Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners' Names and Addresses

You're thinking short term.
THe process of reducing the overall number of firearms in America is a decades long process.

This is one of the first salvos IMO, to remind gun owners that many folks don't consider owning a gun for whatever reason to be socially unacceptable behavior.
You don't need a 'just cause' to legally print the names of registered gun owners, other than the fact that we'd all be better off with less guns in this country.

 

Gun owners are being discriminated against because they are bring singled out. It can and will affect employment whether its fair or not as well as their social interactions. It's demonizing based on what people think might happen vs what has happened. Again one more time I am not saying its like genocide but that was a strategy used in Germany to single out and separate the Jews from the mainstream making them the "others" the ones to be afraid shit that commonly happens with us black man. Regardless of what we actually do we are held accountable for the actions of a shitty few.

And if the aim is to put a negative spin on gun ownership like smoking then why not statistics showing that legal ownership is bad. Show the deaths associated with it like they did smoking. Why put out their names and address like that? They didn't commit crimes, but are being painted as public menaces. Dude you have no real argument and you know it.
I am tired of this being a me vs you thing it will get us no where. I just hope that you and the others can just admit what this is really about. You are afraid that people who have guns will use them on you and to be honest with you its a concern I have too. I hate feeling like I could be at the supermarket and some asshole might open fire, I hate avoiding movies on opening nights as a result of the Colorado incident, but I know that the measures taken won't do anything productive. All it does is create more of a rift between people needlessly. If I thought a ban on guns would work I would support it but like I said I see the drug problem and past problems with alcohol as proof that it won't. Other markets will be created to facilitate the need/want. It's basic economics my friend.
Stricter laws on people who leave their guns unattended in the home? Absolutely.
Regulations at gun shows? Absolutely.
But making people into the boogieman because they want to protect their homes or are just gun enthusiasts who handle the weapon responsibly doesn't facilitate your needs my friend.
Just a thought.

 

Do you have a comparative example where deterring behavior came to pass a result of singling people out who have committed not crimes?

 

This is a perfect example of why I am against gun registration, because of the possibility of this type of foolishness. This should be good cause for the right politician to ban gun registration in New York, because the only information you should be privi to is the info you can be mature with. Obviously some people who hate guns are not mature enough to handle gun owner information.

 

Why are you now suddenly bitching? :smt018 It almost sounds like you think it's..unfair? I mean, not like your cousin has ever hurt anyone else right, even though he could.

"My family's biggest worry was steering him from...."
Really? And what was Ms Lanza's biggest worry about Adam? That he would slaughter others, including her?

Do you KNOW how many with schizophrenia and manic bi-polar have killed others? PLENTY. Off the top of my head, a NYC woman was pushed onto train tracks. A mother cooking was beheaded with a Samurai sword by her son. The list is very, very long.

So let's publish the names of those who have the condition.

And why are you down-playing the condition....peep the meds needed to even tame it....and this is JUST for bi-polar.

Every one of the mass killers have also been suicidal, that is a proven fact.

So let's publish the names, just because.

Or as you like to squawk...in the interest of neighborly public safety. I know, it sucks.

 

and obviously some people who own guns are not mature enough to not indiscriminately kill people

Perhaps you can ask the 2 fire fighters called to a house fire on Christmas Eve and then shot by the owner of house.

Wait....

They are dead.

How many people are dead because their names were published in the paper?
Or can you not ask them because they can't talk because they are dead?

 

I've seen home owner's associations use similar tactics when someone who's entitled by law to do so expands on their own property in a manner that violates the 'spirit' of local community standards. It may not stop that one homeowner, but it discourages others from doing the same in the future.

The entire gun debate doesn't begin and end with this one article. It's one step in the process.

 

Do you even read what you write, or.....do you just kind of hope you've touched on a point? lol

 

I'd rather have ten schizophrenic neighbors than 3 'normals' who owned semiautomatic rifles.

You're being flippant Bliss to make a rhetorical point, but you're also making a false equivalence between the danger presented to society by schizophenics versus the danger to society caused by having 300+ million guns owned by Americans.

Schizophrenia does not equal homicidal. And BTW it was my uncle's bipolar disorder that made him suicidal at times, no his schizo-effective disorder.

When Reagan decided in the 1980s to shut down hundreds of state run mental health hospitals and Congress systematically has cut funding for mental health care, you have to ask yourself who's the real problem??

ALL guns by design are made to kill human beings. The overwhelming majority of the 2.2 million schizophrenics are not a threat to anyone and aren't violent. And you sure as hell shouldn't make it easy for someone that mental health background to purchase unregistered firearms at gun shows without background checks.

Most murders and gun homicides in this country in general are committed by people with no history of mental health problems.
So what's your point Bliss??

Tell you what Bliss, how about you guess which one is the bigger threat to the overall public safety of the United States; the 2 million mostly non-violent schizophrenics in and out of treatment, or doubling the number of firearms already on the streets??

 

Dude that's a far cry from trying to paint people like killers. And you're right the debate doesn't being and end with one article but you're advocating for this type of behavior when there are easier and safer ways to go about it.
Anti-smoking public service announcements did great things in the effort to stop smoking not putting people's names and addresses out there

 

You KNOW I'm right and have no counter argument so you throw bs posts out there so you can attempt to be a part of the adult conversation. Got it.
Its ok kid once you have something plausible and important to say we'll all be here to listen.

 

And gun registration would have prevented this how? That guy did not legally own a gun. And he should have been executed for killing his grandmother with a hammer. Ohh yeah lets register hammers while we are at it.

 

So your answer is what then?
If legal anything isn't going to curb the problem why don't we just arm everyone and their dog. Give semi automatic whatever the fuck at baby showers?
Make sure that kid KNOWS how to kill by the time it's 1.5 years old, gawdamnit!
I'm a fucking American and if I want to kill you then by hell and damnation I will. To hell with the consquences!

Is that it, then?

Because when you have a problem...like say...a health problem...

Doing nothing to correct it is the way to go?

 

Dude why are you going off the deep end on this.No one wants to arm kids but getting rid of them altogether isnt an option either. And no one is trting to take away your right to live thats why murdrr is outlawed but we cant protect all the citizens all the time though

 

Murder is outlawed except in those certain states that still give the death penalty

 

You against the death penalty?

 

Fuck yeah.

That's permanent right there. Could you be right 100% of the time? With the DNA evidence clearing people of wrongful imprisonment, you can never be 100% all the time.

 

Basically. And it's a waste of taxpayer's money.

 

I used to be so-so about the death penalty, until I found out there have been HUNDREDS of cases minimum where innocent people have been executed for crimes they didn't commit.

Also this country have international terrorists locked down 23 hours a day with no human contact for the rest of their lives besides their guards. That seems to work fine from where I'm sitting.

The death penalty is about blood revenge, not punishment.

Anyway in 25 years if we could permanently reduce the number of firearms on the street in AMerica, legal and illegal, to about 100 million weapons total,(still an ungodly amount of guns), I'd call that a WIN.

 

fair enough, I am not totally for it, but I think it is warranted in some circumstances. I think the death penalty should be considered for those who commit certain crimes like terrorism, treason, or sexual abuse of children, serial killers ect. However, I do think someone who is convicted of first degree murder should be given the opporitunity to demonstrate their willingness to do hard labor in prison as an alternative to the death penalty.