Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

NY newspaper takes the gun control debate too far.

Page 2 of 3 [ 33 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

27 Dec 2012, 10:53 am

visagrunt wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Publishing the names of law abiding gun owners out of public concern over active shooters is a good way to get sued for slander.


You mean libel.

But how can a plaintiff sue for libel when the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the statement complained of is false?

A complete defence to a claim of libel (or slander) is an honest belief in the truth of the statement. A person publishing the content of a public record has every reason to believe that the contents of that record are accurate, and therefore no claim of libel (or slander) could ever succeed, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate both that the record is inaccurate, and that the defendant knew or ought properly to have known that it was inaccurate.

This entire thread is an exercise in legal amateurishness. This has nothing to do with defamation, libel, slander, reckless endangerment, or any of the myriad torts and crimes cited thus far. They are political posturing masquerading (poorly) as legal conjecture.

The only legal interests that I see involved here are the privacy rights of the gun owners (and whether or not the state legislation making those records public violates those rights) and the rights of a free press. There is a balancing of interests to be found in those two constitutional principles.
i disagree with both of you.

the real problem here is that this list is a" map to buried treasure" for cat burlers,robbers and seriel rappists.if houses not publishes on this list see a significant rise in break in's i could see a law suit in the other direction.i honestly dont know many people who are affraid of registered gun owners because this makes there weapons tracible and undesirable to be used in crime.

i dont think these published licensed gun owners will feel social stigma.the only thing could be break ins to steal there guns but i doubt this article published the value of the collection


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

27 Dec 2012, 11:36 am

So a newspaper has done a name and shame?
Brilliant! :lol:

I mean what do the pro-gun supporters have to worry about? If anyone even walks past the door they can BHAM! and they're dead.
No, naming and shaming is an effective and peaceful method of reducing guns. I also heard that somewhere in California is doing a gun amnesty in return for groceries. That's another big positive tactic. You need more than two incentives, how about a tax cut and wage increases for those that don't own a gun? That'll get people ditching those killing machines!



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Dec 2012, 12:05 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
i disagree with both of you.

the real problem here is that this list is a" map to buried treasure" for cat burlers,robbers and seriel rappists.if houses not publishes on this list see a significant rise in break in's i could see a law suit in the other direction.i honestly dont know many people who are affraid of registered gun owners because this makes there weapons tracible and undesirable to be used in crime.

i dont think these published licensed gun owners will feel social stigma.the only thing could be break ins to steal there guns but i doubt this article published the value of the collection


Think about the numbers for a moment. How many homes figure on the published list? And how many total residences are there? Given the microscopically small ratio of published addresses to residential addresses, generally, how could you possibly demonstrate a causal link between publication and an increase in property crimes at unpublished addresses?


_________________
--James


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

27 Dec 2012, 1:06 pm

visagrunt wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
i disagree with both of you.

the real problem here is that this list is a" map to buried treasure" for cat burlers,robbers and seriel rappists.if houses not publishes on this list see a significant rise in break in's i could see a law suit in the other direction.i honestly dont know many people who are affraid of registered gun owners because this makes there weapons tracible and undesirable to be used in crime.

i dont think these published licensed gun owners will feel social stigma.the only thing could be break ins to steal there guns but i doubt this article published the value of the collection


Think about the numbers for a moment. How many homes figure on the published list? And how many total residences are there? Given the microscopically small ratio of published addresses to residential addresses, generally, how could you possibly demonstrate a causal link between publication and an increase in property crimes at unpublished addresses?
the published list could be a check list of where not to go


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Dec 2012, 4:20 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
the published list could be a check list of where not to go


Which creates no statistically significant increased risk falling on any specific address that does not appear on the list.

You are grasping at straws--your argument presents no meaningful legal reasoning to support a cause of action.


_________________
--James


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

27 Dec 2012, 4:25 pm

visagrunt wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
the published list could be a check list of where not to go


Which creates no statistically significant increased risk falling on any specific address that does not appear on the list.

You are grasping at straws--your argument presents no meaningful legal reasoning to support a cause of action.
i did say that everyone not on the list will burglerized tommorow.i said if anything at all the list would hurt non gun owners.other posters talked of law suites.likely in a week the list will be forgoten


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


GGPViper
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,880

27 Dec 2012, 5:07 pm

Citizen: Hmmm... I heard something downstairs. I'll go look.

Burglar: Stand and Deliver, Or the Devil He May Take Ya!

Citizen: :o Well... I believe that would be the Thin Lizzy Version... The Grateful Dead version would go like: "Stand and Deliver, for I Am a Bold Deceiver!

*embarrasing pause*

Citizen: Regardless... Get off my lawn, Evildoer, or my trusty firearm will unleash Newton's Laws of Motion upon thy face!

Burglar: ... :chin: Weeeeell, this is Westchester County, and I just noticed on-line that you do not figure on the list of owners with a permit to own a gun in that area. So I call your bu....

