Probably not such a good idea to publish the gun owner map for many reasons stated above. However, for police and government entities that are fighting crime, it wouldn’t hurt it they identified who owned automatic machine guns and made sure they had proper background checks conducted. That should be the responsibility of owning that kind of weapon. I think that would be a good use of the technology and a proactive approach. It doesn’t mean taking away guns, just making sure they are in the right hands, locked up and not in a risky environment. I’m in favor of getting those kinds of weapons out of the hands of ordinary civilians. They weren’t designed for just anyone to use. They should be in the hands of trained officers and the military.
@Mick, thanks for a great response Mick – an interesting perspective. Some might argue that criminals get their hands on these weapons, so why can’t the legally licensed public own them too? It’s a very controversial topic! What do you think? – John
It’s an interesting commentary on social media and consequences. The virulent reaction to the paper’s decision to publish is indicative of one of the weaknesses of social media – it’s a playground for bullies. Much of the commentary wouldn’t be shared if a) the author was traceable and b) any effort or expense was involved. Does that mean that social media is devaluing our opinions?
I don’t appreciate the ‘ends justify the means’ mentality from either the newspaper or the blogger. It is a disregard for life. Each salvo escalates the anger and the danger. Hello? Where are the grown-ups? Ultimately, the instigator is at fault. I feel that the newspaper effectively yelled Fire (not protected under the first amendment). Professional provocateurs should be held accountable.
5 Comments on “Social Community Strikes Back at Interactive Gun Map Publishers”
Probably not such a good idea to publish the gun owner map for many reasons stated above. However, for police and government entities that are fighting crime, it wouldn’t hurt it they identified who owned automatic machine guns and made sure they had proper background checks conducted. That should be the responsibility of owning that kind of weapon. I think that would be a good use of the technology and a proactive approach. It doesn’t mean taking away guns, just making sure they are in the right hands, locked up and not in a risky environment. I’m in favor of getting those kinds of weapons out of the hands of ordinary civilians. They weren’t designed for just anyone to use. They should be in the hands of trained officers and the military.
@Mick, thanks for a great response Mick – an interesting perspective. Some might argue that criminals get their hands on these weapons, so why can’t the legally licensed public own them too? It’s a very controversial topic! What do you think? – John
It’s an interesting commentary on social media and consequences. The virulent reaction to the paper’s decision to publish is indicative of one of the weaknesses of social media – it’s a playground for bullies. Much of the commentary wouldn’t be shared if a) the author was traceable and b) any effort or expense was involved. Does that mean that social media is devaluing our opinions?
I don’t appreciate the ‘ends justify the means’ mentality from either the newspaper or the blogger. It is a disregard for life. Each salvo escalates the anger and the danger. Hello? Where are the grown-ups? Ultimately, the instigator is at fault. I feel that the newspaper effectively yelled Fire (not protected under the first amendment). Professional provocateurs should be held accountable.