Report: Gun Group Targeted Journalist And His 12-Year-Old Daughter

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111150020

November 15, 2011 3:40 pm ET by Matt Gertz

At Mother Jones, iWatchNews reporter Rick Schmitt details the chilling tale of a journalist who got on the wrong side of Buckeye Firearms Association, an Ohio gun rights group closely tied to the National Rifle Association.

Matt Westerhold is the managing editor of the small Ohio daily the Sandusky Register. Westerhold tells Schmitt that after Ohio passed a bill legalizing the concealed carry of firearms, he received numerous requests from readers who wanted to know if their neighbors had applied for carry permits. After three years of such requests, Westerhold began publishing the names and birth dates of permit holders on the paper's website (permit holder data was publicly available at the time).

Gun rights activists were not pleased. Westerhold says that he received numerous death threats, and that Buckeye Firearms responded by publishing a wide variety of personal information about Westerhold, as well as "information on how one might find out which public school Westerhold's 12-year-old daughter attended, which bus she took there, and how a photo of the girl from her school yearbook could probably be found in the local library":

The reaction was fast and furious. "I was getting phone calls from all over the country, hundreds of phone calls," Westerhold says. "There were so many nut jobs. There were so many threats: 'I am going to kill you' and 'You should die slowly'."

[abelenkpe]

1. putting the 'nuts' in gun nuts. nt

[Gold Metal Flake]

2. Gun terrorist organizations.

"Nut" to me denotes a single, irrational individual. Nuts may have been involved but the nexus was an organization with an organized information dissemination apparatus. A well-oiled terrorism machine.

In the report Westerhold was said to have consulted an attorney and had taken the information to a local prosecutor, who found no grounds to take action.

[MattBaggins]

5. No grounds on which part?

The exposing of his info or the actual threats?

[Remmah2]

53. From the newspaper:

"He says he consulted an attorney and took the information to a local prosecutor, who found no grounds to take action."

Makes me wonder what was missing that lead the prosecutor not to take action? I would like to see evidence of the threats. Were they real or imagined? True due process would expose the truth? Did he cry wolf to solicit sympathy?

Seems he poked a hornets nest and kicked the dog all in one day.

[abelenkpe]

8. Really?

Threatening to kill someone isn't grounds to take action. Crazy!

[Euromutt]

64. Of course death threats are grounds for action, but only against whoever made them

In this instance, the Buckeye Firearms Association wasn't the entity that issued the threats, so the local prosecutor couldn't initiate action against them. Westerhold would have had to identify the people who actually contacted him and issued threats, and then the prosecutor could have taken action against those individuals.

Just like any CCW permit holder whose house got broken into and his guns stolen following Westerhold's publication of said permit holder's personal information wouldn't have been able to get the prosecutor to indict Westerhold for burglary.

[SteveM]

31. "Gun nuts" is a casual smear used by anti-2A people around here. nt

[Remmah2]

49. I wonder why the moderators no longer delete "gun nuts" as a vulgar slur?

nt

[Hoopla Phil]

85. An interesting question. I wonder what other vulgar slurs are acceptable

so long as they are not used against a particular DU member. Slurs against mentally challenged come to mind. I think those are deleted for just being used no mater the context. Why the change in "gun nut"?

[cleanhippie]

146. Does that mean the term "hoplophobe" is acceptable now as well?

As long as it is not directed at particular DU'ers, of course.

[Hoopla Phil]

153. How about Hoplophile, which by the way, was my original username.

but I was forced to change it do to a "complaint". Can I now have my original username back?

[Name removed]

210. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

211. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

86. Perhaps you could pose your musings here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=4869&mesg_id=4869

Thank you

[Simo 1939_1940]

149. Actually, HP - it doesn't look like you can.

This is what I encountered when attempting to respond:

Only the member who started this thread may respond.

There is a valid question here. If the term hoplophobe is off-limits, why the tolerance for gun-nuts?

[Hoopla Phil]

152. Bummer. Of course, you CAN put forth your own question should

you feel the urge. It kinda pisses me off that we've had this change. It was a real sore spot that such a vulgar term was allowed for a long time. Finally it got lumped into the same "no no" category as other vulgar terms often used against persons differently abled, persons of color, or persons of alternative life style. Now we have a change in police/enforcement that I seriously doubt has also been applied to those "other" vulgar terms.

We are regressing, and seeing the fruit of it here in this thread.

[SteveM]

94. When some anti-2A folks deemed this forum "extreme." nt

[DanTex]

96. By what standards is it a vulgar slur?

Is it because it contains the word "nut"? Would that mean that, say, "tennis nut" or "chess nut" or even "right-wing nut" should be off limits as well?

I'm not aware of any history of oppression or intimidation or bigotry for "gun nut" such as you would find with many slurs about ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

I get that it's a negative stereotype, but stereotypes and vulgarity are different things. And in certain cases, like the people issuing death threats to this reporter, the stereotype is actually warranted.

Would you like to also ban the term "jock" so as not to offend athletes? Or the term "prima donna", to avoid the suggestion that all lead female opera singers are self-centered?

I get that calling another DUer a "gun nut" is a personal insult, just as calling someone a "prima donna" or "dumb jock" would be. But beyond that, let's not pretend that gun owners are victims of systematic bigotry and oppression. Honestly, doing so is an insult to people who actually are the victims of bigotry and oppression.

[oneshooter]

100. See here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=437x5106

Question asked, and answered. Apparently a slight change of policy.

[Hoopla Phil]

115. This is a definite policy change. Previously the term was treated as any other vulgar term

such as those used against the mentally challenged. The term itself is considered vulgar, inflammatory, and bigoted that inflames the sensibilities of DU members. As such the term was removed.

I wonder if such a modified policy will now be used regarding other vulgar terms.

[Hoopla Phil]

87. Would you mind voicing your opinion here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=437&topic_id=4869&mesg_id=4869

Thank you

[Starboard Tack]

91. Really? You'd better let the Gun Nuts know that

http://gunnuts.net/

You guys seem way too sensitive to be carrying guns. Some think "toter" is a smear.

The term "Gun nut" has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture. It can have different connotations depending on how it is perceived and the intention of the person using it. To some gun owners, it is embraced affectionately, such as in the popular outdoors magazine Field and Stream which has a column called "The Gun Nut". However to others it is regarded as a pejorative stereotype cast upon gun owners by anti-gun advocates as a means of implying that they are fanatical, exhibit abnormal behavior, or are a threat to the safety of others. The term has additionally been used at times by some law enforcement agencies to describe a profile to categorize criminal suspects.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_culture#Gun_nut

[SteveM]

95. I know some black folks who use the term "N.....

RA." I mean, blacks use the expression (not NRA) all the time amongst themselves. So, can I use the "N" word, Starboard?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger

[Starboard Tack]

97. Exactly! You can call yourselves "gun nuts"

and the rest of us are supposed to use more polite aphorisms.

[SteveM]

107. Who here has used "gun nuts," other than to call anti-2A folks' hands?

Yes, you got it right. Don't use the term. And don't use the "N" word, either (and I don't mean NWA).

[Starboard Tack]

112. Excuse me! "Don't use the term." Are you making the rules now?

You tell me not to use the term "GUN NUTS"? You want to take away my 1A rights? Sorry, but until the First Amendment is repealed I will use whatever language I choose. Ironically, it is not a term I use. I am more likely to describe an individual like Loughner as a nutjob with a gun, but I see "Gun Nut" as a term applied to gun aficionados, collectors and such. Those I perceive as being irrationally obsessed with guns I refer to as "Gun Freaks".

[SteveM]

118. You are not excused! Don't be so whiney and overly sweaty...

You will use whatever stuff you want until you fuck up with the mods. Good grief, such drama.

:crazy:

[Euromutt]

126. This is a privately owned forum; your First Amendment rights don't apply

Sorry, but until the First Amendment is repealed I will use whatever language I choose. Ironically, it is not a term I use.

Read detailed forum rules page; there's a lot of stuff the admins and mods will not let you say on this forum.

[Starboard Tack]

135. I am aware of the rules. But you knew that

Do you want to be a hall monitor too, or are you just standing by your man?

[Euromutt]

158. It wasn't evident from what you said

Do you want to be a hall monitor too, or are you just standing by your man?

Neither; just pointing out that you were presenting irrelevant twaddle as if it were somehow germane to the argument. I'd also like to point out that if you were aware of it being irrelevant twaddle--which I have no reason to doubt--that doesn't actually strengthen the argument you were trying to make.

There are, very simply, certain things you don't get to say on this site and pointing that out isn't any attempt to oppress you.

[cleanhippie]

148. Are you familiar with the term hoplophobe?

If not, you should be.

[Starboard Tack]

150. Why do you ask? Are you a hoplophobe?

Have you heard of Bogyphobia and Androphobia? If not, you should. I think you are familiar with Theophobia.

[Euromutt]

161. In a sense, you *do* mean "NWA"

Given that "NWA" stood for "N*****s With Attitude."

Oh crap, or were you referring to the now-defunct "North-West Airlines"?

[Euromutt]

160. I would call it a "smear," exactly

It is, however, a term that gets used on this forum in a denigrating fashion to allow the speaker to feel superior, and/or in a derogatory to rile up the pro-RKBA posters and provoke them into making a comment that will get deleted, or even get them banned. The problem, from the moderators' perspective, is that terms like "gun nut" and "toter" aren't offensive in and of themselves, but can be used as such in a particular context. Compare terms like "guy" and "black": in the Pink Pistols' motto/slogan "armed gays don't get bashed," the term is not intended to be derogatory, but in the phrase "that's so gay," it is (no matter how much people who use term pretend it's not meant to be). And we can use the term "black" to indicate African-Americans but it can also be used to indicate clandestine activity, as in "black market" or "black ops."

[Starboard Tack]

184. Damn, but you're smart.

How do you feel about the word "trash"? Is it denigrating when used in contexts like "white trash" or "euro trash"? How about "talking trash"?

[Euromutt]

157. That "organized information dissemination apparatus" is called "the internet"

It's not a controversial assertion to say the anonymity afforded by the internet brings out the nastier aspects of many people's personalities. You don't have to actively disseminate information: if you put it on the net, there's no shortage of assholes (not "nuts") anything on the net, some asshole will send a nastygram to somebody involved. Here's just a sample of the vile hate mail woman columnists and bloggers have to contend with; in almost every case, the only way they've offended the sensibilities of the senders is to a) be a woman and b) publicly express an opinion. Those are the more egregious examples, but a quick perusal of comments sections on YouTube or any news media website reveals the same sort of behavior.

[spin]

3. While I don't agree with the tactics of the Buckeye Firearms Association ...

I also do not support publishing the names and birth dates of concealed carry permit holders on a paper's website.

There are numerous ways for such information to be misused. For example suppose that you had applied for a job and your potential employer used the list to find out that you had a carry permit or suppose that your current employer used that information in his decision on who to lay off.

Of course, it might make your home a tempting target for a robbery. Many people who have carry permits have other firearms in the home and a wise robber might make entry while you were not home and steal your firearms. Note that gun safes will not deter a professional burglar, a safe will just require time to break into.

[madinmaryland]

6. A couple of questions.

Since the information is in the public domain, as I understand, couldn't an employer just get the information directly from the government? The Newspaper has just made it one step easier to obtain that information.

Secondly, isn't a wise robber going to attempt entry when you are gone, regardless of whether you have a gun or not?

[spin]

12. Answers ...

It would be a pain in the ass for an employer to find out the info using the public domain, whereas if the information was on a searchable web site it would only take a minute.

Yes, a smart robber will only enter unoccupied homes. But since firearms are valuable items if may more you home higher up on his list of targets if he suspects he might find a firearm collection inside.

[one-eyed fat man]

13. The information was initally limited to law enforcement

Ohio included an exemption for newspapers to have access to the information, BUT not the general public. The notion that concealed carry holders should be outed struck a responsive chord with those opposed to concealed carry. It was their version of the Scarlet Letter.

They were nicely smug and self serving until they outed people hiding from stalkers or abusive spouses.

The newspapers were fine publishing the names and address of persons with gun permits but outraged when their editor's home address was posted on the internet.

Something about sauces and geese? Although some feel it's fine if it's some "rude toter" who is targeted.

This is not unlike driver's license and DMV info. Law enforcement has access, but you just can't just go point and click to see who owns the plate on the car in your neighbor's driveway. Rebecca Schaeffer's murder was the impetus for the change in laws regarding the release of personal information through the DMV.

[DanTex]

15. Cue the inevitable justification for gun militants engaged in organized intimidation..

Yes, giving angry gun nuts information about where a reporter's 12 year old daughter goes to school is exactly like "sauces and geese". Another beautiful example of how the mind of a pro-gunner works...

Sometimes I wonder if there's anything that a crazy right-wing gun group might do that wouldn't be met with approval or at least justification and rationalization by pro-gunners here.

[gejohnston]

18. no but

he and the paper should have the shit sued out of them.

If anyone dies on either side, there should be wrongful death law suits. That includes CCW holder killed by stalker who got info from paper, the paper and the journalist should get hit with one.

[gejohnston]

20. if the situation were reversed and

the million mom march threatened the life of some NRA head including where their kids go to school? Would you be opposed to it? I doubt it.

[DonP]

25. Selective "Poutrage" by many

Publishing the names of CCW holders with children and their home address is OK.

Reversing it for the media, on the other hand, is a horrible crime and a threat that endangers the innocent.

[DanTex]

36. If anyone threatens anyone else's kids I would be opposed to it. Obviously.

Of course, Million Mom Marchers, and gun control advocates in general don't tend to use death threats. Death threats are a much more common tactic among right-wing groups like these gun militants.

[gejohnston]

40. maybe but

Million Mom Marchers and other gun control advocates have shot innocent people.

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0101/wp010124.htm
http://articles.latimes.com/1988-07-29/news/mn-8130_1_columnist-carl-t-rowan

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/27/us/trial-opens-for-rowan-in-shooting-of-trespasser.html

[TPaine7]

199. I don't think those cases actually count. You see, incovenient data is inadmissable. n/t

[Buzz cook]

207. Million Mom Marchers and other gun control advocates have shot innocent people.

Do you read the articles you post? How is One woman shooting the person that killed her child and a man shooting an intruder, equivalent with death threats to a journalist and his child?

You might make a case for hypocrisy on the part of Rowan. Certainly even a stone would feel a bit of sympathy for the mother of a murdered child.

But over all it's just a false equivalence argument, popular with people trying to change the subject.

Pretty much the same thing with the folks objecting to the use of the term "gun nut". Their just trying to change the subject for objectionable behavior by there co-ilk.