Citizen: Pre-Mortem One-Liner: You don't need a permit to purchase a shotgun in Westchester County.

*Citizen blows the burglar's brains out with a Remington 870*

Citizen: Post-Mortem One-Liner: The Devil might take me, But at least He is in the Details.

Image



PM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Oct 2010
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,466
Location: Southeastern United States

27 Dec 2012, 5:13 pm

J-Greens wrote:
So a newspaper has done a name and shame?
Brilliant! :lol:

I mean what do the pro-gun supporters have to worry about? If anyone even walks past the door they can BHAM! and they're dead.
No, naming and shaming is an effective and peaceful method of reducing guns. I also heard that somewhere in California is doing a gun amnesty in return for groceries. That's another big positive tactic. You need more than two incentives, how about a tax cut and wage increases for those that don't own a gun? That'll get people ditching those killing machines!



By that rationale, if you own a computer, you must be a blackhat hacker.


_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

27 Dec 2012, 5:46 pm

vermontsavant wrote:
i did say that everyone not on the list will burglerized tommorow.i said if anything at all the list would hurt non gun owners.other posters talked of law suites.likely in a week the list will be forgoten


Other posters talked about lawsuits? Have a look at your own post:

vermontsavant wrote:
if houses not publishes on this list see a significant rise in break in's i could see a law suit in the other direction


_________________
--James


Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

27 Dec 2012, 6:15 pm

Well now the criminals know what houses NOT to go to.

This is a perfect example of the dangers of gun registration, it must never be tolerated.



vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

27 Dec 2012, 11:41 pm

visagrunt wrote:
vermontsavant wrote:
i did say that everyone not on the list will burglerized tommorow.i said if anything at all the list would hurt non gun owners.other posters talked of law suites.likely in a week the list will be forgoten


Other posters talked about lawsuits? Have a look at your own post:

vermontsavant wrote:
if houses not publishes on this list see a significant rise in break in's i could see a law suit in the other direction
what i meant was if anything all it would in the other direction.i never thought about lawsuites untill other poster mentioned it.once they mentioned it i addressed the issue


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

27 Dec 2012, 11:44 pm

[quote="Jacoby"]Well now the criminals know what houses NOT to go to.





i said the same thing as you but i got mocked for.i swear whatever i say on this website all i get is made fun of.just what you said that was my first thought that publishing the list would hurt non gun owners


_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

28 Dec 2012, 2:48 am

visagrunt wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
Publishing the names of law abiding gun owners out of public concern over active shooters is a good way to get sued for slander.


You mean libel.

But how can a plaintiff sue for libel when the plaintiff cannot demonstrate that the statement complained of is false?

A complete defence to a claim of libel (or slander) is an honest belief in the truth of the statement. A person publishing the content of a public record has every reason to believe that the contents of that record are accurate, and therefore no claim of libel (or slander) could ever succeed, unless the plaintiff can demonstrate both that the record is inaccurate, and that the defendant knew or ought properly to have known that it was inaccurate.

This entire thread is an exercise in legal amateurishness. This has nothing to do with defamation, libel, slander, reckless endangerment, or any of the myriad torts and crimes cited thus far. They are political posturing masquerading (poorly) as legal conjecture.

The only legal interests that I see involved here are the privacy rights of the gun owners (and whether or not the state legislation making those records public violates those rights) and the rights of a free press. There is a balancing of interests to be found in those two constitutional principles.
\
The problem is that the article was published a contribution to a series of claims that the people listed are a danger to the public, even though no such evidence exists.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

28 Dec 2012, 3:03 am

J-Greens wrote:
No, naming and shaming is an effective and peaceful ... .


Yeah, because bullying people who're already stigmatized against (firearm owners are perfect scapegoats for the actions of a few and are made to feel guilty and wrong due their hobby) is going to make them want to hand in something that gives them power over the bullies.

One small reason why I own firearms [and bows/arrows] is due to my past history of bullying -- I know what it's like to be marginalized, bullied and biased against due to Asperger's by everyone (teachers and students alike at school and "peers" outside of such). I also know how easily bullying can turn into physical confrontation (been there, done that -- never my fault).



J-Greens
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Oct 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 669

28 Dec 2012, 4:13 am

Dillogic wrote:

Yeah, because bullying people who're already stigmatized against is going to make them want to hand in something that gives them power over the bullies.

One small reason why I own firearms is due to my past history of bullying -- I know what it's like to be marginalized, bullied and biased against due to Asperger's by everyone I also know how easily bullying can turn into physical confrontation


re-read that from a NT point of view...



Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

28 Dec 2012, 4:45 am

Would that be putting social pressure on people who're socially inclined leading to them changing their views? Granted, I think that'd work for many (you already see lots of shooters say you don't need this or that and feeling guilty for the actions of someone else), and it does (as has been shown in all facets of life), but I also think that it'll make some dig themselves in more due to the fact that individuals and their extensions, groups, don't like being pushed around verbally or physically. Those who dig in might just be in far greater numbers than those in the city bubbles like to think.