NationStates Jolt Archive

Seeing as I have a bit of time here before moving on to my next destination, I decided to peruse the internets for a few mins. I came up with this gem.

The Lists (http://sanduskyregister.com/)

A CCW is a license to carry a concealed weapon in most public places. You can find out more about CCW here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry).

This is the second time (that I know of) that a newspaper has done this. A few months ago (perhaps 4?) the Roanoke Times published a list of CCW holders, in the wake of the VT shooting. This newspaper also published the address of each licensee.

So, what do you think? Should CCW licences be a matter of Public Record? Or does the "right to privacy" win out here?

EDIT: Furthermore, do you believe that the newspaper in question did the responsible thing in publishing the lists?

I don't see why they should be made private, but I fail to see what the newspaper hopes to accomplish by printing such a list.

I for one would find this list useful, if only because it would creep me out seeing a ccw person

then again I am English :p

The information should be publicly available, but ought not to be publicized like this.

It is very irresponsible of the newspaper to publish this list, just as it would be to publish a list of people with valuable jewelry in their homes.

Guns are an attractive target for thieves because they are always in black-market demand - more so where they are heavily regulated than elsewhere - and are valuable.

One important aspect of CCW programs, and a social good that comes from them, is in making a violent predatory criminal think twice about who he plans to rob. If anyone could pull out a gun instead of a wallet and kill or maim him, robbery isn't the easy money it might otherwise be.

An irresponsible thing for the paper to do, and evidence that it is extremely poorly run and of very low standards and quality, but not something that should be illegal.

yeah. i dont think it should be a state secret but the newspapers have no business publishing lists of people like that. it seems like a kind of punishment for getting a permit or an incitement to do something about it

You mention public safety, what does this have to do with it? Are CCW-holders randomly running around shooting people? How does a publicly-available list increase safety?

Seeing as I have a bit of time here before moving on to my next destination, I decided to peruse the internets for a few mins. I came up with this gem.

The Lists (http://sanduskyregister.com/)

A CCW is a license to carry a concealed weapon in most public places. You can find out more about CCW here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry).

This is the second time (that I know of) that a newspaper has done this. A few months ago (perhaps 4?) the Roanoke Times published a list of CCW holders, in the wake of the VT shooting. This newspaper also published the address of each licensee.

So, what do you think? Should CCW licences be a matter of Public Record? Or does the "right to privacy" win out here?

EDIT: Furthermore, do you believe that the newspaper in question did the responsible thing in publishing the lists?

It doesn't matter to me if they publish the list.

In fact, I think that people should be required to mark their houses: "We Are Not Armed" so that burglars can have a safer time when committing burglary.

Fewer burglars will get hurt that way.

You mention public safety, what does this have to do with it? Are CCW-holders randomly running around shooting people? How does a publicly-available list increase safety?

From what I have read, that seems to be one of the primary arguements for having the CCW list easily availible. People will be able to know if their next door neighbor has a gun, or their coworker carries concealed.

From what I have read, that seems to be one of the primary arguements for having the CCW list easily availible. People will be able to know if their next door neighbor has a gun, or their coworker carries concealed.

Is there any evidence for this or is this like people who clutch their purses tighter when black people get on the elevator?

From what I have read, that seems to be one of the primary arguements for having the CCW list easily availible. People will be able to know if their next door neighbor has a gun, or their coworker carries concealed.

All this despite the simple fact that historically, people with CCW licenses have the lowest violent crime statistics in the nation.

Seeing as I have a bit of time here before moving on to my next destination, I decided to peruse the internets for a few mins. I came up with this gem.

The Lists (http://sanduskyregister.com/)

A CCW is a license to carry a concealed weapon in most public places. You can find out more about CCW here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry).

This is the second time (that I know of) that a newspaper has done this. A few months ago (perhaps 4?) the Roanoke Times published a list of CCW holders, in the wake of the VT shooting. This newspaper also published the address of each licensee.

So, what do you think? Should CCW licences be a matter of Public Record? Or does the "right to privacy" win out here?

EDIT: Furthermore, do you believe that the newspaper in question did the responsible thing in publishing the lists?

Similar to this story, happening in CT: http://www.connpost.com/fastsearchresults/ci_6189978

Personally, I think it's a violation of a person's privacy. First off, it isn't anybodys business if I have a pistol permit. Secondly, I don't want thieves knowing that I have a permit, as it may encourage them to attempt to steal my firearm. Finally, I don't want to listen to the anti-gun spiel (aka insults and inferences) from some of my family and co-workers, simply for having an interest in firearms.