[gejohnston]

208. Talk about hypocrisy

First, she did not shoot the person that killed her adult son. She shot an innocent person. According to the Washington Post article, she had three other handguns and a sub machine gun. If she were an NRA member would you be cool with that? No. That is putting an innocent person in a wheel chair and violating DC and federal gun laws. Her child was an adult drug dealer that had lousy customer service. That is how business disputes are dealt with in that industry. Remember that the next time you fill your bowl.
Rowan was not only hypocritical, he violated the DC gun law. This "intruder" was a teen ager in his outdoor pool and was not a threat to Mr. Rowen. If he were working class and lived in a trailer, you would be screaming vigilante. Is that OK because Rowan was rich or because he was a gun control advocate? My guess is because he was rich and had a white collar job. In pat threads, people with CCWs were called vile names for genuine self defense, including a college student who fired only after being shot. Why was he shot in the first place? He had the nerve to tell some little fucking sociopath "no". Everyone on your side clutched their pearls and whined about the injustice that the college student, was so uncivilized as to sit on his porch at 2AM and till some asshole that he could not have his wallet. So, before accusing me of not reading, I suggest you read closer.
Second, I was not changing a subject, I was pointing out a broad based smear.
Third, should you object to anti, hoplophobe?

[Euromutt]

62. "Much more common tactics among right-wing groups"?

You might want to reconsider that assessment. There's an outfit in Florida calling itself "Negotiation Is Over" that publishes contact information, home addresses etc. of researchers who conduct testing on animals. The people on NIO's "Most Wanted" list (NIO's words, not mine) have been routinely threatened by people using the information NIO provides. That includes undergraduates who use fruit flies(!) in genetic research. The person behind NIO, Camille Marino, is very careful to stop just short of directly inciting violence, but she's more that happy to say stuff like "If you spill blood, your blood should be spilled as well." Camille might not be prepared to spill it herself, but she's offering $100 reward for anyone who provides her with identifying information on "sadistic animal torturers," which she will then publish, so that some sociopathic whackjob can do the dirty work while she retains plausible deniability.

Or did "animal rights" recently become a right-wing cause, and I--and Ted Nugent--just didn't get the memo?

[DanTex]

66. You do know what the word "more" means, do you not?

I didn't say that there are zero threats of death or violence among left-wing groups, just that there is -- umm, how can I say this, let's see, what's the word I'm looking for, oh yeah -- more of it from right-wing groups.

Of course, I was specifically talking about gun control advocates versus right-wing gun-rights groups (and, yes, the vast majority of gun rights groups are in fact right-wing groups). As both of us know, threats of violence (and sometimes actual acts of violence) among right-wing gun militants are more common than among gun control advocates. Take, for example, the pro-gunner hero Mike Vanderbeogh (famous for his Fast and Furious conspiracy theories), who incited vandalism against offices of Democratic members of congress after the HCR vote.

I understand the strange fantasy among pro-gunners that gun control people want to punish or harm gun owners somehow. But that's just fantasy. What gun control advocates want is for less people to get shot.

[Euromutt]

142. I'm just curious whether you have anything other than anecdotal evidence to back up your claims

Of course, I was specifically talking about gun control advocates versus right-wing gun-rights groups.

No, you weren't, and saying "of course" doesn't make it so. What you said was:

Death threats are a much more common tactic among right-wing groups like these gun militants.

Ergo, you were using "gun militants" as one example of a more general trend. Now, note that I'm not denying adherents of causes generally regarded as right-wing may indeed be more inclined to resort to death threats; that may well be the case. But given some of the stuff I've been reading lately about the threats directed at women writers/bloggers--a remarkable amount of which turns out to come from men who would generally be regarded as "liberal" or "progressive"--I'm not prepared to accept such an assertion without some stronger evidence than "it stands to reason."

(and, yes, the vast majority of gun rights groups are in fact right-wing groups)

In the same sense that "America is a Christian nation"; while the majority of people populating those entities may be right-wingers or Christians, respectively, that does not mean the entity itself ipso facto takes on that characteristic. Claiming that would be a fallacy of composition.

I understand the<re exists s> strange fantasy among pro-gunners that gun control people want to punish or harm gun owners somehow. But that's just fantasy. What gun control advocates want is for less people to get shot.

By the same token, what anti-choicers want is for fewer "children" to be "murdered" in utero, and what anti-vaxxers want is for fewer children to develop autism, but there are people in both groups who are willing to use remarkably violent rhetoric, and sometimes remarkably violent action, against those they perceive as standing in their way. Just ask George Tiller or Paul Offitt. The notion that a noble end justifies atrocious means is a very persistent one.

[DanTex]

145. If you mean some sort of study, I haven't seen one.

First off, congratulations, you managed to quote me out of context even though there were only two sentences to quote from. Let's review:

Of course, Million Mom Marchers, and gun control advocates in general don't tend to use death threats. Death threats are a much more common tactic among right-wing groups like these gun militants.

So you see, I was saying that death threats are more common among "right-wing groups like these gun militants" as compared to "MMM and gun control advocates in general". Nowhere did I ever say anything about general leftists groups like environmentalists, etc. For a comparison, if I had said that "liberal economic think tanks are less likely to manipulate data dishonestly than right-wing groups like AEI", and you had then come back and said something about Greenpeace or PETA, it would have been equally off-topic...

But let's move on. Within the context of the gun issue, it seems completely obvious that the right is a lot more prone to violence and death threats than the left. In addition to those examples, let's not forget about the whole militia/survivalist culture that goes right along with pro-gun extremism, and that gave us Tim McVeigh. Also, don't downplay the significance of Mike Vanderboegh from Sipsey Street. He's not just some random right-wing lunatic (well, he is that, but also...), he's widely influential on internet gun blogs, to the point where I've actually seen him cited here on DU as a source. And I've also seen him cited by FOX on F&F. Just to remind you of what kind of character the guy is here's what happened after the HCR vote:

"To all modern Sons of Liberty: THIS is your time. Break their windows. Break them NOW."

These were the words of Mike Vanderboegh, a 57-year-old former militiaman from Alabama, who took to his blog urging people who opposed the historic health-care reform legislation -- he calls it "Nancy Pelosi's Intolerable Act" -- to throw bricks through the windows of Democratic offices nationwide.

"So, if you wish to send a message that Pelosi and her party cannot fail to hear, break their windows," Vanderboegh wrote on the blog, Sipsey Street Irregulars. "Break them NOW. Break them and run to break again. Break them under cover of night. Break them in broad daylight. Break them and await arrest in willful, principled civil disobedience. Break them with rocks. Break them with slingshots. Break them with baseball bats. But BREAK THEM."

If you're talking general left-wing extremists versus right-wing extremists, I'd still be pretty confident that, at least in the US, there's a lot more violence and threats of violence from right-wingers. Yes, it would be anecdotal, but with the militia/survivalist types, and the white supremacists, and even the everyday nutjobs that get inspired into rages of anger by Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, I think you'd get more overall violence from the fringe right.

In the same sense that "America is a Christian nation"; while the majority of people populating those entities may be right-wingers or Christians, respectively, that does not mean the entity itself ipso facto takes on that characteristic. Claiming that would be a fallacy of composition.

Except that I didn't claim that the fact that most gun groups are right-wing groups proves that the gun rights movement is right wing. But, now that you mention, yes, it is true that gun rights movement has most definitely "taken on the characteristic" of being right-wing, as you put it. The fact that most gun rights groups are right-wing is not proof, of course, but it is certainly evidence. If you look at the leaders, they are pretty serious right-wingers. Like it or not, the NRA is the de facto leader of the pro-gun movement, and I don't need to say much about Wayne LaPierre. And none of the other major groups are any better, in fact, the ones I've seen are worse. And then when you get to the blogs and the internet, it moves even further right (e.g. Sipsey Street). People on this board don't show open contempt for Democrats (at least not usually), but they do on other gun boards. I posted an OP a while back asking if anyone could come up with a single prominent progressive (or even moderate) voice that would come down on the pro-gun side, and IIRC there was almost nothing. Christopher Hitchens made a comment one time about how he supported RKBA, but there's no way to know whether that would actually make him "pro-gun" by the extremist standards of this board. For example, I really doubt Hitchens would object to the ATF being notified of multiple long-gun purchases in border states, or that he would be opposed to requiring background checks for private gun sales.

Of course, there will always be some people who are pro-gun and also progressives on other issues, just as there will be pro-life progressives, progressives opposed to gay marriage, etc. But it's hard for me to imagine any reasonable standard by which the pro-gun movement is not a right-wing movement. And, honestly, I think most people in the gun rights movement would agree with me on this. The only people who seem to deny this are the small number of pro-gun progressives.

By the same token, what anti-choicers want is for fewer "children" to be "murdered" in utero, and what anti-vaxxers want is for fewer children to develop autism, but there are people in both groups who are willing to use remarkably violent rhetoric, and sometimes remarkably violent action, against those they perceive as standing in their way. Just ask George Tiller or Paul Offitt. The notion that a noble end justifies atrocious means is a very persistent one.

Yes, except that gun control advocates don't actually use violent rhetoric or violent action, at least not to any significant degree. I've never read about a gun rights activist or pro-gun reporter being harassed with death threats by a group of angry gun control extremists. I don't know of any pro-control blogger or activist anywhere close to Mike Vanderbeogh. There is no pro-control analog to the militia/survivalist stuff on the fringes of the pro-gun movement. You're not going to get anyone blowing up buildings because they're upset that the assault weapons ban expired.

What does happen is, from time to time someone will make a crack about some gun owner's masculinity, and then pro-gunners will whine about it endlessly, to the point that it makes you wonder whether it's a good idea for people who are so easily upset to be carrying around guns.

[beevul]

177. You have got to be fucking kidding.

"Yes, except that gun control advocates don't actually use violent rhetoric..."

Really?

"Shootouts over parking spaces"?

Thats not violent rhetoric?

And how about this:



And this:




How can palins crosshairs be unquestionably wrong, but crosshairs on children be ok, hmm?

Not to mention that disgusting target, courtesy of the brady (batty) campaign, who, in case you weren't aware, are gun control advocates.




You were saying...?

[iverglas]

178. that's pretty funny

You actually think it isn't transparently tricky, though?

:rofl:

Here's an analogy for you.

Somebody posts an opinion piece written by a right-wing member of the US Congress in this forum, with approval.

Somebody posts an opinion piece written by a right-wing member of the US Congress in this forum, in order to debunk it.

See how they look the same but they aren't?

:eyes:

[beevul]

183. As usual, first you say it, then you do it.

Thinking what YOU'RE doing "isn't transparently tricky", that is.

"Somebody posts an opinion piece written by a right-wing member of the US Congress in this forum, with approval."

"Somebody posts an opinion piece written by a right-wing member of the US Congress in this forum, in order to debunk it."


Non sequitur.



That postermade the following claim:

"Yes, except that gun control advocates don't actually use violent rhetoric..."

That claim was clearly, obviously, and unequivocally disproven by the following violent rhetoric that originated from gun control advocates:






"See how they look the same but they aren't?"


See how thats completely NOT relevent to the point I'm making? I care exactly not at all, what that poster was arguing about, who that poster was arguing with, or whether it was "right wing" or left wing" in basis, substance, perception, or origin. I took issue with a single statement, which was clearly and provably a false statement. And I offered up the proof that proved that it was a false statement.

Deal with it like a mature adult.

For the record, do you agree with the claim that "gun control advocates don't actually use violent rhetoric", in spite of proof that shows, in fact, that the claim as it was made is not truth?

Is it any more or less right or wrong for gun control advocates to use violent rhetoric than it is for pro-gun advocates?

Do gun control advocates get held to a different, lesser standard?


Do tell.

[iverglas]

186. still transparent; you need more trickiness lessons

Pretending that "violent rhetoric" didn't mean "rhetoric inciting to violence" is what we in the discouse biz call equivocation.

Google "violent rhetoric" and we see that you are not the only one practising that little trick. Perhaps I'm looking at the places you learned it ...

First up, of course, is a reference to the violent rhetoric some cited as contributing to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.

Then an interesting little thing at this place:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2011/01/what-is-violent-rhetoric

-- somewhere that would not appear to consider itself "liberal/left". Speaking of Keith Olbermann's comparing Fox News to Al-Qaeda, it says:

It can’t be considered “violent” because it in no way encourages its audience to have its imagination stoked by reference to violence.

The blogger then goes on to say, about the famous Sarah Palin crosshairs map:

Here the intended audience is those who believe President Obama is a radical leftist and associates itself with the center-right. Unlike the audience of liberals and leftists, who oppose war and favor a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment, this audience is more hawkish and more likely to support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would contend that this is an example of “violent rhetoric” not because it contains crosshairs aimed at “the candidates” who represent “the problem” in need of “solution,” and despite the fact that talking about “solving” human beings has a rather untoward history, but because its violence is a product of whose imaginations are being stoked and how it is being done.

The intended effect of this image is not to encourage the assassination of candidates; however, the pathetic appeal being made to this particular audience is certainly intended to stoke their imaginations in ways related to their ideological belief in an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment. This rhetoric is violent, then, because it was intended to appeal to an audience whose imaginations would be stoked by a reference to shooting things.

Depicting violent rhetoric and offering examples of violent rhetoric -- and frankly, your weird examples don't even do that -- in an effort to get people to do something non-violent and in fact anti-violence is not engaging in violent rhetoric.

But I have no doubt you already know and understand all that.

[beevul]

192. Still pretending I'm doing something, that I'm not in fact doing...

"Pretending that "violent rhetoric" didn't mean "rhetoric inciting to violence" is what we in the discouse biz call equivocation."

Pretending that "violent rhetoric" doesn't include IMPLYING violence on the part of others, or defining the phrase in such a way in an attempt to not include such rhetoric, is sophistry of the highest order, and disgusting on a level almost equal to the rhetoric itself.

But you knew that when you did it, didn't you.

"Depicting violent rhetoric and offering examples of violent rhetoric -- and frankly, your weird examples don't even do that -- in an effort to get people to do something non-violent and in fact anti-violence is not engaging in violent rhetoric."

Exhibit A:



This example implies STRONGLY, violence enacted on the part of others, toward peoples children.

Defining whether something is violent rhetoric or not, simply by WHOM the intended recipient of the message is, or what the GOAL of the message being sent to the recipient is - which is what you're attempting to do here, ignores that other things actually fall under the definition of that phrase, as opposed to YOUR definition of the phrase.

And doing such a thing - ignoring that other things fall under the definition of the phrase as opposed to your very own narrowly crafted definition - is sophistry of the worst kind.

But then you knew that too.

[iverglas]

197. please find someone using it in a sentence

Pretending that "violent rhetoric" doesn't include IMPLYING violence on the part of others, or defining the phrase in such a way in an attempt to not include such rhetoric, is sophistry of the highest order, and disgusting on a level almost equal to the rhetoric itself.

... to mean what you are claiming it is used to mean.

Good bloody luck.

[beevul]

204. Because it can only be done with words, not imagery, right?

Give it up already.

[DanTex]

187. Please...

The violent rhetoric used by pro-gunners like Mike V. from Sipsey Street is, you know, actual incitement of violence, vandalism, and intimidation. I doubt that even a pro-gunner like yourself can fail to understand the difference between saying "guns cause violence" and "let's break their windows".

