LibriumArcana.Games

When Ohio passed a conceal carry pistol law, an opposing paper threatened to print the names and addresses of all the legal gun owners in the state, claiming that someone had to take action to protect the public from these people.

They posted these addresses on the internet despite a court order against it. The gun owners struck back by printing the addresses and names of the staff of the paper going so far has to include directions to the Editors half a million dollar home.

Let's talk about the morality of this. It seems quiet clear that printing the address of a person in these circumstances is an action that could led to harm, in fact it seems very clear to me that harm was intented.

Do you believe it is moral to make a person's address public information, violating his priavticy over a political or any other agruement?

Is there any circumstances where such an act may be moral?

I'm seeing more and more of this as things go on. Printing people's addresses shouldn't be illegal -per se-. As long as there are a few things to consider:
You can look up anybody in the phone book.
HOWEVER. You shouldn't be able to filter people by hobbies, careers, whether they own a cat or a dog, how many kids they have, and how many MpG their car gets.

To use a cilchè : The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Lets look at my state. First of all: there's a national sex offender registry, which is a good idea...maybe. However, due to this, there is also an Indiana based group that updates daily/hourly and basically stalks people who have been convicted of sex crimes. Many of these people have been through the prison system, and I'm sure at least some of them are reformed. But BECAUSE of this system there are coalitions in many, many, many towns that drive these individuals away, protesting, shunning, and downright treating people like crap.

Saying they deserve it is a little radical, and also implying that our criminal justice system is entirely ineffective in this regard. Now I'm not saying that the registry should be done away with, but what I am saying is that:
- Parents need to spend more time parenting, and less time forming goddamn coalitions. Protesting does -not- fix the root of these problems in our society.

- The media acting like that seems to me like a clear violation of privacy. Those people are acting within their rights. And the fact that someone retaliated--while amusing--is disturbingly childish. Who runs these newspapers, 5th graders?

- Lists like this -should- exist, but at the same time should not be avialable to the public. The pedestrians walking by your house don't need to know that you have a weapon on your person. However, I believe that the police do.

I sort of derailed there for a bit, but the tangent can work as a parallel too.

*Sidetrack*
About the list, it did exist, to be a legal gunowner you have to own a permit. The State government keeps a list of all legal permit holders. Where do you think the newspaper got the list?

Not making it public record would fix that problem. Just make the thing available to government agencies, like police etc.

ARE those lists public record? IT wouldn't be the first time the press got ahold of information they're TECHNICALLY not privvy to.
And frankly I fail to see what good those lists do other than give the sides supporting/providing them something to wank over. 'WA-HA! You're evil and we know where you live!'
Law enforcement agencies having those lists I fully agree with, but why does the public need to know stuff like that? What harm is prevented by everbody and their dog knowing that Joe Everybody, 21, Jump Street, has a concealed carry permit?

It opens them up to harassment and quite frankly endangers them Bats. Cause now every anti-gun nut who went to that site knows where they live.

Hello? I asked what harm is PREVENTED by making those list public. I'm fully aware of what harm doing so can/will entail.
The number of gun crimes prevented by people knowing who has a CCP is-what, exactly?

First off it ain't public record, Harper. There was even a court order against the paper printing the information. But that's all a side track.

And Batman, there is no way to prove what, if any harm is prevented from printing those list.

That was my point. There's no verifiable harm prevented by making those lists public. There IS verifiable harm done by doing so, as you noted.

One should certainly have the choice to opt out of having ones records publicly viewed.

Is it a valid action? Only so long as the information is publicly accessible- if you've posted your address in a public place, then you've essentially consented to its display.

What exactly is this supposed to accomplish other than harassment and the possibility of vigilante action? Does the public have the right to know - does the public have the responsibility to know?

I admire America for it's Bill of Rights, something which Australia lacks, however I would rather adopt the British or Canadian model of Charter of Rights and Responsibilities. That way while an argument can be made for releasing such information into the public domain, a strong counter-argument could also be made for the responsible desimination of said information.

Or in this specific case, the paper's decision to print the addresses would come with some severe repercussions.

I would have to view the article in question, but depending on the wording the paper could be prosecuted for inciting acts of violence.

Having observed the kind of insanity provoked through other mediums, I have to say it's grossly unethical to print the names of your idealogical opponents. Stacks of death threats kind of sold me on that years ago.