectious disease you have should be public information?

  • by davydagger ( 2566757 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:42PM (#42387995)
    If this isn't a 1984ish set up when the system is asking you to spy on politically "undesirable" citizens, I don't know what is.

    Lets start a public list of other harmful products

    Liquor - let us know where the drunks are, lets name them by face
    Tobacco - so you know when your kids might be harmed by tobbaco smoke.
    Red Meat
    Sugary Soft Drinks.
    Cars larger than 3000 pounds - don't wanna get run over by roadhogs.
    $CONTROVERSIALMUSICSTYLE - Those cretins probably don't vote for $CANDIDATEOFCHOICE or $PARTY, along with being "scary" or terrorists.
    Or we could stop this politically oriented targeting of citizens. This list should not be public.
  • by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @12:46PM (#42388033) Homepage Journal

    You are an idiot.

    its not about a conflict between first amendment and the 2nd, its about privacy for citizens. As a prviate citizen, what i own should not be public record. Criminal records are public, and should be, but a legal act should not be.

    And i do agree, while they are within their legal rights, the paper was not being responsible, and are doing it just to push their agenda to try to instill fear into people exersizing their rights. Which is wrong to do.

  • by flayzernax ( 1060680 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:02PM (#42388173)

    Guns by themselves are just as inert as rock music. For fucks sake this is political and evil at its core.

  • by FictionPimp ( 712802 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:02PM (#42388179) Homepage

    The first amendment now means all government records should be public? I don't think anyone is denying the right of the people to publish any information they can legally obtain. Instead the argument is that the information should not be public. That in no way violates the first amendment. Unless you think the CIA should just be a web forum where we can all pitch in.

  • by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:05PM (#42388207)

    I thought that owing a gun was supposed to deter crime? Be proud, put up an "armed response" sign on your front door.

    If gun ownership is to deter crime en masse, then it's important for it not to be known who has a gun and who does not. The risk is what truly matters: someone specifically looking for a gun to steal needs to not be able to be sure which houses have them, and someone not looking for a weapon needs to not know which houses will bring no chance of armed response.

    Yes, a few irrational folks might be scared to not know who has the Big Scary Weapons. That is their problem, and no one else's.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:05PM (#42388209)

    I think a citation is needed to corroborate the claim vis-à-vis regulated = trained.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22 [wikipedia.org]

    I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.

    I'd say most would enjoy belonging to and participating with a group of like-minded individuals, but the FBI has a history of not liking these kinds of things. Isn't a powerful government great? Let's give up more of our individual sovereignty!

  • Re:bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:13PM (#42388285)

    They put a gun to your kids head (or a knife to their throat) and politely ask for the key to the guns.

    Right. They're going to risk a murder rap to steal your pistol. What is it, Elvis's silver plated limited edition Colt? There are 300 million guns in the USA at least. Any idiot can get a gun for pocket change. And it's a lot easier to steal pocket change and buy one than take your family hostage. Just because you love your gun more than life itself doesn't make it the crown jewels.

  • by poity ( 465672 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:27PM (#42388413)

    He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others. Diseases are not a risk to others if the carrier follows quarantine procedures, in the same manner that guns are not a risk to others if owners keep their guns secured. However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:30PM (#42388437)

    It's also a map for which homes are safe to rob even when they occupants are home.

  • by poity ( 465672 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @01:38PM (#42388527)

    If someone used voter registration rolls to publish a map of all registered black voters, would that be a 1st Amendment vs 14th Amendment issue, or would that be a 1st Amendment vs privacy issue?

  • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:30PM (#42388945)

    Unless you're specifically aiming to steal guns. I've no experience trading in the criminal underground, but I would guess a stolen and thus untraceable gun has to be worth something.

  • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:32PM (#42388961) Homepage Journal

    You miss the point. Weapons shouldn't be registered to start with. The state shouldn't have any idea who owns what. It's none of their business. The only people whose business it is, is mine, the wife's the children's, and whoever the hell tries to break into my home. That's it.

  • by Runaway1956 ( 1322357 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:37PM (#42388997) Homepage Journal

    " dangerous gun-owners"

    How about you just make some attempt to identify DANGEROUS PEOPLE, then stop defending their rights to be dangerous?

    That sumbitch that ambushed four firefighters yesterday? He had murdered his own grandmother with a hammer. Served 18 years, and was paroled.

    Hello, world!! You don't think that hammering Grandma to death was a danger flag? Why wasn't he left in prison to die?

    Oh - some namby pamby bleeding heart sumbitch felt that he had "paid for his crimes" or some such?


  • by Cruciform ( 42896 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @02:52PM (#42389145) Homepage

    "Criminals". That magical word that everyone uses to delineate the us and them.
    Gun crime is as much crimes of passion, negligence, and stupidity by people that wouldn't have been considered "criminals" until after the fact.
    The US is not a shooting gallery just because it has Jesse James on every corner and guns are falling into the hands of wild gangs. It's poor regulation and background checks, poor safety requirements, mental health, etc.