If you read back to the whole discussion I was having with Euromutt, you'll realize that the context here was about how sometimes some groups will use threatening, violent rhetoric directed at political opponents, and that sometimes this rhetoric can cross the line and turn into violent action. The examples were Tiller, who was killed by anti-abortion extremists, and Offit, who receives death threats from anti-vaxxers.

The fact that you are pretending not to understand the difference here shows me that you can't actually come up with any examples of a gun control extremist who has either either threatened, or advocated, or even hinted at using violence as a means to get what they want politically. By contrast, pro-gun heroes like Vanderbeogh have not only suggest this kind of violent action all the time, he's actually incited acts of vandalism and intimidation when certain Democratic politicians didn't vote the way he wanted. The whole pro-gun movement is saturated with talk of violent overthrow of the government and "second amendment solutions" and all that. And then there's noted "gun rights" enthusiast and gun show frequenter Tim McVeigh...

To compare this stuff to gun control advocates who describe violence but come nowhere even close to advocating it is plainly absurd.

[beevul]

193. Meh.

"The violent rhetoric used by pro-gunners like Mike V. from Sipsey Street is, you know, actual incitement of violence, vandalism, and intimidation. I doubt that even a pro-gunner like yourself can fail to understand the difference between saying "guns cause violence" and "let's break their windows".

Oh, I don't fail to understand.

I just don't down play the difference between ""let's break their windows", and :



"Someone with a gun has been target practicing, and kids are going to die, MAYBE YOURS WILL BE NEXT", or "Someone with a gun has been target practicing, GEE I WONDER WHY, AND I WONDER WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT WILL BE."

In case you hadn't noticed that goes a step beyond breaking windows. At least to anyone with so much as a shred of decency.

"The fact that you are pretending not to understand the difference here shows me that you can't actually come up with any examples of a gun control extremist who has either either threatened, or advocated, or even hinted at using violence as a means to get what they want politically."

I don't employ ONLY the criteria of "to get what they want politically" when it comes to violence or violent rhetoric.

""For the first time, violent criminals are going to have to fear that their next attack might be their last," LaSorte said. (By the way, I want to meet Darren LaSorte in a dark alley some night and kick the crap out of him. I don't think he can shoot me if I just punch him into oblivion.)"

http://onmilwaukee.com/sports/articles/concealedcarryandsports.html?28224

By contrast, pro-gun heroes like Vanderbeogh have not only suggest this kind of violent action all the time, he's actually incited acts of vandalism and intimidation when certain Democratic politicians didn't vote the way he wanted. The whole pro-gun movement is saturated with talk of violent overthrow of the government and "second amendment solutions" and all that. And then there's noted "gun rights" enthusiast and gun show frequenter Tim McVeigh..."

And mcveigh shot...whom...exactly?

"To compare this stuff to gun control advocates who describe violence but come nowhere even close to advocating it is plainly absurd."

Advocating violence, and IMPLYING VIOLENCE ON THE PART OF OTHERS, to effect a change or achieve a goal, are two sides of the same coin.

What don't you understand about that?

[Hoopla Phil]

188. That first poster of the little girl. Is that the same (only in silhouette) poster

used in the Men In Black training scenario?

[beevul]

194. I'm pretty sure the batty bunch fabricated it...

I'm pretty sure the batty bunch fabricated it, in an effort to imply violence to the actions of others, to imply that little johnny or little shirley were goung to be shot at the hands of someone who had been target practicing.

[Euromutt]

200. It's not *my* failing when what you say and what you mean differ

First off, congratulations, you managed to quote me out of context even though there were only two sentences to quote from.

Impressive, isn't it? I managed to "quote you out of context" despite the almost complete lack of context out of which to quote you. If we apply Occam's Razor, perhaps the most likely explanation is that you just didn't express yourself sufficient clearly the first time. There's nothing wrong with that, provided you're willing to acknowledge it and clarify what you originally meant. (I think I can point to a number of instances where I've done so myself, rather than trying to denigrate the intelligence of the person who misunderstood what I said.)

Within the context of the gun issue, it seems completely obvious that the right is a lot more prone to violence and death threats than the left.

"Seems." Not "is," "seems." Interesting how what was, a few posts ago, a large degree of certainty is now couched in very provisional and qualified terms: "seems," "to any significant degree," yadda yadda yadda. And yet, at the same time, you seem to want to maintain the pretense that your statements are a matter of established fact rather than conjecture.

Again, I will state that I'm not asserting you're wrong. I'm more than willing to believe that supporters of causes generally considered "right-wing" are more inclined to resort to threats of violence than supporters of causes generally considered to be "left-wing" (even though I suspect you underestimate the willingness of supporters of "left-wing" causes to resort to such threats). What I have a problem with is your assertion of this as established fact, rather than as educated guess, and to pretend that it's somehow an act of intellectual dishonesty to call you on it, when you're the one using phrases like "it seems completely obvious."

What does happen is, from time to time someone will make a crack about some gun owner's masculinity, and then pro-gunners will whine about it endlessly, to the point that it makes you wonder whether it's a good idea for people who are so easily upset to be carrying around guns.

Dear Ghu, what are you, ten years old? Because I remember that tactic for the primary school playground: pestering someone in a deliberate attempt to rile him up, and then acting as if his getting riled up is due to a character flaw on his part.

And the "endless whining" is simply a result of how moderation on this board works: a large part of whether a term is deemed to be "offensive" by the moderators is how much people complain about it. And to put things in perspective, you should see the amount of "whining" that erupts on this board if someone uses the term "anti" on this board, let alone "gun grabber"; it's not like either side has a monopoly on mature responses around here.

[SteveM]

34. Cue the inevitable justification of gun prohibitionists for endangering many citizens...

with break-ins and smear campaigns by publishing whether or not they have concealed-carry permits. As you well know, gun-prohibitionists wish to punish concealed-carry people; put another way, there is NO PUBLIC SAFETY JUSTIFICATION for publishing this material. Only public endangerment.

[DanTex]

41. Let me know when you find a "gun prohibitionist" who wants to "punish" CCWers...

Funny how pro-gunners can't seem to make it through a sentence without their trusty straw arguments and false accusations. I wonder if the psychological need to always have a gun nearby is somehow related to the inability to remain truthful for more than a couple words...

[gejohnston]

42. what was the point of publishing them in the paper?

If you can come up with a half way coherent and logical explanation, it may be a false accusation.
I wonder if the psychological need to play amateur shrink is somehow related to the inability to remain truthful for more than a couple words...

[DanTex]

44. If you bothered to read the article...

...you would have read: "he received numerous requests from readers who wanted to know if their neighbors had applied for carry permits ... (permit holder data was publicly available at the time)".

Now maybe you can try and explain to me how you get from there to some kind of desire to punish.

[gejohnston]

46. he has?

call me skeptical, but why would people call up and ask if their neighbors applied for permits? I have known nosy neighbors, but get real. They had no reasonable reason to know, and it is none of the neighbors' business even if they did ask. While it was available to media, still was not meant for general public and should not have been released.

[SteveM]

47. Not much of an answer, and in any case irresponsible...

"he received numerous requests from readers who wanted to know if their neighbors had applied for carry permits"

Why? That is nothing but shifting the responsibility for one's actions onto "numerous requests," instead of proving a reason for HIS doing so? Why not publish data of which ones are child molesters? Would that be for the same reason?

[DanTex]

65. Ummm... you made the accusation that it was some desire to punish...

...so the burden would be on you to show some evidence of that. Otherwise I could just say "pro-gunners like to torture puppies" and insist that I was right unless you prove me wrong.

Outside of your little NRA bubble, it is very easy to understand why someone would want to know if there are people walking around their neighborhood with loaded guns, and it has nothing to do with punishment. You can argue that it is irresponsible to publish the names anyway, that the privacy rights of CCWers outweigh the safety concerns of others, but to say it's punishment is just more of the inane gunner hyperbole that readers of this board will have become accustomed to.

[gejohnston]

71. it is still utter nonsense

it might be easy to understand to you, but that is not how it works. It was irresponsible if not illegal. As for safety concerns, show the compelling interest. How does my neighbor having a CCW affect my safety? I does not. As pointed out to you, the compelling interest is with the privacy.
Punishment is the wrong word, intimidation is really more accurate.

[DanTex]

73. "How does my neighbor having a CCW affect my safety?"

It's your opinion that it doesn't affect your safety. We all understand that deep inside the NRA bubble, people like yourself believe a lot of bizarre things.

You have every right to believe the "guns don't kill people" line, just as you can believe that the earth is flat if you want to, but you can't expect that everyone else will be as willing to swallow the right-wing talking points as you are. I know this comes as a shock to you, but outside the NRA bubble, there are a lot of people that believe that having people walking around the neighborhood with loaded guns poses a safety risk.

[gejohnston]

88. not the NRA bubble

the lack of blood running in the streets.
People with guns do kill people, rarely but too often. Those doing the shooting are not CCW holders. Right or left has nothing to do with it. Neither does the Flat Earth Society. It is simple observation and experience. If it does affect my safety, it is to such a small degree that it is not even worth bothering with, like meteors crashing my roof small.
Ever occur to you that some of those people have irrational fears?

[SteveM]

116. "We have the right to not hire..." Toby Hoover. Publish and punish. nt

[iverglas]

119. .............. what?

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/2488

Potential for discrimination:

Ohio gun-ban extremist Toby Hoover is on record encouraging employers to consider whether or not a potential new-hire is a CHL-holder before hiring. This type of discrimination is unacceptable.

"The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence agrees with the governor. The public has the right to know who has a permit so we can make appropriate choices for our families. We have the right to not hire, socialize, or share public space with those who carry hidden guns." (November 21, 2003)

What's next? Should medical records be released so that newspapers can publish lists of HIV-infected persons? Don't I have the "right to know" if my sons’ teachers have a deadly communicable disease? Maybe after that people should register their religious beliefs with the state, so self-righteous bigots can make sure they don't have to live next to "those" kind of people.

Who here knows the difference between DISCRIMINATION and ILLEGAL DISCRIMINATION? Raise your hands now ...

You can't make me marry someone who carries a handgun. You can't even make me marry a person of Chinese origin, or a Jew, or a lesbian.

Where I'm at, I may not refuse to hire, or serve beer to, or rent accommodation to, a person of Chinese origin, or a Jew, or a lesbian. That's because the LAW says so. The LAW does NOT say that I may not refuse to hire, or serve beer to, or rent accommodation to, someone who carries a handgun.

I may discriminate against anybody I choose in my personal life, and I may discriminate against anybody in any other realm, for any reason I like, if the LAW does not say I may not.

I may refuse to hire a member of the Liberal Party. I may refuse to serve beer to someone who drives a pickup truck. I may refuse to rent accommodation to someone who carries a gun.

Could a potential employer or landlord ASK an applicant whether they carry a handgun around, or own firearms? You betcha they could. (At least until the state of Florida gets wind of it, anyhow, and then it will be illegal there, everybody else's rights of any kind be damned.) And yes, they could legally "discriminate against" an applicant who does.

We all discriminate in everything we do. I don't socialize with bigots, even though they have every right to be bigots. I don't socialize with people of less than above-average intelligence, even though they are not to blame for their IQ. I don't socialize with religious people, even though I may not refuse to rent them an apartment because they are religious.


"Don't I have the 'right to know' if my sons’ teachers have a deadly communicable disease?"

Well, if you're worried your sons are going to have sex with their teachers, that might not be your main problem here, bubba ...

"Maybe after that people should register their religious beliefs with the state, so self-righteous bigots can make sure they don't have to live next to 'those' kind of people."

I'd say go for it ... except you'd make yourself look even stupider than you already do, Mr. Baus. Unless you can think of a real reason for people having to register their religious beliefs ... like there is for people having to get permits to carry handguns around ...

Nobody endangers anybody else by carrying their religious beliefs around in public.

And unless you can say that NOBODY carrying a handgun around in public has ever endangered or will ever endanger anybody else, well, analogy fail.


I loved this bit:

In fact, last year, one CHL-holder was ambushed and murdered outside his store just days after his name was published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Do we know for sure if these criminals ambushed Singleton (shot first, stole later) because they knew he was armed? No. Should we wait around until we have definitive proof someone died because of the abuse of this privilege, before we offer people the protection they deserve? Of course not!

(Uh, do you know for sure ...? No, I'd say you have no reason even to suspect, and the idea is too nonsensical to entertain.)

I think I'll quote it every time somebody says "where is your definitive proof that people with permits carrying handguns around presents a risk?"

So far I'd say there's a whole lot more evidence of the latter than of the former.

[SteveM]

131. The question was who among gun-controller/prohitionists wanted to "punish"...

those who carried concealed. That question was answered with the Hoover quote.

[DanTex]

132. I don't see any desire to punish. What is see is the desire to avoid people like this guy:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x480438

You see, gunners always like to pretend that there's no safety risk in having CCWers around.

But would you want your kids around some moron carrying an unholstered Glock with a round in the chamber? Yes, I know, CCWers are safe, model citizens. Of course. Even the guy who shot himself while reaching for money to pay for the beer he just ordered. Please spare me the NRA propaganda.

I get that there are competing privacy interests. But there are also safety concerns. A lot of people don't want any gunslinging yahoos around them, and they have a good reason for feeling that way. It's not bigotry, it's self-preservation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

133. If you don't want certain "types" of people around you...

...move. Simple as that. You don't have the right to force others to sequester themselves in their homes simply because you don't want to be around them.

Funny thing is, people like yourself sound so much like those who didn't want to be around blacks in the 50s and 60s...same breathless pearl-clutching arguments. The arguments were wrong then, they are wrong now.

[DanTex]

134. You are missing the point.

Some pro-gunners like to deny that CCWers present any safety concerns at all. Are you one of those?

If you were honest, you'd admit that they do present safety concerns, but you think that gun rights are more important. You'd say, yes it may well be more dangerous to have CCWers around, but people have a right to bear arms and that's more important. That would be an honest argument.

But to pretend that there is no safety concern, and act like it's all some kind of bigotry is totally absurd. People who don't carry guns don't shoot anyone. Ever. It's not bigotry to suggest that only someone carrying a gun can cause a gun shot. It's physics.

[SteveM]

136. No, sir. Hoover wants to PUNISH concealed-carry people...

That is so abundantly clear, esp. with her desire to get others to disassociate with concealed-carry people. This is the RANKEST form of punishment. A more important topic at this point is why extreme prohibitionists like to punish, since we have established the fact they wish to do so. This may serve as a guide:

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." ALDOUS HUXLEY (1894-1963), Chrome Yellow, 1921.
____________

"Some pro-gunners like to deny that CCWers present any safety concerns at all. Are you one of those?"

Off point, and certainly by any construction, a piddling concern to those who really want to punish and "maltreat." There is always an inherent danger in carrying guns, or operating an automobile, or using a chain saw. Further, the choice is not (as you put it) between safety and "gun rights" (you really mean Second Amendment rights). The issue is to see what dangers there are in carrying, and whether or not they constitute a social problem. What did the story say in this link? 2 incidents in Virginia in the last 15 MONTHS? Not much of a problem.

