Inmates use gun owner map...

[Ghosty]

The NY Post is a bunch of douchebag yellow journalists. Only the lowest-common denominators read that steaming pile. Hopefully anyway. But yeah, this is no surprise when I first heard about it. Now the criminals know which homes to case during the daytime, then rob when the owners are at work.

It's sickening to see the idiots who defend the NY Post's actions. Gun-owners are NOT the same as sex-offenders, so don't try using that argument, ugh.

[Adawg38]

These damn news papers posting info like this needs to stop. Putting people and their families lives in danger only makes the paper a threat in my eyes.

[Aloha_Shooter]

second: to this comment. when i spill coffee on myself i expect to be scalded, a little red skin a little pain, no big deal. The old lady that sued Mcdonalds over her hot coffee NEEDED SKIN GRAFTS, the coffee she was served removed the skin between her legs, there is no excuse to hand a person a cup of coffee that was boiling in the cup. If you hand me a cup o jo that hot i might sue you also.

Since you're going to elaborate, let's do it completely. She had placed the cup between her legs and removed the cap to add cream. IIRC, the coffeemaker in question had the thermostat set to 170F -- a bit hotter than I want to drink immediately but hardly "boiling in the cup".

[DOC]

Since you're going to elaborate, let's do it completely. She had placed the cup between her legs and removed the cap to add cream. IIRC, the coffeemaker in question had the thermostat set to 170F -- a bit hotter than I want to drink immediately but hardly "boiling in the cup".

Yeah pretty hot. I heard they made it that hot so if someone enjoyed the coffee later on and not immediately in the drive thru it would remain hot. But that is what cup holders were made for. I personally don't put anything near my junk that is not business or pleasure. Maybe her muff was cold and thirsty?

[DOC]

Kind of like the inmates in Idaho suing the beer and winemakers for selling alcohol and no one told these guys that it was addicting and was mood/thought altering?

No. Like when the Brandy Bunch sued the makers of Beretta for the acts of criminals using their products. Say a criminal gets caught or killed breaking into someones house and they find the paper in their car with the map of gun owners in it. Then charge the paper with accessory to murder just like if they were there helping themselves.
All gun owners get blamed for the actions of a criminal yet if a paper makes a map for criminals to follow like a treasure map no one would blame them. Its ridiculous. Just give them a taste of accountability even if it wasn't their fault like it isn't gun owners fault for criminal acts. This paper did it with malicious intend gun owners can't even be blamed for that much involvement.

[centrarchidae]

Does that mean that I can't yell "fire" if I smell smoke and see flames?

The "fire in a crowded theater" issue completely sidesteps one point: nobody has yet alleged that the newspaper has printed anything false.

Anybody who sits through a few semesters of college chemistry can make explosives. Does your right to privacy and safety mean that I can't publish my class notes on teh interwebz where bad people might see it?

And do you really want to start telling people that they can't publish uncomfortable-but-truthful-and-already-open-to-the-public information in the name of "safety?"

Really? You want to open that door?

Just because you have freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can yell FIRE in a theater anymore than having the information means you can publish it to the world.
your right to information is trumped by others right to privacy and safety.
I think they should be help criminally liable as an accessory to any crime committed due to the release of that information.

its called responsibility
"Yeah, I did that."

[alxone]

Does that mean that I can't yell "fire" if I smell smoke and see flames?

The "fire in a crowded theater" issue completely sidesteps one point: nobody has yet alleged that the newspaper has printed anything false.

Anybody who sits through a few semesters of college chemistry can make explosives. Does your right to privacy and safety mean that I can't publish my class notes on teh interwebz where bad people might see it?

And do you really want to start telling people that they can't publish uncomfortable-but-truthful-and-already-open-to-the-public information in the name of "safety?"

Really? You want to open that door?

chemical compounds are not only public record but universal information , your name address and whether or not you own a firearm while it may be public it is not universal information .

[Mountain Man]

LOL, you can do and for the most part say what you want. You may also be held liable for your actions. While it may not be criminal. If your actions are the proximate cause or even a small part of a loss or damage to another you could be held at least partially liable.

A simpleton could figure out that publishing a list like that in a public paper could cause a myriad of problems. The old adage if its predictable, its preventable comes to mind. If something happens to one of those guards homes or families I would think the paper bears a strong liability for their actions.

[GilpinGuy]

This is another sad case of the left wing media "creating news" instead of "reporting the news".

Was there some sort of huge public outcry that the names and addresses of legal gun owners be published? Not that I know of. The paper just thought it would be cute and do it. Bad idea.

[alxone]

This is another sad case of the left wing media "creating news" instead of "reporting the news".

Was there some sort of huge public outcry that the names and addressed of legal gun owners be published? Not that I know of. The paper just thought it would be cute and do it. Bad idea.

i hates the media ....... a lot