  • by 517714 ( 762276 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @03:01PM (#42389233)
    Evil is correct. We have rights, stated clearly in the Constitution. If you want to take those rights from us there is one legal means to do so - amend the Constitution, any other means is subversive, illegal and evil.
  • by Jiro ( 131519 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @03:13PM (#42389335)

    Unlike being a sex offender, gun ownership is not something that is considered shameful or abhorrent by society, so one cannot really say that gun owners are "outed".

    Owning valuable jewelry isn't considered shameful or abhorrent by society, but publishing a list of people who own valuable jewelry is a bad idea and encourages crime.

    (Besides, there are some segments of society who do consider gun ownership abhorrent. In this regard it's like publishing a list of known homosexuals. It shouldn't be considered abhorrent, but it sometimes is, and the list makes people a target for prejudice.)

  • by Lord Kano ( 13027 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @03:32PM (#42389487) Homepage Journal

    So, you follow the NRA line that we should arm all the teachers and students so they can defend themselves against Obama's stormtroopers? How long do you think they'd last?

    Longer than they would if they were unarmed.


  • by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @03:45PM (#42389569) Homepage

    Making people target to all manner of scams and crap?

    select * from diseaseRoster where terminal = true;

    Reach out to them with life insurance scams that actually pay nothing

    select * from diseaseRoster where sexuallyTransmitted = true;

    See if any of them can be exploited in any number of ways.

    Health privacy exists for a reason. If we can't trust our doctors, diseases will go untreated and things get far worse than they are.

    You have a bizarre notion of things you think should be shared.

    If you have nothing to hide, please provide me with your real name, your real home address, your real employer, your real phone number and lots more useful informaiton. How about your religion? Your political affiliations? Sexual preference? Your REAL sexual preference? No? Don't want to share? I can't imagine why.

    It's all well and good to wish that others lives were laid out for all to see, but not yours right? Before you think everyone you disagree with should be exposed, perhaps you should consider that things change and before you know it, you might be singled out for some cause or reason.

    People like you have taken the bait. Hook, line and sinker. So quickly you forget what you know.

    The shool shooting couldn't happen as it did without two important conditions being met:

    1. A person had to be capable of such an act: mental/emotional problems gone unresolved and unaddressed
    2. Availability of weaponry.

    it doesn't appear to bother anyone that people with severe mental and emotional problems exist. That insurance doesn't care for them. That healthcare systems tend to look the other way in order to have them released when they can't pay. The definition of "a danger to self or others" is twisted, minimalized and even ignored. And the causes of these problems go unresearched and unprevented.

    We are stockpiling these loaded weapons. The real loaded weapons are these people waiting to go off. And without guns, they won't be stopped. They will resort to other things. Poisonings? Gassings? Bombings? Stabbings and slashings? What will we hope to take away from EVERYONE then? Gasoline? Propane?

    The problem is that a single event is being used to punish EVERY innocent gun owner out there. How can it be justified? The gun owner who let her son have access to her weapons paid for it with her life.

    When the government reacted to 9/11 by creating the DHS and the TSA, most people generally agree this inconvenience does not make us safer. It just takes away our rights without good cause. Now we're seeing it again, but the target is smaller and now we can divide the public on the issue.

    And ALL of this ignores the real problem. That we have people who need help and aren't getting it. And these people can and are dangerous to the public. Is the sub-issue of guns more important than the real issue of WHO IS DANGEROUS to the public?

  • by ClickOnThis ( 137803 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @04:34PM (#42389817) Journal

    He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others.

    Chemical and nuclear weapons are inanimate objects too. So are poorly-designed bridges and childrens' toys.

    Inanimate objects can be a risk to others. The risk may depend on context but that is not a fallacy.

  • by jcr ( 53032 ) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @07:12PM (#42390701) Journal

    More to the point, the right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent on militia membership at all, and it never was. The second amendment doesn't even presume to grant the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing, it cites one reason why it's important to preserve it, and specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing it.


  • by Hangtime ( 19526 ) on Tuesday December 25, 2012 @08:42PM (#42391211) Homepage

    We have a long tradition in the US of respecting patient and client (attorney-client privilege) rights. However, we do not do the same for weapons ownership. Medical history for a good part is involuntary especially when seeking care through Medicare bills (Grandma gets old, she needs medical treatment and you can't really choose to get most cancers unless you smoke or go next to a huge field of radiation). Gun ownership is completely voluntary, no one compels anyone to own a gun in the US. Gun ownership is completely voluntary especially as it relates to assault rifles. Assault rifles have only one purpose, killing people real bad dead. We have the right and a responsibility as a society to make sure we know who owns those weapons, ensure that owners are of sound mind and body, adequately trained to handle the weapon, and that the weapon is being cared for in such a way that it will not fall into the wrong or young and untrained hands. For those that own a .22 rifle for hunting, I have no problem. I don't feel the need to regulate them that deeply. For those that need an AR-15, I want a great deal more background, training, and understanding of that individual.