I have supported my case with Hoover's quote. Her's is the kind of crap you see with any morally top-heavy prohibitionist argument: The desire to "maltreat" others; in this case, by denying people their livelihood. You should be aware, of course, that there is little evidence to suggest she will get her way, in terms of law or in terms of popular support.

BTW, her attitude toward gun-owners is just one example of the kind of animosity expressed toward gun-owners. I suggest you read Kates & Kleck's "The Great American Gun Debate," lots more examples of "noted" people scrawling on the figurative bathroom wall.

[iverglas]

137. Aldous Huxley, one of the biggest "moral crusaders" of his time

And you keep on posting your utterly incoherent and misquoted exploitation of his words, in the service of an agenda that was abhorrent, absolutely abhorrent, to him.

Some people simply have no shame, do they?

You sure as hell don't.

The desire to "maltreat" others; in this case, by denying people their livelihood.

The only standard prohibited ground of discrimination that comes anywhere close to your ludicrous assertion that discriminating againt handgun carriers is "bigotry" is religion. People arguably choose, and can change, their religion. The fact, though, is that religion is usually tied up with culture, and thus with ethnicity and/or race and/or nationality, and that little choice is usually involved as people absorb their religion from birth.

The feeling is that people should not have to renounce or change their religion in order to obtain employment or accommodation or services. It's a fairly reasonable feeling.

Does declining to employ people who carry concealed firearms deny anybody their livelihood?

Nope. All they have to do is stop doing it. Carrying a gun really is not a belief system. It's just a behaviour, like picking your nose. Just stop doing it, and be embraced back into the fold of civilized society.


I suggest you read Kates & Kleck's "The Great American Gun Debate," lots more examples of "noted" people scrawling on the figurative bathroom wall.

Oh, c'mon, quote us a couple. If they include the usual typos / misspellings / omissions, we can probably trace them back to your source.

[SteveM]

141. Hey, if Huxley didn't say it, I'll claim it! Read the book yourself. nt

[iverglas]

144. which book would that be?

The one your gun militant sources can't spell, or the other one that it more probably appeared in, if it exists?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x478124#478251

[DanTex]

143. I think some gunners should grow a little thicker skin and stop being so self-centered.

Sorry, but the RANKEST form of discriminatory punishment is not the desire to get others to disassociate. Try, for example, actual violence and hate crimes. Really, it's pathetic: all this hyperbolic whining about bigotry and "punishment", and it's an insult to minorities, women, LGBTs, and other groups that actually do face systematic bigotry, for something that they have no control over and that could not possible harm or affect anyone else in any way. Particularly when so many of the loudest complainers are Christian middle aged rural white heterosexual middle class men who have never faced any actual discrimination of any kind in their lives until Charlton Heston came around to tell them that they were the real victims.

It's wonderful to know that you feel the safety of others is a "piddling concern". But no amount of Scalia-inspired nonsense about the second amendment is going to change the fact that many people place more value on the safety and security of their families than some yahoo CCWers "right" to drag an unholstered Glock into a bar because the crazies at gun school managed to convince the guy that it would make him safer.

I get that you've swallowed the NRA line, but are you really so far gone that you can't even imagine what it would be like not to have? I mean, even if you and the NRA are right about "guns don't kill people", surely you are capable of comprehending the existence of people that don't actually believe that, and that actually do think gun violence is a social problem. (Right now is where I'd point out that the US has a rate of gun violence far higher than any other industrialized nation, but I can only imagine that to you, facts and statistics are "piddling concerns" next to the gunner dogma)

And how did I guess that at some point you were going to bring up every gunner's favorite pair of pseudointellectual blowhards. It's funny how all gunner dogma seems to lead back to the same few batches of Kool-aid. Yes, I'm aware that Kates and Kleck are big on the idea of the poor widdle gunner and all of the discrimination and "bigotry" he faces. Apparently the tens of thousands that die every year from gun violence are no big deal, but god forbid a poor CCWer gets his feelings hurt because someone calls him names.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

138. No sir - you miss the point.

I freely and have always admitted that a firearm must be treated with respect and one which is misused presents serious safety concerns. I have also said that my rights are far more important than what someone might do.

By your own standards, that is an honest argument and it has been mine since the beginning.

Yes, when firearms are MISUSED, they are dangerous. So what? That is a simple fact of life with many things.

It most assuredly IS bigotry that you wish to have those who would carry a gun be removed from society based on your fears. I'm not sure there could be a clearer case of bigotry really.

[iverglas]

139. I'd like some clarity here, please

It most assuredly IS bigotry that you wish to have those who would carry a gun be removed from society based on your fears. I'm not sure there could be a clearer case of bigotry really.

Can you reproduce, or point me to where I can find, a statement by this poster that he wishes "to have those who would carry a gun ... removed from society"?

At your earliest convenience.

[DanTex]

151. I'm not sure there could be a clearer case of fabrication, really...

than you claiming that I "wish to have those who would carry a gun be removed from society". Whaaaaa? Was that fun? Can we stop making things up now?


And now back to our show....

In order to illustrate just how silly your take on the concept of "bigotry" is, why don't we take that gun extremism of yours one step further. Let's say that the "right" to drag a loaded, unholstered Glock into a bar just doesn't get my blood pumping the way it used to, so now I want to actually have the "right" to point the gun at people. No shooting, of course, that would still be illegal. But as long as I don't shoot, why should anyone care if I point a gun at them?

Sure, someone "might" misuse this right and actually pull the trigger, but, as you argue, "my rights are far more important than what someone might do". So long as I don't pull the trigger, it's perfectly safe. Hey, buddy, life has risks.

Hopefully, in this case, the safety concern is so obvious that even someone like you can see that "bigotry" plays absolutely no role at all. If someone even more extremist than you insisted that pointing should be legal, and called you a "bigot" for letting your "fears" interfere with their "right" to point a gun wherever the hell they want, you'd probably scratch your head and think "what kind of crazy person thinks that pointing guns at people has anything to do with 'bigotry' or 'rights'. I just don't want to get shot!"

And maybe that would be a moment of clarity...

[Straw Man]

155. A clear case of... something.

In order to illustrate just how silly your take on the concept of "bigotry" is, why don't we take that gun extremism of yours one step further. Let's say that the "right" to drag a loaded, unholstered Glock into a bar just doesn't get my blood pumping the way it used to, so now I want to actually have the "right" to point the gun at people. No shooting, of course, that would still be illegal. But as long as I don't shoot, why should anyone care if I point a gun at them?

So you believe that merely advocating the right to carry is "gun extremism," and that gun owners carry in order to get their "blood pumping"? And yet you deny that you're a bigot on this issue? The cognitive dissonance is stunning.

If you can't see the difference between carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense and actually pointing it at people to get one's jollies, then I suggest that you seek some education on firearms laws and human nature.

[DanTex]

163. How about instead of calling me a bigot you address my argument...

I think it's "gun extremism" to suggest that people who have safety concerns about right-to-carry laws are "bigots".

As far as why people decide to carry unholstered Glocks into bars, who knows? There is no evidence that for most people this actually provides any safety benefit, as compared to the risks it produces, so I find it highly doubtful that all CCers are acting out of a rational desire to improve their personal safety. But I'm sure there are a few people out there who are actually improving their safety by CCing, just like I'm sure there are others who do it just because it gets their blood pumping, and don't know or don't care that they are putting both themselves and others around them at risk. Pointing this out makes me a bigot? Please...

Maybe you disagree, and you think stuffing a loaded, unholstered Glock in your pants is a rational act of self-defense. OK, that's fine. But is it necessary for you to call me a bigot because you and I have different opinions?

[Straw Man]

166. Because bigotry is the essence of your argument.

I think it's "gun extremism" to suggest that people who have safety concerns about right-to-carry laws are "bigots".

But see, you weren't talking about what people were calling you; you were talking about the mere act of carrying. Remember?

In order to illustrate just how silly your take on the concept of "bigotry" is, why don't we take that gun extremism of yours one step further. Let's say that the "right" to drag a loaded, unholstered Glock into a bar just doesn't get my blood pumping the way it used to, so now I want to actually have the "right" to point the gun at people.

The implication is bizarre and insulting. You are suggesting that carriers are motivated by the desire to threaten and intimidate, based on nothing but your own... bigotry. Conflating self-defense with brandishing a weapon as a sort of sick game? Smells like bigotry to me.

There is no evidence that for most people this actually provides any safety benefit, as compared to the risks it produces, so I find it highly doubtful that all CCers are acting out of a rational desire to improve their personal safety. But I'm sure there are a few people out there who are actually improving their safety by CCing, just like I'm sure there are others who do it just because it gets their blood pumping, and don't know or don't care that they are putting both themselves and others around them at risk. Pointing this out makes me a bigot? Please...

Despite the numerous weaselly qualifiers in the "rational" part of your justification -- "most people," "actually," "I find it highly doubtful," "all," etc. -- you still seem to feel very free to condescend and vilify based on your weakly-founded conclusions. To wit:

Maybe you disagree, and you think stuffing a loaded, unholstered Glock in your pants is a rational act of self-defense.

I have never "stuffed" a loaded, unholstered anything in my pants. I don't carry to "get my blood pumping," and I have never put myself or others at risk by carrying. You can either apologize or own your broad-brush bigotry.

[iverglas]

171. maybe you need to pay attention

This was exactly the scenario that occurred to me as I was reading:

Maybe you disagree, and you think stuffing a loaded, unholstered Glock in your pants is a rational act of self-defense.

... thinking, as I had just been doing, about all the people wandering around with guns and why they actually do it.

Your reply to that comment:

I have never "stuffed" a loaded, unholstered anything in my pants.

was completely non-germane (although it might be seen by some as evidence of the self-absorption of the determined defender of "gun rights").

The reference was to an incident discussed at this board this very week:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=480438&mesg_id=480513

A Spotsylvania County man with a valid concealed-weapon permit died after a semi-automatic pistol without an external safety discharged as he tried to adjust the weapon, which was tucked into his waistband, investigators have concluded.

... The man's wife was about halfway out of the van, intending to walk to the store to return a DVD, when she heard a pop, which she and the children, all younger than 10, initially believed was a balloon bursting. There were balloons in the van.

The man threw the gun to the floorboard and said, "Oh my God, I think I just shot myself," according to Scott.

The man was pronounced dead after being taken to Mary Washington Hospital in Fredericksburg.

... Police declined to identify him, citing a department policy barring the release of victims' identities in self-inflicted death cases.

The man was with his wife and kids at the mall buying balloons. Why in the name of all the gods of guns did he have a loaded handgun stuck in his pants? It was some rational act motivated by a perceived need to be able to defend himself or them? Really?

You can either apologize or own your broad-brush bigotry.

I'd suggest that you and your fellow travellers can either read the rules of this place or find somewhere else to play.

[DanTex]

173. Hate to disagree with you, iverglas, but actually I was referencing...

...the other guy from that article, the one who Glocked himself while reaching for money to pay for the beer he just ordered.

On Sept. 11, 2010, a Bedford County man with a permit accidentally shot himself in the thigh at a Lynchburg restaurant as he apparently reached into his pants pocket to pay a bartender for a beer. The .45-caliber Glock 36 was unholstered. Permit holders are not permitted to drink alcohol in restaurants while carrying a concealed weapon.

I, for one, can completely understand why a guy buying balloons with his family needs a Glock with a bullet in the chamber. Personally, I never enter a balloon store without a three person security detail at least. After all, you never know: there might just be someone in there prancing around with a loaded gun stuffed in their pants...

[Straw Man]

176. Maybe you need a lesson in the second-person pronoun.

It indicates the person to whom one is speaking.

Maybe you disagree, and you think stuffing a loaded, unholstered Glock in your pants is a rational act of self-defense.

He was clearly speaking to me and about me. If that was not his intention, the error is his, not mine.

I'd suggest that you and your fellow travellers can either read the rules of this place or find somewhere else to play.

Oh, were you talking to me? I've read the rules and believe that I am operating within them. You obviously feel differently. Feel free to take whatever action you feel is appropriate. We'll just leave it up to the moderators, m'kay?

[iverglas]

179. maybe you need a lesson in civil discourse

The bit where "you" do not ascribe stupidity or evil intent to "your" interlocutor where another equally (or more) reasonable meaning is available should help you.

My neighbours to the south seem to like this dictionary:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/you

you
pronoun \ˈyü, yə also yē\

Definition of YOU

1: the one or ones being addressed ...

2: one 2a <after a while, it grows on you>

Our third-person impersonal pronoun "one" is not used in everyday speech the way that on is in French, for instance. Every English speaker knows that "you" is used in this sense, and while people sometimes make the sense in which they are using it explicit ("the impersonal you"), most people use their noggins to infer the intent.

So ...

He was clearly speaking to me and about me. If that was not his intention, the error is his, not mine.

... he was clearly doing no such thing, and the bad faith is yours, not his.


html fixed

[Straw Man]

182. From whom shall I get this lesson?

He was clearly speaking to me and about me. If that was not his intention, the error is his, not mine.

... he was clearly doing no such thing, and the bad faith is yours, not his.

If "bad faith" to you means taking people at their word, I suggest you find a new dictionary.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=479815&mesg_id=481039

[DanTex]

180. As iverglas pointed out, I was using the "generic you"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you

This is very common, and I have no idea why you found it confusing. Maybe you are not a native English speaker and are familiar with formal grammar but not casual usage. In the future, may I suggest that, if you don't understand something, just ask, rather than making assumptions and getting offended. I'm sure plenty of people here would be willing with your English.

[Straw Man]

181. The "generic you"?

Let's do this again, shall we?

Maybe you disagree, ...

Hmm... Doesn't look generic to me. You are addressing what I think, aren't you?

... and you think stuffing a loaded, unholstered Glock ...

Again, you're talking about my beliefs and opinions.

... in your pants is a rational act of self-defense.

Oh, is this the part where I'm supposed to realize that you're no longer talking about me, but about some "generic" person? How exactly was I supposed to make that inference, when the "you" heretofore in your sentence has referred specifically to me?

This is why the use of the generic "you" is discouraged. It is sloppy and misleading.

I'm sure plenty of people here would be willing with your English.

And I'm sure just as many "would be willing with" yours. One hint: Don't go to Wikipedia for your grammar instruction. And don't blame the reader for the imprecision in your writing.

[DanTex]

185. Yes, the "generic you"

In casual English, it is common to use the second-person pronoun "you" in place of the formally correct but more awkward sounding generic third-person pronoun "one". Here, instead of "stuffing a loaded, unholstered Glock in your pants", I might have instead written "for one to stuff a loaded, unholstered Glock in one's pants". Either is an acceptable way to describe the act of Glock-stuffing, but, once you develop more fluidity with the English language, you will come to understand that the latter is somewhat heavy-handed, particularly given the current setting of an internet forum.

[Straw Man]

189. Dan, I see that you still don't get it.

When you mix the generic "you" with the non-generic "you" in one sentence, as you did, you run the risk of being misunderstood, as you were. Precision with language, Dan: something for which to strive.

