• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NY Newspaper Publishes all Gun Owners' Names and Addresses

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Pr0d1gy said:
This message is hidden because WelshBloke is on your ignore list.

Did you say something? lol

Go back to your hole under the bridge.
Click to expand...

Yes, he said you have no clue what defame means and he's correct. These people have absolutely no grounds to sue the paper as the paper posted public data.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Yes, he said you have no clue what defame means and he's correct. These people have absolutely no grounds to sue the paper as the paper posted public data.
Click to expand...

Dont worry, anyone that goes to the effort of telling you they have put you on ignore will definitely have clicked on the 'show message' link. 😉
 
Pr0d1gy said:
And by doing so they defamed an entire community of people. What if they posted the name and addy of every black person in that area? Do you think that would hold up in court? Hell no, and neither will this. They are going to lose their asses in civil court because it is illegal to defame people because it is an actionable civil tort. Damages will be collected, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

Stop using words you obviously don't know the meaning of.
 
dmcowen674 said:
Originally Posted by SparkyJJO
Wow. Dave posted something that I (and many others) agree on. Not only that, but bridged a gap between groups here that I thought were permanently separated on everything 😱



I turned 50 on the 21st.

So looks like it is a reset of the Calendar.
Click to expand...
Happy belated birthday, buddy.
 
WelshBloke said:
😕



Which really is all that matters.




Theres no way the paper was releasing this information to enable people to go out and steal guns. You cant for a second believe thats their intent. And you cant blame them for some criminals act anymore than you could blame a gun seller for a school shooting.

Why is this information publicly available? Presumably its so you can check to see if Joe next door has a permit for the gun you saw him with otherwise you'd have to phone the cops everytime you saw anyone with a gun to get them checked out.
Click to expand...

Normally you and I can at least understand, if not agree, our respective positions and so I'm going to start over.

First, I am not contesting the legal right of the paper to do what it has done, but legally allowed does not dismiss the moral obligation to use ones rights responsibly.

Regardless of intent, actions sometimes have potentially serious consequences. Providing an ready accessible and comprehensive list is a virtual road map
to arms.

One might argue about rights. I am not, rather I'm against using a freedom as an excuse for irresponsible actions, regardless of purported intent.
 
Pr0d1gy said:
And by doing so they defamed an entire community of people. What if they posted the name and addy of every black person in that area? Do you think that would hold up in court? Hell no, and neither will this. They are going to lose their asses in civil court because it is illegal to defame people because it is an actionable civil tort. Damages will be collected, and rightly so.
Click to expand...

I see you still have no clue what it is you are discussing at this point. I also see you are unwilling to learn from people who are better informed and trying to show you. But I will try again.

To sue for libel these parties would have to demonstrate that the newspapers knowingly and willingly published FALSE information. Even if the records are inaccurate they would still have to show that the publishers knew that fact and still published.

Since these records were provided to them by the bodies responsible for their maintenance it is impossible to demonstrate that they knew they were false records. They acted with the presumption the information was accurate due to the method in which it was provided to them.

On that basis there is no legal standing to sue. It is a no win situation. Not everything you don't like is illegal.

Now, please, learn and educate yourself going forward before you continue this line of ranting as you are completely off the mark.
 
Last edited:
MomentsofSanity said:
I see you still have no clue what it is you are discussing at this point. I also see you are unwilling to learn from people who are better informed and trying to show you. But I will try again.

To sue for libel these parties would have to demonstrate that the newspapers knowingly and willingly published FALSE information. Even if the records are inaccurate they would still have to show that the publishers knew that fact and still published.

Since these records were provided to them by the bodies responsible for their maintenance it is impossible to demonstrate that they knew they were false records. They acted with the presumption the information was accurate due to the method in which it was provided to them.

On that basis there is no legal standing to sue. It is a no win situation. Not everything you don't like is illegal.

Now, please, learn and educate yourself going forward before you continue this line of ranting as you are completely off the mark.
Click to expand...

He's right Pr0d1gy.


Now reckless/negligent endangerment for those who are hiding for a reason with guns for a reason.... That's a completely different ball of wax. It's not unreasonable to say that the newpaper should have foreseen possible consequences of their actions that may have endangered the lives of others. That they should have done a bit more homework to determine if some of those gun owners should have had access to information about them restricted because of things like stalkers or domestic violence issues.
 