I really don't think that the newspapers that do this, are doing the right thing.

Similar to this story, happening in CT: http://www.connpost.com/fastsearchresults/ci_6189978

Personally, I think it's a violation of a person's privacy. First off, it isn't anybodys business if I have a pistol permit. Secondly, I don't want thieves knowing that I have a permit, as it may encourage them to attempt to steal my firearm. Finally, I don't want to listen to the anti-gun spiel (aka insults and inferences) from some of my family and co-workers, simply for having an interest in firearms.

I really don't think that the newspapers that do this, are doing the right thing.

I think it's pretty clear they aren't. It's another attempt to force people's morality on others like publishing john lists when prostitution busts happen. The difference here being that these are law-abiding citizens.

EDIT: By the way, I don't carry a firearm and would not. I never have any intention to. I don't hunt and don't see the need for carrying a firearm. I don't generally agree with the NRA. I do, however, think the whol issue with CCW is rarely addressed rationally and this is another example.

Is there any evidence for this or is this like people who clutch their purses tighter when black people get on the elevator?

I do not believe there is. IIRC (please dont ask me for a source on this one) South Carolina issued a few hundred thousand CCW permits after the law establishing Concealed Carry went into effect. 4 have been revoked for violent behavior, and only one of them was violent behavior with a Firearm.

Although SC might be the exeption, and not the rule.

I do not believe there is. IIRC (please dont ask me for a source on this one) South Carolina issued a few hundred thousand CCW permits after the law establishing Concealed Carry went into effect. 4 have been revoked for violent behavior, and only one of them was violent behavior with a Firearm.

Although SC might be the exeption, and not the rule.

It's pretty much the rule. Most felons won't voluntarily submit to a criminal background check at the county courthouse, so most CCW holders tend not to be habitual criminals.

It's pretty much the rule. Most felons won't voluntarily submit to a criminal background check at the county courthouse, so most CCW holders tend not to be habitual criminals.
...or at least they tend not to get caught...

This is the second time (that I know of) that a newspaper has done this. A few months ago (perhaps 4?) the Roanoke Times published a list of CCW holders, in the wake of the VT shooting. This newspaper also published the address of each licensee.
Good.
So, what do you think? Should CCW licences be a matter of Public Record?
Sure.
Or does the "right to privacy" win out here?
Nope.
EDIT: Furthermore, do you believe that the newspaper in question did the responsible thing in publishing the lists?
Yup.

...or at least they tend not to get caught...

And aliens really do kidnap people only we never see them.

And aliens really do kidnap people only we never see them.
I'm just saying that a habitual criminal could get a permit so long as s/he had never been caught. I never said it was common or anything.

I would ask the simple question: Does the government publish the names of holders of drivers licenses? If they do, then I have no objection to this manuever. If they don't, though, then I see something wrong with this action, and I see it as merely a political ploy.

Good.

Sure.

Nope.

Yup.

And newspapers would be doing the right thing if they published the names of everyone who has every applied for a license for same-sex marriage. I mean, why don't we use newspapers to out everyone we think is wrong, screw privacy.

And newspapers would be doing the right thing if they published the names of everyone who has every applied for a license for same-sex marriage. I mean, why don't we use newspapers to out everyone we think is wrong, screw privacy.

Marriage licenses don't spray people's brains against a wall.

No sale, Jocabia.

Marriage licenses don't spray people's brains against a wall.

No sale, Jocabia.

Marriage licenses don't save people's lives, either

Marriage licenses don't spray people's brains against a wall.

No sale, Jocabia.

Cars often do, though.

Marriage licenses don't spray people's brains against a wall.

No sale, Jocabia.

Like I said, it's all okay because privacy doesn't matter. Guns don't spray people's brains against a wall unless you make them do so. You've not provided one lick of evidence that CCW causes any detriment to public safety. You've not provided one lick of evidence that this has done anything appropriate.

This is a list published of people who are behaving legally. That you disagree with them is no different that people publishing a list of people applying for same-sex licenses. It's an attempt to legislate using newspapers and abusing people's privacy in doing so.

I'm glad you're an ends justifies the means kind of person. So's GWB and club. Nice company really.

I say we publish a list of women getting abortions. It's murder, murder, I tell you.