I'm still waiting for that apology. All I get is more abuse, and unfounded abuse at that.

[iverglas]

190. oh dear, is "it" contagious?

When you mix the generic "you" with the non-generic "you" in one sentence, as you did, you run the risk of being misunderstood, as you were. Precision with language, Dan: something for which to strive.

Ad which "you" is the first "you" in that sentence then?

I'm going to guess generic.

:rofl:

[Straw Man]

191. Actually, no.

When you mix the generic "you" with the non-generic "you" in one sentence, as you did, you run the risk of being misunderstood, as you were. Precision with language, Dan: something for which to strive.

Ad which "you" is the first "you" in that sentence then?

I'm going to guess generic.

You would be wrong. They are all non-generic. They all refer to Dan. He is the person to whom I was speaking and whose usage was being addressed. I was talking to Dan about something specific that he did and advising him why he might want to avoid doing it: nothing generic about it.

[iverglas]

196. oh dear

I guess you need to write more clearly!

Now, which "you" was that ...

[Straw Man]

198. oh dear, dear, dear

I guess you need to write more clearly!

Now, which "you" was that ...

Non-generic. You were clearly talking to me, as I was clearly talking to Dan. I guess you need to read more carefully.

[gejohnston]

156. need to point gun wherever the hell they want...

Pointing guns at people without a really good reason is also a crime. Your piss poor illustration better illustrates your bigotry than anything anyone else said.
Let's see in the short time you have been here you said pro gunners are as a group:
mostly right wing
want to carry and point guns at people to get their blood pumping
stupid
anti intellectual
paranoid

Sure I am missing some. That is not bigotry? What is it? It is certainly not a scientifically minded observation.

[DanTex]

164. Try to pay attention instead of calling me a bigot.

I'm aware that pointing guns at people is a crime. It was an A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, meant to illustrate the flaws in the argument that CCers pose no risk unless the actually shoot someone: pointing a gun doesn't hurt anyone unless the gun is fired either.

And, yes, I have made a number of comments about pro-gunners, the same kinds of things that I would say about, for example, global warming deniers.

mostly right wing
Obviously, just look up the definition of "mostly"...

want to carry and point guns at people to get their blood pumping
"Point at people" was an analogy. But, yes, some people do carry a gun because it gets their blood pumping. Do you deny this?

stupid
I don't think I used the word stupid, but the truth has never stood in your way before.

anti intellectual
No more or less so than GW deniers. But this may be unfair, I know some very well informed GW deniers, they're just blinded by ideology.

paranoid
Is there a better illustration than when the suggestion that there might be valid safety concerns with people carrying unholstered Glocks into bars is instantly met with charges of "bigotry" by "prohibitionists" that want to "punish" gun owners and have them "removed from society"?

This is a political discussion board. If you think it's bigotry to take shots at certain right-wing political opinions, maybe you need to grow a little skin. I get that not all pro-gunners are right-wing, anti-intellectual, or paranoid, and I've never claimed that they are all like that. Not all Rush Limbaugh listeners are right-wing, anti-intellectual, or paranoid either. But I don't think you'd be crying "bigotry" if I used the phrase "paranoid Rush Limbaugh listener". The only reason you think it's bigotry to criticize pro-gunners is because you are a pro-gunner. But it's not like I'm saying anything that's actually "bigoted".

And, by the way, the pro-gunners here take plenty of shots at "antis" but nobody seems to complain about "bigotry" there. I wonder why that is? What makes "antis" so different from pro-gunners that it's OK to call them all sorts of things, but when you say that pro-gunners are paranoid, suddenly it's "bigotry"? Is it because you disagree with "antis", so then it's OK to call them names? Don't you think that's a bit of a double standard?

[Straw Man]

167. A fatally flawed analogy.

I'm aware that pointing guns at people is a crime. It was an A-N-A-L-O-G-Y, meant to illustrate the flaws in the argument that CCers pose no risk unless the actually shoot someone: pointing a gun doesn't hurt anyone unless the gun is fired either.

Any analogy that conflates a legal and safe activity with an illegal and dangerous one is not deserving of the name. Pointing a gun is an extremely dangerous activity. Google "the four rules of gun safety" and see what they say about it. Be advised that pointing a gun at someone is extremely dangerous to the person holding the gun as well, since that person is now seen by police or anyone else as an aggressor armed with a deadly weapon. Contrast this with a person calmly enjoying a meal while his/her concealed weapon is safely stored out of sight and out of mind to all but the carrier.

No, not a good analogy at all. Welcome to the real world.

[DanTex]

168. In your opinion.

It's just your opinion that carrying a loaded gun around doesn't pose any safety problems. It's not a fact. It's an opinion.

I agree that pointing a gun is an extremely dangerous activity. The point of the analogy is to try and get you to understand that there are some activities that even you would acknowledge are dangerous.

A lot of people also think that carrying around a gun, while not as dangerous as brandishing a gun, still presents an unacceptable safety risk, and thus they don't want people carrying loaded guns around in their neighborhoods. In fact, this is the overwhelming opinion of most people in other industrialized democracies outside the US, and it is also the opinion of many if not most progressives in the US. Are all of those people bigots?

Just because someone disagrees about the safety of a certain activity does not mean they are bigots. It just means that they have a different standard for public safety than you do. Why can't you understand that, and stop vilifying people who disagree with you with ugly slurs?

[Straw Man]

169. I respect differences of opinion.

That's not what you presented. You presented broad-brush slurs, faulty analogies, condescension, and vilification. I don't respect that. The fact that you can't see and acknowledge the ugly slurs that you casually fling around speaks volumes.

Pointing a gun is obviously dangerous: a matter of fact. Carrying one is arguably dangerous and arguably not dangerous: a matter of opinion. Your analogy therefore fails.

Peoples' opinions do not make them bigots. When the opinions are based on false and derogatory stereotypes, that's when the term applies.

[gejohnston]

170. correction

The global warming claim could equally, actually better, apply to your side more. GW deniers and GC advocates use studies authored largely by economists and non area specialists and funded by foundations with a political agenda.

Most are not right wing
Maybe you should look up the word analogy, it was a really poor one. Blood pumping? Not only do I deny this, it is total bullshit.
blinded by ideology? Could equally apply to your side if not more. Most GCA here are lucky to make a coherent paragraph on the issue.
Why Glocks? How about upholstered Walthers?

This is a political discussion board. If you think it's bigotry to take shots at certain right-wing political opinions, maybe you need to grow a little skin. I get that not all pro-gunners are right-wing, anti-intellectual, or paranoid, and I've never claimed that they are all like that. Not all Rush Limbaugh listeners are right-wing, anti-intellectual, or paranoid either. But I don't think you'd be crying "bigotry" if I used the phrase "paranoid Rush Limbaugh listener". The only reason you think it's bigotry to criticize pro-gunners is because you are a pro-gunner. But it's not like I'm saying anything that's actually "bigoted".

For example? I only speak for myself. IIRC, mine have been specific examples that more to do with sub culture or region.

And, by the way, the pro-gunners here take plenty of shots at "antis" but nobody seems to complain about "bigotry" there. I wonder why that is? What makes "antis" so different from pro-gunners that it's OK to call them all sorts of things, but when you say that pro-gunners are paranoid, suddenly it's "bigotry"? Is it because you disagree with "antis", so then it's OK to call them names? Don't you think that's a bit of a double standard?

Can you show examples similar shots toward antis that would be bigoted? In the past leaders of gun control groups in the past wanted to achieve x. Is it paranoid to ask if anything short of x is part of an incremental strategy? While many antis are reasonable, informed on current laws and the issue, and honest people. Many are not all three. Most are honest and reasonable, but have no clue what the current laws are or the definitions of the buzz words they repeat.

[DanTex]

172. "Most GCA here are lucky to make a coherent paragraph on the issue."

Why if it isn't a broad smear against gun control advocates, and DUers specifically! Didn't have to search very far for that example, did I!

GCAs have feelings too, you know. Bigotry! Bigotry! Bigotry! Wah-wah-wah! gejohnston took my candy!!!! Mommy make him stop!!!

For example? I only speak for myself. IIRC, mine have been specific examples that more to do with sub culture or region.

Actually, you called me a bigot two posts ago. Have you forgotten already? It was right after you called my illustration "piss poor". Do you think it's OK to go around calling people bigots, simply because one of their illustrations struck you as so unsatisfactory that it reminded you of urine?

In the past leaders of gun control groups in the past wanted to achieve x. Is it paranoid to ask if anything short of x is part of an incremental strategy?

Umm... in the past, leaders of the pro-gun movement have incited acts of vandalism in order to intimidate Democratic members of congress. And they have published personal details of a journalist they weren't happy with, who was getting death threats from other gun militants. And then there was that noted gun rights fanatic who spent a lot of time hanging out at guns shows, and went on to blow up a certain building in Oklahoma. Not to mention those other second amendment defenders who have a thing for neo-Nazi paraphernalia.

And the leader of the gun rights movement today, one Wayne LaPierre, is a right-wing lunatic that has suggested that Obama is secretely conspiring to undermine the constitution.

So, by your standards, is it wrong to ask whether any pro-gunners that haven't yet resorted to violence, intimidation, and conspiracy theories are just working on an "incremental strategy"?

[gejohnston]

174. what?

Why if it isn't a broad smear against gun control advocates, and DUers specifically! Didn't have to search very far for that example, did I!

Not at all, most GCA's arguments tend to be one sentence absurd statements. That is not a smear, that is a simple observation. It is a smear about them personally, simply an observation on how well they thought out their "arguments". Outside of DU, everyone I have read was far below the level of discourse than what is found around here.

GCAs have feelings too, you know. Bigotry! Bigotry! Bigotry! Wah-wah-wah! gejohnston took my candy!!!! Mommy make him stop!!!

You proved my point.

Actually, you called me a bigot two posts ago. Have you forgotten already? It was right after you called my illustration "piss poor". Do you think it's OK to go around calling people bigots, simply because one of their illustrations struck you as so unsatisfactory that it reminded you of urine?

Your stereotypes were perfect examples of bigotry. Your illustration did suck.

leaders of the pro-gun movement have incited acts of vandalism in order to intimidate Democratic members of congress.

Evidence?

And they have published personal details of a journalist they weren't happy with, who was getting death threats from other gun militants.

They really didn't, but he published details about people in violation of the law. Goose and Gander, you would have done the same thing. As for the death threats, I'll belive it when the DA actually does something.

And then there was that noted gun rights fanatic who spent a lot of time hanging out at guns shows, and went on to blow up a certain building in Oklahoma. Not to mention those other second amendment defenders who have a thing for neo-Nazi paraphernalia.

What paraphernalia collectors are these? Nobody I know. I can play that game too, the gun control advocate that shot some kid for using his pool. Then there is the other that put an innocent person in a wheel chair. DC police found three other pistols and what the Washington Post described as a sub-machine gun. That is before the collection of felons that are members of MAIG.

So, by your standards, is it wrong to ask whether any pro-gunners that haven't yet resorted to violence, intimidation, and conspiracy theories are just working on an "incremental strategy"?

Not even remotely alike

[We_Have_A_Problem]

205. Pointing out your bigotry

is not an insult. Countering your emotion-based arguments with facts is simply intelligent discussion. If your feelings get hurt, too bad.

You seem to confuse having your head handed to you in a debate with being insulted. When discussing an issue, one is not obligated to agree with you and need not take your feelings into account when presenting an opposing view.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

202. Except that...

...you have no right to drag an unholstered (meaning unsecured) pistol into a bar or anywhere for that matter. Walking down the street holding one in your hand would be legitimately considered brandishing.

I recognize of course that pointing a firearm at someone IS an agressive act and have never indicated otherwise.

Manufacture whatever bullshit you want, but you're trying to claim I support something I've never said.

Yes - expecting someone to remove themselves from public simply because they are carrying a firearm - a legal act and a protected right - IS bigotry.

[one-eyed fat man]

67. Ohio law

The Ohio legislature intended to restrict the dissemination of gun owners names. It only made the information accessible to Law Enforcement and to newspapers. It was not publicly available to any curious busy body or loon looking for his ex-wife.

Again the similarity to driver's licensing information. If you are a cop, you often field questions from acquaintances asking you to "run a license plate." That's a good way to get fired.

Driver's info in some states was readily available as public record. That changed when after a number of highly publicized murders were attributed to stalkers using DMV records to determine home addresses of their victims.

The Drivers Privacy Protection Act (DPPA), Public Law No. 103-322 codified as amended by Public Law 106-69, was originally enacted in 1994 to protect the privacy of personal information assembled by State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMVs).

The DPPA was passed in reaction to the a series of abuses of drivers' personal information held by government. The 1989 death of actress Rebecca Schaeffer was a prominent example of such abuse. In that case, a private investigator, hired by an obsessed fan, was able to obtain Rebecca Schaeffer's address through her California motor vehicle record. The fan used her address information to stalk and to kill her. Other incidents cited by Congress included a ring of Iowa home robbers who targeted victims by writing down the license plates of expensive cars and obtaining home address information from the State's department of motor vehicles.
...
The DPPA survived a Constitutional challenge in Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000). In that case, the state of South Carolina challenged the DPPA arguing that the Act violated principles of federalism. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Act as a proper exercise of Congress' authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause. EPIC filed an amicus brief in that case that argued in part:

The Drivers Privacy Protection Act safeguards the personal information of licensed drivers from improper use or disclosure. It is a valid exercise of federal authority in that it seeks to protect a fundamental privacy interest. It restricts the activities of states only to the extent that it concerns the subsequent use or disclosure of the information in a manner unrelated to the original purpose for which the personal information was collected. The states should not impermissibly burden the right to travel by first compelling the collection of sensitive personal information and then subsequently disclosing the same information for unrelated purposes.

As for the news media, any legitimate purpose they might have would served by releasing the numbers of permit holders by city, county, zip code, age, sex, etc without naming names or listing addresses.

The newspaper editorialized against the concealed carry law. The law passed. The paper outed permit holders. Certainly to point was to punish or stigmatize, or why out them by name? You can see plenty of evidence right here by those who argue publishing the names of "slimy, evil, gun permit holders" is like listing the names and addresses of sex offenders....in the name of public safety.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=205581&mesg_id=205584

[DanTex]

68. LOL Your "plenty of evidence" is one post from two years ago, by someone who has since been TSed...

And you couldn't even actually quote that one post accurately, because the words "slimy" and "evil" don't show up in it at all. The only use of the word "slime" in that thread is by a pro-gunner, in the context of "anti-gun slime".

As I said before, it never fails to shock me how few words pro-gunners can manage to string together without making false statements...

[gejohnston]

72. again you read..................poorly

plenty of evidence" is one post from two years ago, by someone who has since been TSed...

and your point is?

And you couldn't even actually quote that one post accurately, because the words "slimy" and "evil" don't show up in it at all. The only use of the word "slime" in that thread is by a pro-gunner, in the context of "anti-gun slime".