  • by oztiks ( 921504 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @12:58AM (#42392277)

    LOL this comment needs framing as it symbolically shows societies degradation in so many ways.

    It shows the conditioned and damaged mental state of our society as a whole. No matter how smart one is, through correct social conditioning one can become as dumb as a doorknob to preserve a set of programmed ideals.

    The very core of the word "regulation" is "regulate" like "government" is "govern".

    Regulate Verb
    Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
    Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

    Govern Verb
    To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
    To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
    To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.

    I might add common sense is becoming less common these days. Now, that lack of "common" within sense is being used to pervert the constitution so individual ideals can be preserved. I may be considered a fool for stating this but sometimes people really need to get "back to basics" before perceiving the world around them, absorb it and try to see past these forms of social conditioning.

    The word "trained" is not used in the above definitions. Yet "operates properly" means that a logical process needs to be ensured some how. "Training" to enable proper operation seems logical (and simple), how else do you expect to achieve "operates properly" to ensure "regulation" is instilled? hocus pocus? more social conditioning? how about more/less video games? let's hear the bullshit I can't wait.

  • by macs4all ( 973270 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @08:06AM (#42393641)

    Yup, first amendment vs second amendment. It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it. Really gun owners.... really?

    Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.

    You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther than (not so) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

    Seriously. Do some research. It's not gun owners we need to fear. It's irresponsible drug companies and lazy-ass doctors, who too often prescribe SSRIs without proper patient follow-up, or worse yet, who increase the SSRI dosage when a patient complains of "feeling worse" after taking them.

    Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook (as well as many, many others) all have SSRI involvement.

    Prozac (the first SSRI) was approved in 1988. Check out the history of mass murders (esp. "school shooting"-type incidents) in the years before and after SSRIs became commonplace.

    We've had a 2nd Amendment for 200+ years. We've had SSRIs for about 20. Look at history and you can clearly see a "knee" in these types of incidents that coincides nicely with SSRI introduction.

    But nearly every voice in "the media" is dancing to the drumbeat of a very dangerous tune.

    But don't take my word for it; do your own research. I'll wait...

  • by Jane Q. Public ( 1010737 ) on Wednesday December 26, 2012 @08:44PM (#42399977)

    "Assault rifles have only one purpose, killing people real bad dead."

    Straight from the "irrational Liberal handbook" I see.

    Please tell me: what is an "assault weapon"? Something that LOOKS deadly? That's how New Jersey seemed to define them back in 1993. (Or was it '92?) Do you mean "fully automatic"? Those are restricted today anyway. So what do you mean by this term?

    A semi-automatic AR15 (basically the civilian, non-full-auto version of the M16) is both a legal and very effective hunting rifle in Idaho and some other states. I have very little doubt it qualifies as something YOU would call an "assault weapon". And they are perfectly legal for hunting smaller game in many states. Someone who used one for hunting would probably be extremely offended if you told him (or her) their gun was "only for killing people". If it were me (I don't claim to own one; this is purely hypothetical) I would probably punch you in the nose for that.

    "We have the right and a responsibility as a society to make sure we know who owns those weapons..."

    Wow. How misguided can you get? Hint, dude: when "society" knows just who has guns and who does not, you know what you have accomplished? ONLY this: a handy roadmap for every burglar in existence, telling them just exactly who to rob and terrorize and which houses to avoid.

    Gawd, you're naive.

    "... ensure that owners are of sound mind and body, adequately trained to handle the weapon, and that the weapon is being cared for in such a way that it will not fall into the wrong or young and untrained hands."

    And how do you propose to accomplish these goals? By whose standards should "we" decide who is mentally competent to possess a firearm? Should the State or Federal governments set those standards? But wait!!! According to the Supreme Court (and historians),we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms for use AGAINST our own government, if need be.

    So we have an inherent conflict of interest there. I am filled with visions of all those Soviet-era political dissidents who were sent to "mental institutions" that were really just prisons.

    And further, even if you do not believe that (historically and legally accurate) justification for bearing arms, surely you believe in an individual's right to self-defense? But there's another problem: a gun that "will not fall into the wrong (and who is 'wrong'?) or young or untrained hands" -- i.e., a gun kept unloaded in a safe, for example -- is almost completely useless for self-defense.

    "For those that need an AR-15, I want a great deal more background, training, and understanding of that individual."

    You aren't going to get it. At least the understanding and background part. And you are going to have to guess about the training, because there is no way for the government to practically or legally regulate it, unless they train EVERYBODY, like the Swiss do.

    By the way, I'll repeat what I wrote to someone else: the AR15 is a perfectly legal hunting rifle for small game in much of the United States. Not that hunting has much of anything to do with right of ownership. See Miller v. U.S. and other such court decisions.

    And learn to live with it. I understand that you mean well, but your ideas are not just unworkable, but actively dangerous.

"Say yur prayers, yuh flea-pickin' varmint!" -- Yosemite Sam