Yep, like I said, all that matters is whether or not you agree with the list. Don't actually try to see that you wouldn't want all politics to become a matter of publishing lists, because that would make too much sense.

Marriage licenses don't spray people's brains against a wall.

No sale, Jocabia.

More married people shoot people in the head than do CCW holders...

More married people shoot people in the head than do CCW holders...

It's certainly true that you are much more likely to be killed by your spouse than by a random CCW holder.

Like I said, it's all okay because privacy doesn't matter. Guns don't spray people's brains against a wall unless you make them do so. You've not provided one lick of evidence that CCW causes any detriment to public safety. You've not provided one lick of evidence that this has done anything appropriate..
Nor am I liable to. I'm not interested in discussing anything further with you, Jocabia - primarily because you're overly obsessive.
This is a list published of people who are behaving legally. That you disagree with them is no different that people publishing a list of people applying for same-sex licenses. It's an attempt to legislate using newspapers and abusing people's privacy in doing so..
Are you done yet? 'Cause I just thought you should know I don't really give a flying fuck about what you feel so passionately about (today). So please don't bother going out of your way trying to enthuse me to listening to your usual pedantic drivel. Understand? Do you understand? Can you read the bolded phrase below, Jocabia?

I - DON'T - GIVE - A - FLYING - FUCK - JOCABIA

Did you read it? Do you understand now? Will it sink in with you to any degree, the fact that I do not enjoy, nor have I ever particularly enjoyed, being subject to your indescribably boring and interminable lectures on - well, just about everything? That I enjoy your company almost as much as that of a pubic louse? Shall I go on, or do you feel you have enough material to go running off to complain about me in Moderation yet?
I'm glad you're an ends justifies the means kind of person. So's GWB and club. Nice company really.
Oh, go blow it out your backside already, you frickin' mirthless killjoy.

I don't have an argument!!!

Fixed. You're welcome.

Nor am I liable to. I'm not interested in discussing anything further with you, Jocabia - primarily because you're overly obsessive.

Are you done yet? 'Cause I just thought you should know I don't really give a flying fuck about what you feel so passionately about (today). So please don't bother going out of your way trying to enthuse me to listening to your usual pedantic drivel. Understand? Do you understand? Can you read the bolded phrase below, Jocabia?

I - DON'T - GIVE - A - FLYING - FUCK - JOCABIA

Did you read it? Do you understand now? Will it sink in with you to any degree, the fact that I do not enjoy, nor have I ever particularly enjoyed, being subject to your indescribably boring and interminable lectures on - well, just about everything? That I enjoy your company almost as much as that of a pubic louse? Shall I go on, or do you feel you have enough material to go running off to complain about me in Moderation yet?

Oh, go blow it out your backside already, you frickin' mirthless killjoy.

Get a grip.

Get a grip.

Some people substitute personal attacks for their lack of an argument. I don't mind. It's much faster than him trying to make one up. It's a pretty clear admission that being challenged on the inconsistency of his beliefs isn't acceptable to him in that it's perfectly fine to mistreat people if you disagree with them.

Nor am I liable to. I'm not interested in discussing anything further with you, Jocabia - primarily because you're overly obsessive.

Are you done yet? 'Cause I just thought you should know I don't really give a flying fuck about what you feel so passionately about (today). So please don't bother going out of your way trying to enthuse me to listening to your usual pedantic drivel. Understand? Do you understand? Can you read the bolded phrase below, Jocabia?

I - DON'T - GIVE - A - FLYING - FUCK - JOCABIA

Did you read it? Do you understand now? Will it sink in with you to any degree, the fact that I do not enjoy, nor have I ever particularly enjoyed, being subject to your indescribably boring and interminable lectures on - well, just about everything? That I enjoy your company almost as much as that of a pubic louse? Shall I go on, or do you feel you have enough material to go running off to complain about me in Moderation yet?

Oh, go blow it out your backside already, you frickin' mirthless killjoy.

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? :eek:

Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning? :eek:

A CCW-holder, obviously. Haven't you been reading?

By the way, do you have any mirth? I seem to have run out and I'm not allowed to make an argument until I get some more.

Woah! Forum meltdown!

Dobbs, you need to chillax...have a drink, smoke something pleasant. Please.

Woah! Forum meltdown!

Dobbs, you need to chillax...have a drink, smoke something pleasant. Please.