The comments made were made in the comments section of the original article, One eyed said nothing about the poster.

As I said before, it never fails to shock me how few words pro-gunners can manage to string together without making false statements...

I'm shocked that few of the anti gunners around here even bother to string two sentences together. The one sentence is inane to vulgar. The few added ones are absurd to dishonest.

[DanTex]

74. My point is that pro-gunners, as usual, are making things up

There is no conspiracy to "punish" or "intimidate" or attack gun owners by gun control advocates. The idea that there is some kind of "bigotry" against gun owners is just gunner paranoia. And it's an insult to other groups who actually have suffered from real bigotry and intimidation. Do you know of any cases where some anti-gun extremists actually physically assaulted or murdered a gun owner just because they owned a gun? You know, the kind of thing that has happened and continues to happen regularly to minorities, LGBT, etc. I doubt it.

One-eyed used the phrase "slimy, evil, gun permit holder" to characterize how some pro-controller felt about CCWers, but, as far as I can tell, that phrase was completely fabricated. In fact, I just googled that phrase in quotes and got zero hits. You see, that's what happens when you try and make a case for something that does not exist. You have to make things up.

[gejohnston]

77. who said anything about conspiracy

but this does look like intimidation. His explanation of his unethical and possibly illegal behavior is not a valid reason. The neighbors concerned about safety is bullshit.
There is certainly intolerance towards the sub culture, you use similar language yourself.

big·ot·ry    Show IPA
noun, plural -ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Origin:
1665–75; bigot + -ry, formation parallel to French bigoterie

Synonyms
1. narrow-mindedness, bias, discrimination.

"slimy, evil, gun permit holder" I have never seen those specific words, but I have seen similar terms and certainly those ideas from the more dogmatic among you. Specific words are not the issue, it is the concept conveyed. You seem smarter than most of the antis here, you should know that.
Do I know of any cases where some anti-gun extremists actually physically assaulted a gun owner or gun rights activist? Given where I have lived (countries where neither exist to any large degree and rural US) not first hand. I have heard of MMM members grabbing children of SAS marchers and screaming "hope you get shot".

[DanTex]

80. Let's try this again.

The fact that you think the safety concerns are BS doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you. Am I getting too abstract here? In order to show that this was an act of intimidation, you need to prove that the reporter was not actually acting out of a concern for safety. Your opinion of the safety issue is irrelevant. As long as the reporter thought he was acting in the interest of public safety (even if you think he was mistaken), then it was not an act intimidation.

And, given that a lot of people think that CCWers walking around with loaded guns pose a safety issue, particularly parents, then it is not hard at all to believe that this person was acting out of a concern for safety. You just need to understand that not everyone agrees with you on every issue, and it should all become pretty clear.


On the other hand, there is absolutely no evidence that he was acting out of anti-gun bigotry. None. The pro-gunners immediately jump to that conclusion, but that's just paranoia. In fact, nobody here has even been able to come up with a single documented act of intimidation or "punishment" against gun owners by anyone, anywhere. One-eye tried, but all he could come up with was a fabricated quote about "slimy evil gun permit holder" that doesn't show up even once on google (though pretty soon this thread will be showing up there). And even if that were real, calling gun owners slimy hardly amounts to an intimidation campaign.

Seriously, gunners need to grow some thicker skin. I'm sure there are plenty of people who find gun ownership distasteful, but that doesn't amount to bigotry or intimidation. There are also people who find SUV drivers distasteful. And there are people who find football fans distasteful. And men who drive Porsches get a lot more "penis" jokes than gunners. THe difference is that the Porsche drivers don't constantly whine about it.

There are groups that are actually subject to real bigotry and intimidation (minorities, women, GLBT, etc.). For gun owners to pretend that a couple penis jokes puts them in the same category is ludicrous.

[gejohnston]

84. or this

If you are basing your evidence on a blog post, OK. Deeper research may or may not reveal such evidence. Still does not change the ethical or legal issues.
But the MM post was misleading. Buckeye did not publish anything, they only explained what any second rate private investigator or cop already knows on how to find information.

The fact that you think the safety concerns are BS doesn't mean everyone else agrees with you.

never said they did or had to.

Am I getting too abstract here? In order to show that this was an act of intimidation, you need to prove that the reporter was not actually acting out of a concern for safety.

No, you are rarely abstract enough. You can't prove a negative, it does not change ethical and legal issues.

And, given that a lot of people think that CCWers walking around with loaded guns pose a safety issue, particularly parents, then it is not hard at all to believe that this person was acting out of a concern for safety. You just need to understand that not everyone agrees with you on every issue, and it should all become pretty clear.

A lot of people don't agree with me on every issue, never said they had to. Sounds like you are projecting. How playmates' parents store their guns is a legitimate safety concern. Some guy the kids don't come in contact with, not so much.

Seriously, gunners need to grow some thicker skin. I'm sure there are plenty of people who find gun ownership distasteful, but that doesn't amount to bigotry or intimidation. There are also people who find SUV drivers distasteful. And there are people who find football fans distasteful. And men who drive Porsches get a lot more "penis" jokes than gunners. THe difference is that the Porsche drivers don't constantly whine about it.

Maybe, but environmentalists don't use penis jokes as an argument. Antis do.

[DanTex]

89. Interesting...

gejohnston, just now:

Maybe, but environmentalists don't use penis jokes as an argument. Antis do.

gejohnston, just yesterday:

Actually they use it as a slur, not as an argument. It is used as a slur often.

Maybe I should just let you argue with yourself...

[gejohnston]

122. very simple

A slur as a semi literate argument. As in, that is the best "argument" most antis can come up with.

[oneshooter]

102. But there is a DU member that advocates for chasing down both

open and concealed carriers and detaining them till their papers and permits can be checked.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[We_Have_A_Problem]

206. Your statement that there is no...

...conspiracy to punish or intimidate or attack gun owners by gun control advocates is more than a little questionable. Perhaps using some definitions of the words, it is accurate. In terms of reality, there is most assuredly a concerted effort to marginalize gun owners. In fact, there is one group (doctors against guns or some silly assed thing like that) which specifically stated that guns need to be treated socially like cigarettes in an attempt to shame owners into giving them up.

Yes, I do know of many cases where anti-gun extremists have assaulted, and in some cases, arrested gun owners just because they owned a gun. Some of them were even police officers. Incidentally, that doesnt happen all that regularly to minorities or homosexuals. One or two cases in a few years is hardly regular.

[one-eyed fat man]

76. What I like is how

you sidestep your support of a double standard. Kinda like this guy and his whining, "That's different."

Both Sides of His Mouth

Tracy Warner, editorial page editor of The Journal Gazette (Fort Wayne, Ind.), was revealed by the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel in 2004 to be among those who had received a Right-to-Carry permit.

Just as do I, when Warner gets upset and angry, he resorts to the keyboard. He quickly dashed off two articles—one an anti-gun diatribe, the other containing the reason he got a carry permit and handgun. With a reputation of being anti-gun, he needed to explain in a column in his own newspaper the reason he obtained a carry license.

He stated: “Nearly four years ago, after a column I wrote, I received death threats that included disturbing references to my family and descriptions of my home and property … I became a gun permit holder with reluctance …”

However, in the other article, on a different page in the same edition, he noted and dismissed the legitimate research that shows the net benefit to society of civilian firearm possession. Warner concluded: “Common sense suggests that the more guns on the street, the more wrongful injuries and death.”

Yet, Warner wants his gun. He asks the question, and answers it as well: “Will Buckeyes feel safer? Those with guns might.”

After admitting that he believes his own gun might tend to increase violence in general, and that firearm possession might not afford safety, he did not relinquish his gun. Warner still wanted the best method he could think of to protect himself and his family.

He ended his explanation: “Sometimes you do what you have to do.”

Contrast this with the actions of the newspaper.

In Fort Wayne, Ind., The News-Sentinel conducted a poll prior to making its decision about outing Right-to-Carry licensees. One of the paper’s concerns was that parents should be aware of the storage habits of firearm owners in the homes where their children visit, as suggested by the anti-gun American Academy of Pediatrics.

When the newspaper surveyed its readers, the paper was informed of a situation in which one licensee was living a reclusive, secretive life because of fear of a violent ex-spouse. If the paper published the CHL list, the woman’s life would be endangered. The newspaper’s final decision was in favor of the immediate safety of that one woman, and thus against publishing the list.

You make your position abundantly clear. If a woman like that doesn't want her name and address in the paper she shouldn't have a gun.

[DanTex]

78. What I like is how you link to DaveKopel.org...

As I've mentioned, I understand that there are competing interests here. On the one hand, I can see why parents, for example, would want to know about people in the neighborhood who are going to be walking around with loaded guns. On the other hand, there are privacy concerns of CCWers. Dave Kopel, of course, is a pro-gunner extremist, so it's no surprise that he gives zero weight to the concerns of parents.

But no matter how you feel about that, there is absolutely no justification for the campaign of organized intimidation that these gun militants mounted against that reporter. The reporter was trying to do what he thought was the right, letting concerned people know about CCWers in their neighborhoods. There is no evidence at all that he was motivated by any kind of hatred or bigotry against gun owners. That part you just made up.

And you didn't even do a good job of making it up. You chose a post from DUer that got tombstoned years ago as "evidence" of some kind of widespread hatred of gun owners. And even that wasn't enough so you had to fabricate that thing about "slimy evil gun owners". And, as usual, the reason you resorted to blatant fabrication is because you can't make your argument if you stick to facts.

[gejohnston]

79. I don't know about pro gun extremist

certainly not like Larry Pratt from what I read. You and Kopel may agree on more than you think. Oh yeah, any pro gun person no matter how moderate is an extremist and any anti no matter how extreme is reasonable.

On the one hand, I can see why parents, for example, would want to know about people in the neighborhood who are going to be walking around with loaded guns. On the other hand,

there is no evidence of safety concerns, therefore the parent's paranoia does have less weight than the real danger faced by the one CCW person in the article.

But no matter how you feel about that, there is absolutely no justification for the campaign of organized intimidation that these gun militants mounted against that reporter.

we agree on that, but I don't think it was organized. Gun militant? New buzz word or plagiarized?

The reporter was trying to do what he thought was the right, letting concerned people know about CCWers in their neighborhoods. There is no evidence at all that he was motivated by any kind of hatred or bigotry against gun owners.

Bullshit, they have no right to know about non dangers to them. There is no evidence that anyone asked him to publish it, other than his own claims.

And you didn't even do a good job of making it up. You chose a post from DUer that got tombstoned years ago as "evidence" of some kind of widespread hatred of gun owners. And even that wasn't enough so you had to fabricate that thing about "slimy evil gun owners". And, as usual, the reason you resorted to blatant fabrication is because you can't make your argument if you stick to facts.

That has been addressed. Can you make an argument without being patronizing, dishonest, or hypocritical?

[one-eyed fat man]

92. You sir

are obviously dripping with the soul of human kindness. You have made it plain what you think.

[one-eyed fat man]

99. From the Cleveland Plain Dealer

http://www.cleveland.com/schultz/index.ssf/2004/01/we_will_reveal_those_who_conce.html

This little showdown came about because one of the new law's provisions prohibits the general public - that would be you - from finding out who is purchasing a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Only journalists are allowed that information. So, that is exactly what we intend to do. We will find out who bought the permits to carry concealed weapons and then let you know, too.

It ought to be obvious, even to you, that by the sarcastic tenor of the article the author meant to OUT gun owners, and and to satisfy a malicious desire to engage in what she felt is moral superiority over those "cowboys" and "Dirty Harry wannabees."

Another poster has pegged you perfectly:

"To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior “righteous indignation” — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." Aldous Huxley

[DanTex]

101. LOL. Did you actually read that article?

As a parent, I want to know who's armed in my neighborhood. This is entirely consistent with my family policy of long standing. Whenever my kids were invited to a new family's house, I asked the parent whether they had firearms in the house and, if so, how and where they stored them. Did they have a child safety lock, which is not required in Ohio? Was the gun loaded?

What was that I was saying before? Oh yeah! It was something about about parents wanting to know about who is carrying guns around their neighborhood. LOL.

I get that the pro-gunner blinders prevent you from empathizing with parents trying to protect their families. But if you're going to try deny that the rationale for this has to do with things like concerned parents rather than some kind of imaginary hateful bigotry, you should probably, umm, I dunno, maybe find someone besides a concerned parent to make your case...

Doncha think that would be better?

PS. When you're done with your personal attacks on me, do you want to explain to the group why you decided to fabricate that quote about "slimy evil gun owners"?

[one-eyed fat man]

104. You want to beat that drum.

If she wants to ask if you have guns in you house that's her right. That is fine as her policy.

Are you saying her concerns trump the concerns of someone who is hiding from a stalker or an abusive spouse?

Did you miss the her tone of "Fuck you" to the legislature over restricting the information from general disclosure? She didn't do it "for the children," she did it for spite and she makes it plain.

Or will you say since she didn't exactly say, "Fuck you" she was misquoted?

"Slimy evil gun owners" is certainly in the tone of your posts. And comparing the posting of the names of gun owners as a public service akin to posting the names of sex offenders is not new either. The words may not be there, but you sure have been humming the tune!

[DanTex]

106. The tone of my posts, huh?

The only "slimy evil gun owners" I have in mind are the lunatics at Buckeye Firearms, who published personal information about a reporter and his 12 year old daughter in a clear intimidation campaign, along with the people sending the death threats. It's fascinating to me that you are trying to stick up for these people, but it's not at all surprising that in order to do so you were forced to resort to fabricating a quote and then ignoring, even mocking, a mother's concern for the safety of her children.

[gejohnston]

109. reality check

The only "slimy evil gun owners" I have in mind are the lunatics at Buckeye Firearms, who published personal information about a reporter and his 12 year old daughter in a clear intimidation campaign, along with the people sending the death threats.

Buckeye in fact did not publish anything about the daughter. Here is the link to the actual page. You have the word of what, an ethical challenged "journalist?" Given his unethical and possibly illegal act, do I really think he received death threats? Not really.

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html

It's fascinating to me that you are trying to stick up for these people, but it's not at all surprising that in order to do so you were forced to resort to fabricating a quote and then ignoring, even mocking, a mother's concern for the safety of her children.

It's fascinating to me that you don't give a rats ass about privacy or the fact that law enforcement is opposed to publishing such lists. In Oregon, it was law enforcement that lobbied for keeping lists out of public knowledge. Sorry, that trumps some fictional mother.

[DanTex]

110. Actually, I do care about privacy.

I wouldn't have published the list. But what Buckeye Firearms did was an organized campaign of intimidation against an individual who was receiving death threats. There is no justification for that.

[gejohnston]

113. there is no evidence

that BFA was part of any organized campaign. Did they inspire a few nut cases? (assuming they are real, the DA did not do anything.) Just as shown, the BS about publishing information about his daughter was a lie. There is no justification for the "journalist" to violate ethical standards and the spirit, if not the letter, of Ohio law.