The list could be reasonably construed as a hit list. What were they hoping to accomplish by publishing this list? Yelling fire in a theater or threatening the President is not free speech. Even though the information is public, publishing this list serves as an incitement or a call to action.
 
GoPackGo said:
The list could be reasonably construed as a hit list. What were they hoping to accomplish by publishing this list? Yelling fire in a theater or threatening the President is not free speech. Even though the information is public, publishing this list serves as an incitement or a call to action.
Click to expand...

It could be construed that way as well.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Normally you and I can at least understand, if not agree, our respective positions and so I'm going to start over.

First, I am not contesting the legal right of the paper to do what it has done, but legally allowed does not dismiss the moral obligation to use ones rights responsibly.

Regardless of intent, actions sometimes have potentially serious consequences. Providing an ready accessible and comprehensive list is a virtual road map
to arms.

One might argue about rights. I am not, rather I'm against using a freedom as an excuse for irresponsible actions, regardless of purported intent.
Click to expand...

Ah, I'm understanding your point a bit more now.

I think the whole argument of whether it is a nice, or a good thing that they have done fairly pointless. Its within the law and its not them that has released the information. If you find the information to be unacceptable to be in the public domain, and there are arguments against it being there, then they should be addressed against the party that releases the information not the press that reports on it.

The press is not there to be 'nice' or 'moral' they are there to freely report on events they think are in the public interest. It may well be that they wanted to draw attention to how many or few gun licences were released and that they were owned by a wide selection of the public.

Either way I also think the level of drama generated over this to be well overblown and very much doubt that there are criminals rubbing their hands together righting shopping lists of guns to steal. As you guys keep saying its not exactly difficult to get a gun in America as it is so I cant see this making a difference. Criminals are going to rob anyway, regardless of this list.
 
WelshBloke said:
It may well be that they wanted to draw attention to how many or few gun licences were released and that they were owned by a wide selection of the public.
Click to expand...

This sounds like a fairly rational thing to be done, and could have easily been done by listing any number of statistics. Why, then, the need to release the individuals names and addresses? They are drawing attention (unwanted) to very specific individuals while not "reporting" on anything, per se. Therein lies the moral rub that many of us have with the paper.
 
TheVrolok said:
This sounds like a fairly rational thing to be done, and could have easily been done by listing any number of statistics. Why, then, the need to release the individuals names and addresses? They are drawing attention (unwanted) to very specific individuals while not "reporting" on anything, per se. Therein lies the moral rub that many of us have with the paper.
Click to expand...

well that wouldn't sale papers or get there name out. they are news that is rare.
 
TheVrolok said:
This sounds like a fairly rational thing to be done, and could have easily been done by listing any number of statistics. Why, then, the need to release the individuals names and addresses? They are drawing attention (unwanted) to very specific individuals while not "reporting" on anything, per se. Therein lies the moral rub that many of us have with the paper.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that they wish to gauge what sort of reaction they would get for future use as opposed to trolling with little reason?
 
waggy said:
well that wouldn't sale papers or get there name out. they are news that is rare.
Click to expand...

I think that's indeed the name of the game.

Zodiark1593 said:
Is it possible that they wish to gauge what sort of reaction they would get for future use as opposed to trolling with little reason?
Click to expand...

Reaction to what? Bringing unwanted attention to everyday law abiding citizens? I'm not certain it takes any special mind to foresee the result.
 
I think this is a perfectly fine idea, much like how we have child sex offender list, we should have gun registry list.
 
highland145 said:
Let's add a list of people taking prescriptions. Any kind. Pill parties kill.

id10t
Click to expand...



🙄

People taking medication are not a danger to others because of their medication. People with guns are danger to everyone around them. The only purpose a gun serves is to maim and murder.
 
A thought just occurred: I dont know if in Virginia thats considered private info or not.
We dont have permits to purchase but we do have concealed carry permits.
 
DCal430 said:
I think this is a perfectly fine idea, much like how we have child sex offender list, we should have gun registry list.
Click to expand...
Great idea! We can do black welfare moms, with the amount of money they get, the names of their kids and where they attend school. In AZ we can do the same for illegals. WhatA list of people with AIDS. What a great idea you have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top