Ohio newspaper publishs names and addresses of gun owners

[Reaves]

Originally Posted by Heibges

When they show us a punk carrying an $850 S&W automatic pistol on Law and Order, that's just not grounded in reality. I wonder if they charge the gun companies to have criminals use their guns, like they would Coke to have detectives drinking a.....Coke.

:rotfl:
Sos did u's see dat mofo on csi with da P-38? I's juz GOTZ 2 pop sum caps wid it.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Reaves

:rotfl:
Sos did u's see dat mofo on csi with da P-38? I's juz GOTZ 2 pop sum caps wid it.

Have you seen "Jackie Brown"? There is a great scene at the beginning where Samual L. Jackson, who is a gun smuggler, is talking about how clients always want the gun they see in the movies.

[Tchocky]

Aye, but Ordell doesn't know what he's talking about

I don't buy the argument that he put those people in danger by producing this list, it looks like a list to stay away from. But I don't really understant why this was published. Unecessary, regardless of intent.

[Heibges]

Apparently, the list of folks with CFP's is legally obtainalbe?

[SUBMAN1]

THis guy just opened himself and his paper up to a lawsuit. If any tiny thing happens now that can be tied to them publishing this information, who do you think is going to be held liable?

Talk about shooting ones self in the foot! Dumb *ss!

At least the fallout will probably make this guy lose his job.

-S

[fatty]

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by fatty

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here

Forgiven. It is best when one isn't sure or doesn't know in the event of armed conflict. Also, guns are far more valuable than most of the cheap electronics in most people houses. Guns never lose their value is why, and easily sold on any city street. Even UK's London has a thriving gun economy with handguns fetching upwards of 2000 pounds.

-S

[Puster Bill]

Originally Posted by fatty

Forgive my ignorance on the topic of firearm ownership, but isn't deterrence part of the point of owning a gun? From what I know about deterrence theory in warfare, clearly communicating your capability to back up your threats to your opponent is usually necessary for success. Doesn't it follow that a gun is most useful for keeping people out of your house if they know you have it?

I think it makes less sense to be stealing a gun from an armed man than to be stealing more profitable computers, televisions, and cameras from an unarmed man. But then again, we are talking about criminals here

Not necessarily. First, the pattern of burglary in the United States is that burglars tend to go after homes that are unoccupied, simply because they fear being shot. That doesn't mean that they avoid houses known to have guns, indeed knowing that is an incentive to burglarize the house: Guns have a certain value among criminals, more so than televisions, computers, and cameras.

Secondly, while it is definitely a good thing for you personally if everyone knows that you are armed, it doesn't help those who are not (unless, of course, you happen to in the vicinity during an incident). Not knowing who is armed and who is not adds an uncertainty in the mind of the criminal contemplating an attack: He has to measure the likelyhood of success against the possibility that the person he is attacking will kill or injure him.

Think of it this way: Militarily, if you are thinking about bombing a city, knowing exactly where all the Anti-Aircraft sites are allows you to avoid them. If you do not know where they are, you are likely to run up against them sooner or later. That is why the military spends so much money to camoflage things, to preserve the element of surprise.