[DanTex]

114. So now you also are making excuses and justifications for what BFA did...

[gejohnston]

123. No I am pointing out

that MM and the OP was inaccurate. BFA posted no information about the kid. I seriously doubt the claimed death threats. He was caught by the "silver rule" (do unto others as others have done unto you) while doing something ethically and legally questionable. If you want to call that making excuses, fine. What should have BFA done? If I were a CCW holder and were harmed or ripped off, I would be suing the shit out of someone.

[iverglas]

129. okay

So let's be straight here.

Publishing the fact of the existence of the kid is publishing information about the kid.

Publishing information about the kid's relationship to the father (thereby obviously the kid's surname except in unusual cases) is publishing information about the kid.

People who previously didn't know of the adult's existence, let alone his kid's, now know that the kid exists and know the kid's surname, age and sex.

And that is "information about the kid". Let's not be disingenuous.

[gejohnston]

154. How would BFA know if he had a kid or not?

Anyone can say "this is how you can find out about their ten year old kid." In other words, is the kid real? If it said something like 16 year old son, I would be less skeptical. Our society tends to react differently if a young girl is a target vs a boy. BFA could very well have made that up for the emotional impact. The reporter ran with it. Often what is not said is just as important as what is said. Notice it did not say anything about SOs, other kids etc.

[DanTex]

165. Are you ever right about anything?

Here's part of what BFA posted.

More seriously, for the hardcore bad guy, these public records (per the Dissolution settlement) show that Matt has a pre-teen child who resides with his ex-wife. Reviewing the child support worksheet and the financial affidavits, we see that no tuition or school payments are listed, so it is a relatively high percentage bet that the child is a public school student. We see from the worksheet that mom has custody, so the child almost certainly is the residential parent for school purposes. From further public records, we see the marriage license from Mr. Westerhold’s ex-wife a year after the dissolution, and we already knew her date of birth, social security number and recent employer from the Dissolution. With very little effort we find ex-wife’s residence and now are relatively sure of which public school his pre-teen child goes to simply by checking the auditor’s maps for this residence for school districts. A check of the school website will show us the bus schedule for that particular school and that street or address, so we will almost certainly, with little effort, know which bus the child rides and what time it picks up/drops off. Further, most public libraries keep copies of the local school yearbooks in the reference section. Even if that is not the case, it is going to be fairly easy to get the yearbook and probably get a picture of the child for identification purposes.

Now please explain to the group how you can possible say this is "no information about the kid".

BFA are a bunch of gun militants engaging in a vicious campaign of personal intimidation against a journalist. Do you really want to be defending these people?

[gejohnston]

175. more often than you

BFA still did not do anything that a half bright PI wouldn't already know. Skip trace 101. Skip trace 201 is how to do it easier and shows some of the flaws in their campaign.
Says preteen child, says nothing about gender. Pre-teen means elementary school, since when did elementary schools have yearbooks? No place I have been. Do libraries really have copies of yearbooks? Never checked it out. I have never seen any.
If it were me, I would start with a city directory. It would be a hell of a lot easier than what these guys are talking about. There are even easier ways, but never mind.

"BFA are a bunch of gun militants engaging in a vicious campaign of personal intimidation against a journalist"
nonsense. There is no evidence of any such campaign. Simple "let's see how you like it." It is also pointing out how public information about anyone could be misused. The difference is that the journalist did not use public information. He used information not intended to be released to the general public. That is all the evidence shows. The journalist did something unethical and legally questionable for his own self serving purpose and got called on it. Now he cries wolf and whines to cover his ass, I have little sympathy for him.

"Do you really want to be defending these people?"

Defending their method in this case? No, there are better was to doing it. Defending them pointing out how information can be misused? Yes. How do you feel about this journalist's unethical and maybe illegal act? If any harm comes to anyone, the party responsible should be held accountable. If I were one of these CCW holders hiding from a stalker, and the stalker uses the information to find me, I would sue the crap out of the "journalist".

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

140. I could just swear I pointed out already

"To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior “righteous indignation” — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." Aldous Huxley

That this is a misquotation (by omission of context) and gross misuse of the words of a committed, crusading pacifist, in the service of the gun militant agenda.

I'll point it out everywhere I see it.

To my own mind, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behaviour 'exercising my rights' is the height of vulgar demagoguery. To my own mind.

[SteveM]

45. Sorry, you failed again. The issue here is punishment:

Ostracizing, smear, setting neighbor-against-neighbor -- all under the phony guise of "public information." BTW, you can re-take Psy 101 again, but I doubt you'll ever get beyond the first sub-heading "paranoia."

"To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior “righteous indignation” — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." Aldous Huxley

[iverglas]

121. you sure do love that misquote, don't you?

Google tells me you've been smearing it all over the site.

What it really was (if it was at all, something we're still awaiting proof of -- I see you've stopped attributing it to the misspelled "Chrome Yellow" ...):

The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people that they will have a chance of maltreating someone. Men must be bribed to build up and do good by the offer of an opportunity to hurt and pull down. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior "righteous indignation" -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.

Was somebody in this tale being bribed to do good? You do seem to be tacitly acknowledging that the causes you attack are good causes.

And your posts are some of the best examples of "righteous indigation" I know ...

[SteveM]

111. You live in a pristine bubble, ready for a needle...

"Ohio gun-ban extremist Toby Hoover is on record encouraging employers to consider whether or not a potential new-hire is a CHL-holder before hiring. This type of discrimination is unacceptable.

'The Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence agrees with the governor. The public has the right to know who has a permit so we can make appropriate choices for our families. We have the right to not hire, socialize, or share public space with those who carry hidden guns.' (November 21, 2003)"

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/2488
____________
Now, of course you can call into question the source. But why not find out for yourself if the comment is "truthful." Then, decide if Toby's views constitute "punishment;" whichever order you want.

Don't get tangle-footed in your "straw."

[pipoman]

59. Exactly sauces and geese..

He certainly showed no regard for the safety of people who, certainly some of whom, were legally arming themselves to protect themselves and their families from known threats. Publishing the name and address of a person whose life or family have been targeted. Let's say a reproductive rights health care provider applies for a concealed permit and some whack job fundie decides she needs some learnin'? or any number of other scenarios which may lead one to arming themselves? How many people's children did he put in danger of a maniacal estranged spouse set on abduction? None? 10? Who knows? You can bet those people are going to take this nutjob's axe grinding personally.

Another beautiful example of how the mind of a prohibitionist works...complete disregard for the safety of others in favor of ideological fiction

[Euromutt]

63. Minor detail: the BFA never published where Westerhold's daughter goes to school

What the Buckeye Firearms Association published was how you could find out--via publicly accessible information--where Westerhold's daughter goes to school, etc. E.g. they didn't publish a photo of Westerhold's daughter; they said you should be able to find it in her school yearbook at the local library.

And if the BFA provided a bit more information on Westerhold--or where to find that information--than Westerhold himself published about individual CCW permit holders, bear in mind that Westerhold published information about multiple CCW permit holders. Thus, arguably, the BFA employed depth of information in retaliation for Westerhold employing width.

Sometimes I wonder if there's anything that a crazy right-wing gun group might do that wouldn't be met with approval or at least justification and rationalization by pro-gunners here.

Uh-huh. As opposed to the flood of condemnation seen on this thread, or the article linked to in the OP, regarding Westerhold's blatant violation of the privacy of multiple CCW permit holders, you mean? Mote, beam, eye: I'm sure you get the reference.

[SteveM]

33. Your answers:

(1) The newspaper doesn't publish the names, addresses, etc. of people who are "keyed" to an auto license plate. They state of Texas stopped releasing that info years ago. Why? Because any spittle-flying punk/thug who was stalking his girlfriend/wife could find out where she was by phoning up DPS and asking who, where, what about the victim, based on the "public information" of her license plate.

(2) Don't know about the "widsom" of the average dumb-ass thug, but a thug will take note of information which might enhance success; i.e., see (1) above.

I'm glad for the opportunity to once again display the wholly mean-spirited actions of the "newspaper" employee. I ask you, with all respect: What constructive aim did this defender of "public information" have in mind with the publication of the data in question?

BTW, this is old material.

[Euromutt]

162. Answer to your second question

First, the term you're looking for is "burglar"; a "robber" is someone who deprives another of their property through threat or use of force, whereas a "burglar" is someone who gains illegal entry to premises belonging to another. Sorry for the apparent pedantry, but it matters for legal purposes.

Yes, a residential burglar is indeed more likely to break into a residence when the occupants aren't home. That is, in the United States: "hot" burglaries (i.e. when the occupants are at home) form about 15% of American burglaries, whereas they form 40-45% of burglaries in countries like Canada, the UK and the Netherlands, and it's hard to explain that difference except for the fact that American burglars are scared of being shot (a hypothesis supported by evidence), not just because there are more households with gun in the U.S. but also because, unlike in Canada, the UK or the Netherlands, almost every U.S. jurisdiction allows one to use a legally owned firearm in self-defense. One survey of persons convicted of burglary, IIRC, found that the median amount of time American burglars spend on burglarizing a residence is 2 hours, 75% of which is spent "casing" the premises to make sure nobody's home.

That said, the three most desired items burglars are after are cash, jewelry (including precious metals), and firearms, particularly handguns. As other posters have alluded, when a burglar knows you have a concealed carry permit, he can reasonably conclude you own at least one firearm, including at least one handgun. And given that there are three times as many (legally) privately owned firearms in the U.S. as there are households, we can conclude that households that do possess a firearm will likely possess more than one, and even if the CCW holder in that household takes one handgun with him (or her) when leaving the house, there will likely be a few guns left behind. Thus, the residence of a known CCW holder gains priority over any household not known to contain a CCW permit holder.

[iverglas]

203. oh, if only you knew what you were talking about

or didn't say things you know or oughta know aren't true.

unlike in Canada, the UK or the Netherlands, almost every U.S. jurisdiction allows one to use a legally owned firearm in self-defense

I can't speak for the Netherlands, but in neither Canada nor the UK is there any law prohibiting the use of a firearm in self-defence.

Now, how do you explain the enormously higher rate of armed robbery (non-dwelling) in the US vs Canada?

One thing that would-be robbers in Canada do know is that their target is not going to be in possession of a firearm. Not even the baddest of the bad guys just wander the streets with their pieces.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/rs/rep-rap/1998/wd98_4-dt98_4/p57.html

In Canada, most assaults and threats do not involve a weapon. According to the 1996 ICVS, 12.7 percent of Canadian respondents reported having been assaulted or threatened during the previous five years. In all, 0.4 percent of Canadians reported being assaulted or threatened with a firearm (Block, 1998). Block, who compared the survey findings for nine western industrialized countries, reported that less than one percent of respondents, in all countries except the United States, reported being assaulted or threatened with a firearm during the previous five years. In the United States, both armed threats and assaults with a firearm were more frequent than in other countries. The risk of being threatened or assaulted with a firearm was 5.9 times higher in the United States than in Canada (Block, 1998: 18; Mayhew and van Dijk, 1997).

... Block (1998) found that the frequency of robbery in the past five years varied from 2.5 to four percent in seven countries, with Canada situated at 3.4 percent. The differences, according to Block, are probably not statistically meaningful. Indeed, excluding the United States, there was no meaningful difference in the reported rates of armed confrontation during a robbery. In contrast, in the United States, respondents were about twice as likely as elsewhere to have been confronted with a weapon during a robbery in the past five years. In the United States, the weapon was twice as likely as in Canada to be a firearm (Idem: 15-17; Zawitz, 1995).

... In Canada, most assaults and threats do not involve a weapon. The risk of being threatened or assaulted with a firearm is nearly six times greater in the United States than in Canada.
There were 31,242 robberies reported in Canada in 1996. Of these, 21.3 percent involved a firearm. In the past two decades, the number of robberies has increased, but the percentage of those involving a firearm has decreased.

Those figures are old now. The use of firearms in robberies in Canada has continued to decline:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010001/article/11115-eng.htm

There has been a particularly notable decline in robberies committed with a firearm, especially when the longer-term trend is examined. Between 1977 (when this information first became available) and 2002, the rate of firearm-related robbery steadily dropped and has remained relatively stable since. Nevertheless, in 2008, a firearm was used to commit 14% of robberies. Robberies in commercial or institutional locations as well as those in residences involved firearms more often than those that occurred on the street.

So ... let's not cherrypick our comparisons.

In fact, if we're going to assert comparisons, let's show our work, hm?

Oh, and here's a little grist for that "who knows why?" mill. I've raised it before, but I guess it escaped your attention:

Information on robberies that have been solved by police shows that most robberies are committed by strangers, regardless of the particular location of the incident. However, residential robberies (i.e. “home invasions”) tend to involve strangers less often than those that occur in commercial locations or on the street. In 2008, 63% of all home invasions were committed by strangers compared to about 90% of other robberies. A substantial portion of residential robberies were committed by acquaintances of the victim (28%), some of which may have involved the settling of accounts stemming from illegal activity.

Maybe your bad guys just don't report it to police when their home gets invaded.

[gratuitous]

4. Certainly seems something that should be "well-regulated"

Oh wait, that's just superfluous verbiage and doesn't mean anything, like so many other inconvenient constitutional phrases such as "due process" and "speedy and public trial."

[hack89]

16. Check your definition

it means something different then what you think. It has nothing to do with rules or regulations.

[gratuitous]

21. Right

I don't know why "regulated" would imply "regulations" at all. Just makes no sense whatsoever. Excess verbiage. Meaningless fluff. Something else entirely.

Edited to add: Aw shit, posting in the gungeon again. Fuck me running.

[gejohnston]

23. that time and context

regulated meant functioning or equipped.

[DonP]

24. In commmon 18th centruy usage it meant well trained and properly equipped.

Actually that usage was common into the 19th century as well.

It did not mean well controlled by laws or rules at that time.

Or do you just assume that the meaning of words never evolve?

Yeah, better run before you actually learn something.

[hack89]

32. Yours is a modern definition

when the Constitution was written it meant to be in good working order - in this case a well equipped, well trained militia.

[SteveM]

38. In other words, you do not wish to learn what "well-regulated" means? nt

[SteveM]

37. Could you explain this within constitutional context?

You should be aware that most scholars have said that "well-regulated" means that a militia member should be armed with a weapon suitable for militia service, and have the knowledge and experience to use it.

How do you feel about the purchase of firearms by those on "terrorist watch lists?"

Not sure of the relevance of "speedy and public trial" to this discussion, except that the newspaper employee did have "due process" (see up-thread).

[freshwest]

7. Ah, more crosshairs. And on an eleven year old. Over already public info. No charges, as usual...

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Oh it was public info?

Do tell. It sure as hell isn't in my state.


I deplore the tactics of some of the people who responded to him publishing what he did, but I didn't see anything the opposition posted (aside from the death threats, if any) that was improperly obtained.

[freshwest]

51. Do tell? And did I claim it had anything to do with you? See below, I pasted it for you.

Not the first time this kind of data has been published.

