New York Pistol Permit Owner List Leaked 899
An anonymous reader writes "On Friday, The Journal News caved under pressure of gun advocates and shut down the interactive maps which contained the names and addresses of licensed gun owners in upstate New York. The maps are still visible on the site, however they are simply static images. The Journal News published the interactive maps on December 23 which caused significant backlash. In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses. New York state Senator Greg Ball (Republican) called the removal of the data a 'huge win.' On Saturday, an anonymous user leaked the raw data used to build The Journal News maps."
Gawker and John Cook (Score:5, Informative)
In a similar move, Gawker published the names of licensed gun owners in New York City without addresses
The only reason John Cook didn't publish them is because the NYPD didn't give them to him.. John Cook made it pretty clear that he would have published the addresses if he had them.
Because the NYPD is more interested in raping and/or eating ladies and spying on Muslims than it is in honoring public records law, the list contains only the names, and not the addresses, of the licensees.
Re:leaked huh ? (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States#Statistics [wikipedia.org]
Re:F*ck off, gun haters (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, that works fine until someone shows up with a gun at your door. Then you see that having a gun yourself is not too bad after all.
On the contrary. If you're unarmed, there might not be an incentive for the criminal to shoot you. If you're packing, it becomes imperative that he does, or you will shoot him.
Criminals often carry guns for the same reason gun owners claim they carry guns - self-protection. But in a country where the police is always packing, and potential victims often are, it is a valid argument.
If I were a criminal in spe and wanted to burgle a store or home at night to steal valuables, and lived in, say, England, I would be unarmed. If I lived in the US, I would carry a gun to protect my own life.
When guns are outlawed, fewer criminals will have guns.
This, I think is a net win, even if some will still have them.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:please think of the children (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Let's publish a list of the newspaper employees (Score:5, Informative)
Re:please think of the children (Score:5, Informative)
When someone commits a crime, that means they break law(s) set by society. Civilized Western countries (in this case, as with most cases related to criminal law being even remotely reasonable, US is not on the list) tend to have a legal process which causes loss of ability to inflict any more crimes of this nature for a period during which they try to rehabilitate that citizen so he will not commit those crimes when his freedom to act is restored.
This should not cause loss of any rights not directly related to the said crime. They are still humans, and still citizens of the country with all the legal protection granted to all other citizens.
US has a strong history of frontier justice due to its very recent colonial past, which causes it to have a very skewed "punish for vengeance, not prevention and rehabilitation" culture largely absent in most of the world. Restriction of rights not related to crime is VENGEANCE, not REHABILITATION. In vast majority of the Western world, avenging crimes by society is viewed as uncivilized brutality. A great example of this is Norway and its handling of Breivik.
It's one of the major cultural clashes that US tends to have with other countries, and one of the main reasons why prison populations in US are completely different from those in rest of Western world.
Re:leaked huh ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Or the reverse (Score:4, Informative)
And what would knowing do for you? Your neighbor, instead of hiding the fact that he has weapons like criminals do, follows the law and registers his legally obtained weapons. This information is already available to see. What people are mad about is when some asshat decides to conveniently collect all of this information so that only criminals have a use for it. Oh, criminals and idiots who think law-abiding citizens should be ostracized or treated differently because they are exercising their rights and acting in a responsible manner.
Exactly!
The claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot converted into a crime" Miller v. U.S. 230 F.2d 486 (1956) [resource.org]. But in New York, for example, they have done just that. If I were a gun owner in New York, I'd refuse to comply, based on the Supremacy of the 2nd Amendment. New York's law is clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution.
BTW, Certain members of Slashdot that want to get rid of all guns not owned by the government would do well to read this page [mgoa.com]; but they won't...
Re:Or the reverse (Score:5, Informative)
If you're going to tell the story, tell the WHOLE story. ... ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God, awaiting the day that God gives him the nod to come BACK to earth as the Avenger.
The Christ you speak of is not a pacifist, per se. He paid the price to win his Father's approval, and to satisfy the Law.
Believe the story or not, believe in God or not, that's your choice, but if you're going to tell the story, tell the entire story. This is the problem with so many "Christian" cults - they cut and paste parts of the story, to suit their own purposes.
If Christ really does descend from Heaven again, that fruitcake Muhammed is going to look like a candy ass child, in comparison with what the Christ does.