There's no amount of drugs nor drink that can dull my wits sufficiently that I'd willingly enjoy the company of one such as he. And no, it's not a question of not having an argument - it's more like (and in truth, it's exactly like) I just don't feel any particularly strong desire to end up feeling as though I'm repeatedly smacking my head into a wall today, thanks all the same. Not to mention that anything I say or do will provide this fellow with sufficient material for him to dog my every step on the fora for the next few days.

"Lower your voice and strengthen your argument", indeed. How about "shut the fuck up and leave me alone already"? Nah, it's never worked before, I doubt if it'll work now. Or ever.

There's no amount of drugs nor drink that can dull my wits sufficiently that I'd willingly enjoy the company of one such as he. And no, it's not a question of not having an argument - it's more like (and in truth, it's exactly like) I just don't feel any particularly strong desire to end up feeling as though I'm repeatedly smacking my head into a wall today, thanks all the same. Not to mention that anything I say or do will provide this fellow with sufficient material for him to dog my every step on the fora for the next few days.

"Lower your voice and strengthen your argument", indeed. How about "shut the fuck up and leave me alone already"? Nah, it's never worked before, I doubt if it'll work now. Or ever.

If you aren't prepared to deal with people that disagree with you, maybe you should rethink posting controversial things in public?

A CCW-holder, obviously. Haven't you been reading?

By the way, do you have any mirth? I seem to have run out and I'm not allowed to make an argument until I get some more.

Sorry, I don't have any to spare. My mirth tank is running on fumes..























:D

There's no amount of drugs nor drink that can dull my wits sufficiently that I'd willingly enjoy the company of one such as he. And no, it's not a question of not having an argument - it's more like (and in truth, it's exactly like) I just don't feel any particularly strong desire to end up feeling as though I'm repeatedly smacking my head into a wall today, thanks all the same. Not to mention that anything I say or do will provide this fellow with sufficient material for him to dog my every step on the fora for the next few days.

"Lower your voice and strengthen your argument", indeed. How about "shut the fuck up and leave me alone already"? Nah, it's never worked before, I doubt if it'll work now. Or ever.

Then I would strongly advise that you refrain from entering into an argument with someone who disagrees with you.

There's no amount of drugs nor drink that can dull my wits sufficiently that I'd willingly enjoy the company of one such as he. And no, it's not a question of not having an argument - it's more like (and in truth, it's exactly like) I just don't feel any particularly strong desire to end up feeling as though I'm repeatedly smacking my head into a wall today, thanks all the same. Not to mention that anything I say or do will provide this fellow with sufficient material for him to dog my every step on the fora for the next few days.

"Lower your voice and strengthen your argument", indeed. How about "shut the fuck up and leave me alone already"? Nah, it's never worked before, I doubt if it'll work now. Or ever.

Heh. This is priceless. So now I "dog your every step" when I disagree with you? It seems only one of us has made this personal and it ain't me. But thanks for the mirth refill.

If you aren't prepared to deal with people that disagree with you, maybe you should rethink posting controversial things in public?

I don't know about you, but I enjoyed the post. I do find it ironic, that in the middle of a irrational rant that I got called mirthless, but I'm funny about giggling at people who take themselves too seriously while attacking me suggesting that I'm a bad person for taking myself too seriously.

Some people substitute personal attacks for their lack of an argument. I don't mind. It's much faster than him trying to make one up. It's a pretty clear admission that being challenged on the inconsistency of his beliefs isn't acceptable to him in that it's perfectly fine to mistreat people if you disagree with them.

It seem clear to me it has nothing to do with an argument or a lack thereof.

It seem clear to me it has nothing to do with an argument or a lack thereof.

This is a debate forum. He attacked me instead of addressing the point whether you recognize that or not. Some people actually prefer to keep debate impersonal. They are called debaters.

just give a universal license for open carry.

no worries about privacy, since everybody shares the right.

and it would cause violent criminals to hestitate before their next depredations.

just give a universal license for open carry.

no worries about privacy, since everybody shares the right.

and it would cause violent criminals to hestitate before their next depredations.

You mean the violent criminals with open carry rights?

This is a debate forum. He attacked me instead of addressing the point whether you recognize that or not. Some people actually prefer to keep debate impersonal. They are called debaters.