From the link stated and also written in the OP:

"After three years of such requests, Westerhold began publishing the names and birth dates of permit holders on the paper's website..."

Note this line:

"...(permit holder data was publicly available at the time)."

What is different is that the gun club decided to go freeperville on the man and his child. And no charges will be filed for another example of stochastic terrorism. It's the intent here, not the method.

I'm in favor of gun possession and privacy, but realize that a safe community of people who respect and protect each other's lives is the best defense for any person, with or without guns. This group had no respect for the life and privacy of a child.

In the past when the public hasseled various sources to see who is carrying, like wanting to know many other things about their neighbors, it was taken to court to delete the public database.

Instead, in this case, the RW gets away with it.

Politicians, innocent bystanders, journalists, radio hosts and others who speak against have been being murdered for years. These were Right Wingers that did this.

As far as your not reading the OP and possibly taking offense at my comment, you don't need to attack me or defend yourself. I have an opinion about this and I stated it, and it has nothing to do with you or your state, which I don't know nor care to know.

Save the snark. I'm unimpressed. Good bye.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. "permit holder data was publicly available at the time"

Perhaps you didn't read the follow-up. Available to police, and members of the media ONLY, is not 'publicly available'. If I can't access it without a press pass, it is priviledged information.

[gejohnston]

22. no charges, which begs the question

if it was real. The info was not public, as I understand it even though the media could have access to it, it was not to be made public.

[SteveM]

39. I believe the newspaper employee's complaints were dealt with...

as per the posting up-thread.

I ask you: What was the purpose of the newspaper employee's posting of this data? What was the public good served? How was safety enhanced?

Please note: Many states have barred people from obtaining the names, addresses and other information of people by simply phoning the state with a license plate number of someone. Why? Too many thugs/stalkers, etc. who wanted to get at folks -- with the aid of your "public info."

Wanna go back to that? You can answer at your leisure.

[freshwest]

52. Get back with what? With the OP? With an eleven year old? Goodbye.

[SteveM]

105. You are intentionally avoiding the issue...

You want to go back to what was the practice before in many states? Getting the name, address and other information about someone by phoning state agencies and merely giving out the license plate? And that had deadly consequences for some folks being stalked; you can look it up, I'm not doing it for you.

You can go with what the OP seems to want: Publicizing the -- you guessed it -- names, addresses, and other info about concealed-carry people, in this case published by a newspaper which has not shown any public service/public safety good to come from such a practice. I submit such an action carries with it equivalent dangers as those for victims of stalkers.

A primer:

http://dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d03/vc4467.htm

[Remmah2]

50. And those CCW's that were posted, they had no children? nt

nt

[Remmah2]

75. First she was 12 now she's 11.

Oh how the story slowly twists and turns.

[Euromutt]

159. By the end of the week she'll be in kindergarten

One of my pet peeves is people who play the "numbers game" in discussions; they ramp up the appeal to emotion by overstating the number of victims, or by understating the age of the (in this case, potential) victims, and when you point out their numbers are wrong their response is something along the lines of "how can you complain about mere details of numbers when we're talking about human lives?" The answer is that such details evidently matter to the person who originally made the claim; if the numbers are "mere details," why cite them in the first place, if not to evoke a heightened emotional response from the reader?

[Warren DeMontague]

9. more accurately, now, it's the "unfortunately named Sandusky register" nt

[chrisa]

10. I see "Doxing" someone as inciting violence

Especially "Doxing" somebody's daughter. wtf

[pipoman]

60. So then we agree?

His "doxing" of thousands of people and their children was inciting violence?

[chrisa]

81. Not necessarily

The original publishing of CCW holders, as stupid as it was, was for informative purposes (people wanted to know if their neighbors had a CCW license). Then, the pro-gun group turns around and publishes personal details on this author, as well as about his daughter - the worst being the school she went to and what bus she took.

This is intimidation - it's pure and simple. It's basically saying, "His daughter goes to this school and takes this bus... Wouldn't be a shame if this information got into the wrong hands?" This is not only childish and cowardly (going after someone's kids? really?), but is also downright dangerous.

Can you at least agree that what this pro-gun group did was wrong?

[pipoman]

124. Maybe

if I place myself in the position of having, say, testified against a gang member who subsequently threatened my family, Now this asshat decides to make my location known through a channel not easily accessible by the gang member otherwise. I may feel that the asshat was given a lesson in the same fear I felt which lead me to the CCW in the first place.

[gejohnston]

125. correction

they did not publish anything about the kid. They did however give a lesson in skip tracing 101 that could be applied to a minor, but nothing a semi competent cop or PI wouldn't already know.

[Blue_Tires]

11. Yeah, the gun nuts are major dicks in this, but

I still don't see the justification in publishing applicants' names...Even if he got that many requests from concerned neighbors (which I'm not sure I believe), after awhile it's his duty as an editor to tell concerned citizens where they find the info themselves and get off their collective asses

[DonP]

14. Keep in mind that some of those names are wives hiding from abusive exes too

That's one of the reasons that most states that have passed a concealed carry law have now also passed "privacy legislation" to protect the names and addresses of those with permits.

Many of the newspapers were against the law passing and editorialized against it with typical "Blood running in the streets" editorials. After they lost, several decided to "out" permit holders and didn't think about the unforseen consequences of a woman with a permit hiding from her ex and then having her name and address published in the local paper.

A couple years ago in Ohio, when they first passed the concealed carry law, one paper printed the names and home addresses of permit holders in their county. The next week gun owners published the names and home addresses of the complete editorial board online. The newspaper people went ape shit about it and complained to a judge that their safety and the safety of their families was jeapordized by that information. Apparently they don't have an ironic sense of humor.

As it turns out, people with permits are actually more law abiding than the average citizen, since they were willing to jump though the background checks, finger printing and whatever training requirements their state requires.

[virginia mountainman]

19. Very REAL consequences of publishing CCW information...

The Roanoke Times played this game, and the backlash against the paper was TREMENDOUS...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kUIPRFgRE8

I personally called the publisher, several advertisers, and canceled my subscription.

It only took a matter of a day or two for the Roanoke Times to pull the database.

[iverglas]

26. and now it's in the dungeon

watch the "rec" count go down.

The Buckeye guys and gals are friends of ours down here. We chat about them from time to time. Why, here's me chatting away about them just last spring ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=409654&mesg_id=410995

Read up and down thread a little; it can be quite amusing. I'll just quote one random comment of mine there:

My job is just to point out that YET ANOTHER CRAPPY RIGHT-WING GUN MILITANT OUTFIT has been quoted at this site as if it were something other than a crappy right-wing gun militant outfit, and for some reason everybody should pay attention to its words.

Oh, and here's what I noticed them saying about Democrats:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7770
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7595

Here's the Buckeye guys telling us how to kill people ... I'm sorry, I mean stop people ... efficiently:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=442782

Yes! Right here at DU! Who'd 'a thunk it?!

Here's an oldie, back 2007 way:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=151185&mesg_id=151300

Ah, memory lane.

[gejohnston]

27. review of the rules

Do not post support for non-viable or third-party spoiler candidates in any general election.
Winning elections is important -- therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.

sycophancy is not a liberal or Democratic value.

[iverglas]

28. well I have no idea what that was about

but can I play? We could make it like euchre. I believe I'm holding both bowers here:

This is a website for Democrats and other progressives.

Fish, barrel.

Buckeye, that's a fish, isn't it? Boom.

[gejohnston]

29. do you have any evidence that

Buckeye does not have any Democratic members? Or are you still sticking to the meme of "it is all part of a right wing grand strategy"? Which it may be, but not in the way that you think. Ultimately, the plutocrats don't give a shit about guns, abortion, other than using them as wedge issues to distract everyone from the man behind the curtain.
Sounds like you are using a pea shooter (which does not produce a big enough shock wave to do anything) on these fish.

[spin]

30. Do you feel that a person who believes in "shall issue" concealed carry ...

can hold Democratic and progressive views?

Do you believe that a person who believes civilians should be allowed to purchase and own "assault weapons" can be a true Democrat or a progressive?

[gejohnston]

35. naww she thinks it is a

part of a right wing strategy to install more right wing governments (how it fits in, I have no idea.)

[SteveM]

43. The Buckeye Firearms Association was wrong. So was the punk-ass Westerhold....

Who, like most prohibitionists, are clothed in the ornate righteousness of their cause, and have their eyes cast heavenward, all the while trailing a most peculiar stink.

What was Westerhold's purpose? Serving the public good? How? Serving public safety? How? And were these questions asked of Westerhold? Why not?

I contend that we both know why Westerhold did this: He wanted to smear, chastise, and bring moral opprobrium onto thousands of citizens for the mere face they had a concealed-carry permit.

"To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior “righteous indignation” — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." Aldous Huxley

Respectfully, what was your purpose for posting this?

[Paladin]

55. If You're Going To Refer To Someone As A "Punk-Ass".......

....don't whine about the use of the term "gun nut" when applied to yourself and other DU Gun Enthusiasts.....

[gejohnston]

56. punk assed because

he used the "devil made me do it" BS to justify unethical if not illegal behavior. The rest is just smearing other Democrats.

[SteveM]

117. Missed again, Paladin...

The term "gun nut" is used specifically to denigrate those who support 2A; "punk-ass" references anyone who commits any responsible act. Understand the difference.

Westerhold published the names of those who have concealed-carry permits without ANY justification, other than some crap idea that it was "public information." He ignored the potential consequences of his irresponsible action, as outlined copiously in this thread. That makes him a "punk-ass," along with G.W. Bush when he invaded Iraq, Cheney when he established his national security state, and a rogue's gallery of others, big and small.

Please note that I refer to gun-controller/prohibitionists in these threads as just that. Westerhold, in his position as an employee of MSM, went far beyond mere enunciation of his position, and took action that is detrimental to the public good, and without any sound reasoning as to why.

[Union Scribe]

57. That about sums it up.

Great post.

[Remmah2]

48. Apparently what's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

The shoe is certainly on the other foot.

Just because you can does not mean you should.

And last but not least; the Golden Rule.

[Union Scribe]

58. Better headline: Gander Not Fond of Goose Sauce

[Euromutt]

61. Let's not conflate a) publishing personal information and b) making death threats

It wasn't the Buckeye Firearms Association that sent Westerhold the death threats (at least, as an organization, though I imagine they'd be smart enough to caution members from making threats themselves), and the BFA is no more responsible for any threats that were made against Westerhold than Westerhold would have been for any threats made against CCW permit holders by third parties using information Westerhold published. Note, moreover, that the BFA didn't publish any information about Westerhold's daughter directly, but provided information on how a person could find that information himself.

So the claim in the headline is, strictly speaking, false: the Buckeye Firearms Association did not "target" Westerhold or his daughter: they published information that someone else could use to threaten the Westerholds. Just like Westerhold published information that someone could use to ostracize or threaten CCW permit holders. Oh gosh, the information about Westerhold got misused; what a shocker. I notice Schmitt didn't bother to delve into whether any CCW permit holders suffered negative effects from Westerhold publishing their information.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

69. Publish public information, expect to have public information published about you

There is a cliche about never get in a war of words by someone who buys ink by the barrel...but here the Internet was a great equalizer.

[chrisa]

82. But he was getting death threats, and then they went and published

information about where to find his daughter? This is disgusting. The posting of CCW holders was dumb, but this would be very resourceful information for someone who either wanted to kidnap or hurt his daughter, or hurt him.

It's cowardly and vile.

[gejohnston]

83. they did?

That is not what I read. They published nothing. They explained how to do it, nothing more than basic private eye 101.

Quite frankly, I don't take Media Matters very seriously. Not because they are progressive and I am some closet right winger etc. Media Matters was formed by David Brock. During the Clinton administration, Mr. Brock worked for The American Spectator, a right wing rag. While working for them, Mr. Brock wrote very despicable and vile things about the Clinton family. He also wrote equally vile and misogynistic things about Anita Hill (ever hear of the phrase "a little nutty and a little slutty"? He coined it describing Anita Hill.) And the Joyce Foundation gave them $400K to write gun control articles.
Did Brock change sides because he saw the error of his ways and truly repentant? Only he can answer that. It did coincide with him coming out, leading to his paymasters kicking him to the curb.
This is the Buckeye post:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3823.html

[Remmah2]

93. Do the children of parents w/CCW's not deserve equal protection under the law?

nt

[iverglas]

130. did the newspaper publish any information whatsoever

about the families of permit holders?

Publishing the identity (existence, previously unknown to readers, and obvious surname), age and sex of a child in this context is revolting, plain and simple.

[Remmah2]

201. The point is.

Neither broke the law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

98. Actually both were wrong

Note also that the chronology of some of the later events is unclear.

The reality is that when he published that information, he could have also published the previously unknown home address of someone who got a CCW due to a violent spouse who had already received death threats. Arguably worse that what was happening to him.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and both were clearly wrong here.

[Atypical Liberal]

70. Funny how publishing personal information sucks going the other way, eh?

So, this guy publishes personal information about gun owners, but gets upset when people publish personal information about his family.

Goose, meet gander.

[Hoyt]

90. Not unexpected behavior from folks who like carrying guns and tend to be right wing bullies.

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. Westerhold published first, and thus made it acceptable to return the favor.

As always, it's best never to serve a dish you wouldn't want to eat...

[SteveM]

108. Westerhold strutted, now he's upset...

Please note that my visit to the Buckeye site did not show the details about his daughter; only that it could be found in a rather pedestrian fashion.

Westerhold has STILL not indicated why he thought his action was constructive, nor has anyone in this thread presented anything but the thin veneer that the CC list was "public information," as if that is the end-all to the discussion.

You might want to read through the Buckeye site and see what the public's true attitude toward this issue is really about. In the meantime:

"Toby Hoover of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence testified against HB9. She wants media to continue to print names and has urged employers to discriminate against people who have training and obtained a license from the state to carry a gun by not hiring them."

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3372.html
_____________________

"The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' -- this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats." ALDOUS HUXLEY (1894-1963), Chrome Yellow, 1921.

[Remmah2]

127. Old camping advice.

Don't sit downwind of the campfire you start, don't spit or piss into the wind.

[jpak]

128. Flaming bags of douche

yup

[minavasht]

147. Tit

for tat.
He published the CCW owners information.
CCW supporters published his information.
If he does not like it, he should not do it unto others.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

195. Um yeah...

...:popcorn:

[Serve The Servants]

209. I have a big problem with this

and my problem is that neither side committed a crime. All sensitive information was made available and easily accessible through public records.
It is my opinion that in the digital age, it's time to severely restrict what information about people is available to the general public.

My ability to find out pretty much every relevant thing about you should not supersede your right to privacy.

Edit: Upon further research, I found that apparently The list of CCW holders is not actually made available to the general public. Members of the media have been granted access to the information, but journalists are forbidden from publishing it as regulated by law (O.R.C. § 2923.129 (B) (1)).
Looks like Westerhold used the loophole in the law to advance his own crusade and the Buckeye Firearms Association "One-upped" him.

None of that changes the point of my original statement.