Though I probably would not have spent the last 5 posts doing a wierd gloating/batie thing in reference to a melt down personal attack

(I know its hard and I do not think he was in the right but lets just move back to the topic)

As far as the CCW permit name release thing goes I do not think it is a good idea, while I am not normally on one side or the other of these debates. and don't own a hand weapon (few rifles and a couple shot guns) I don't think they should publish these sort of lists

I dont mind more comprehensive informant laws (now this is a Grey area in my knowledge so if I am wrong correct me) but I think an employer or school (lets say college) MAYBE should have the right to know if people are routinely carrying firearms onto their property.

just give a universal license for open carry.

no worries about privacy, since everybody shares the right.

and it would cause violent criminals to hestitate before their next depredations.

I disagree with you. Fortunately, you're good for my eyes.

Once again, I ask: Does the government publish the names and addresses of the holders of drivers licenses?

You mean the violent criminals with open carry rights?

Violent criminals (felons) and the dangerously insane are already barred by law from possessing guns to begin with. An open-carry right (as already exists in a lot of states) doesn't permit criminals, which are not influenced by the legality of their crimes, to carry a gun.

I fail to see what privacy has to do with this. The right to privacy deals with the right to be secure in a non-public environment, and even that can be waved with a proper warrant. At any rate, dealings with the government (like getting a CCP) are about as public as you can get, and therefore the right to privacy does not apply.

Is it a big issue of public safety? No, not really. CCP owners tend to be less violent than average. Same on the flip side. CCP owners don't really contribute to public safety either. IMO, there's no real point in unmasking them, but if people feel safer knowing that their neighbor carries his gun with him everywhere, I figure that, if it doesn't cost much, it's not a big deal to provide them with that information.

I fail to see what privacy has to do with this. The right to privacy deals with the right to be secure in a non-public environment, and even that can be waved with a proper warrant. At any rate, dealings with the government (like getting a CCP) are about as public as you can get, and therefore the right to privacy does not apply.

Is it a big issue of public safety? No, not really. CCP owners tend to be less violent than average. Same on the flip side. CCP owners don't really contribute to public safety either. IMO, there's no real point in unmasking them, but if people feel safer knowing that their neighbor carries his gun with him everywhere, I figure that, if it doesn't cost much, it's not a big deal to provide them with that information.

So do you agree that any other license holder or even those that apply should be provided as well? Should I be allowed to post a list of all the same-sex couples that have applied for marriage licenses?

So do you agree that any other license holder or even those that apply should be provided as well? Should I be allowed to post a list of all the same-sex couples that have applied for marriage licenses?

If the public feels it is in their interest and pushes legislation through to make them public, then yes. The second is different, because it is almost certainly an incitement to violence, IMO.

If the public feels it is in their interest and pushes legislation through to make them public, then yes. The second is different, because it is almost certainly an incitement to violence, IMO.

No, we're just allowing people to feel safe from the evil gays. Meanwhile, why does it require legislation to make marriage licenses public, but not for CCW licenses?

A minute ago it was "At any rate, dealings with the government (like getting a CCP) are about as public as you can get" and "it's not a big deal to provide them with that information." There is no reason for people to have access to this information other than to excert their political will on them. It's an effort at coersion. There is no other reason to publish this information.

No, we're just allowing people to feel safe from the evil gays. Meanwhile, why does it require legislation to make marriage licenses public, but not for CCW licenses?

I never said that. I think that it should take legislation in either case to change the status of public record.

A minute ago it was "At any rate, dealings with the government (like getting a CCP) are about as public as you can get" and "it's not a big deal to provide them with that information." There is no reason for people to have access to this information other than to excert their political will on them. It's an effort at coersion. There is no other reason to publish this information.

Or it's just scared people being stupid. I really don't give a fuck. This isn't a case of rights in conflict, it's a case of posturing activists in conflict. I was merely commenting on the Constitutional side of things, not on the political. I have little interest in the Gun Nuts v. Gun Haters fight, as it seems to be one bunch of fools against another.

I never said that. I think that it should take legislation in either case to change the status of public record.



Or it's just scared people being stupid. I really don't give a fuck. This isn't a case of rights in conflict, it's a case of posturing activists in conflict. I was merely commenting on the Constitutional side of things, not on the political. I have little interest in the Gun Nuts v. Gun Haters fight, as it seems to be one bunch of fools against another.

I tend to agree with that last bit which is why I think this is just an attempt at coersion. Any means to end seems to be the order of the day from both extremes. I think it's sad that newspaper are assisting them in their rather disgusting efforts.

Once again, I ask: Does the government publish the names and addresses of the holders of drivers licenses?

They're a matter of the public record, as far as I know.