Connecticut elementary school shooter shot dead [updated first post]

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Public record is public record.

Even Illinois disagrees. They've repeatedly denied access to FOID information when the media and even state attorney general has demanded it it be made open to the public.

No, they agree. Illinois altered its FOIA law by creating a special exemption after Madigan's office, correctly, ruled that FOID lists were public record.

djones520 wrote:

Who says you are entitled to know what I possess in my home?

Privacy is still something that matters in this day and age.

The people that enforce the law. I would have assumed that was obvious.

**BaronIveagh**

dogma wrote:

The people that enforce the law. I would have assumed that was obvious.

Actually law enforcement already knew. The point was that random people on the internet had no business knowing. Which I can agree with.

**dogma**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Actually law enforcement already knew. The point was that random people on the internet had no business knowing. Which I can agree with.

I'm aware that law enforcement already knew. I am also aware that the point djones520 was making involved a claim to privacy with respect to the public, because he explicitly stated that fact. The point I was making, which you seem to have missed (though I could have explicitly stated it), is that the people who control firearm registries (broadly: the government) determine who has access to them. If those people decide firearm registries are a matter of public record, then they are a matter of public record.

Obviously with the government not being a monolith things are more complicated than that (as demonstrated by the Illinois case), but the general idea remains consistent.

**BaronIveagh**

dogma wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:

Actually law enforcement already knew. The point was that random people on the internet had no business knowing. Which I can agree with.

I'm aware that law enforcement already knew. I am also aware that the point djones520 was making involved a claim to privacy with respect to the public, because he explicitly stated that fact. The point I was making, which you seem to have missed (though I could have explicitly stated it), is that the people who control firearm registries (broadly: the government) determine who has access to them. If those people decide firearm registries are a matter of public record, then they are a matter of public record.

Obviously with the government not being a monolith things are more complicated than that (as demonstrated by the Illinois case), but the general idea remains consistent.

There are a lot of thing that are a matter of public record (under the law) though that really shouldn't be spewed by the mass media. Example: PA keeps a list of every single person in the state of PA diagnosed with AIDs (ostensibly because it's considered a 'disability' under the law). It is, technically, a matter of public record. However, the only thing that publishing it like the gun registry list was, would be to destroy people's lives even further than they already are.

Further, the drones that process FOIA requests are not too bright at times. I've seen things released that probably should have been redacted or flat out refused due to the potential for public harm they represented.

**d-usa**

Just because a state "keeps a list" doesn't mean it's public record. The law will state if the general public is entitled to the information.

How is knowing who is licensed to own guns going to ruin lives? It doesn't seem like that many pages ago that everybody was arguing that knowing there are armed people somewhere would make the world safer.

**Seaward**

d-usa wrote:
Just because a state "keeps a list" doesn't mean it's public record. The law will state if the general public is entitled to the information.

How is knowing who is licensed to own guns going to ruin lives? It doesn't seem like that many pages ago that everybody was arguing that knowing there are armed people somewhere would make the world safer.

I doubt it'll ruin lives. I'm not overly concerned with people knowing who is and is not armed in two counties in New York using information that's, according to many folks around the 'net who used to live there, hilariously outdated.

I think it's a bit fanciful to suggest there was no intent behind this little stunt, though, and that the intent wasn't favorable towards law-abiding gun owners.

**BaronIveagh**

d-usa wrote:
Just because a state "keeps a list" doesn't mean it's public record. The law will state if the general public is entitled to the information.

How is knowing who is licensed to own guns going to ruin lives? It doesn't seem like that many pages ago that everybody was arguing that knowing there are armed people somewhere would make the world safer.

The general public is entitled to all government records, in theory, under the law, past a certain date. They actively re-classify some things. Others they pass laws exempting a particular piece of information.

The Federal version prohibits requests that are “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy". As does New York's law. Which is why I suggest that this may be a case of a FOIA request that should not have been granted.

**whembly**

Publishing a map where the licensed guns owners is a slippery slope. In itself, it doesn't bother me except it might give the criminal element information of where NOT to conduct their crimes.

Let me put it another way:
Let’s instead pretend it is a list of the names and addresses of all the people who work at planned parenthood or trained people in abortion in the New York area... and let's take it a bit further and hypothetically say it's published by a Christian organization with a title of: The killers next door, what you don’t know about the abortionists in your neighborhood.

What would be your response?

<please, don't bring in objection/support of abortion here, I'm just arguing whether "publishing" names/locations of people doing/having legal things.>

**d-usa**

Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

And all physicians are already online in Oklahoma, including where they work. So I can already get that information.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

And all physicians are already online in Oklahoma, including where they work. So I can already get that information.

Why does the pre-requisite need to be a government agency?

You're not answering my question.

A) It's legal to own firearms, but in NY you need to be licensed thus the state knows who and where you live.

B) In NY, it's legal to perform abortions and since they're licensed medical professionals, the state knows where they work and live.

Both A and B are legal.

If you're okay with some news agency (Gannett) publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then you ought to be okay with Gannett (hypotetically) publishing the whereabout of those who works at Planned Parenthood.

Me... it's a slippery slope and wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen, but I'm not sure if Gannett broke any laws.

**d-usa**

whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

And all physicians are already online in Oklahoma, including where they work. So I can already get that information.

Why does the pre-requisite need to be a government agency?

Because government agencies are covered by various laws that state that information is either supposed to be available for public release or not. Nobody published the membership roll of the NRA (a private agency). So we are talking about the publishing of a public record, obtained legally and available for all to see.

You're not answering my question.

I did, but let me break down the straw man for you some more.

A) It's legal to own firearms, but in NY you need to be licensed thus the state knows who and where you live.

And if the law states that the names of handgun license owners is a public record and available for release to the public then there is nothing wrong with publishing it.

B) In NY, it's legal to perform abortions and since they're licensed medical professionals, the state knows where they work and live.

And I would imagine that NY is similar to Oklahoma in that the names, licenses, education, residency, and place of employment is available for all to see. I doubt that there is a special "abortion license" that classifies those providers separately.

Both A and B are legal.

Yes.

If you're okay with some news agency (Gannett) publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then you ought to be okay with Gannett (hypotetically) publishing the whereabout of those who works at Planned Parenthood.

If I am okay with some news agency publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then I am okay with a news agency publishing the names and addresses of physicians licensed in the state. Like I said before, Oklahoma already makes that info available by going to the state website. My information is there for all to see as is the information for my wife. Planned Parenthood is not a government agency and is under no obligation to release the list of their employees, so trying to single them out has absolutely nothing to do with government information that is a public record.

Me... it's a slippery slope and wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen, but I'm not sure if Gannett broke any laws.

The law is the law, irregardless of personal feelings.

**BaronIveagh**

d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

Actually it receives government funding, so, yes, quite a few of those addresses are a matter of public record.

I do find it ironic that you're anti-gun, but in favor of actions that could potentially destroy more lives than Bosnia. The reason that the gun license thing is bad is not that it, in and of itself, is bad (though it's damn invasive) but the precedent it sets. There are lists an sets of information that would be far, far more damaging to large numbers of people's lives if published, that are 'public record'.

I did like the example someone gave of lists and pictures of all the children in a given area, and their addresses. Those too, are a matter of public record now. Imagine pedophiles cherry picking (ho ho a pun) through such a list! People don't realize that information is far, far more powerful than any gun.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
[
The law is the law, irregardless of personal feelings.

If that's true, then they certainly didn't follow it in New York when the released that information. According to the law, an 'invasive' request is to be turned down. Further, it states that to NOT be an invasive request, the addresses and identifying information have to be redacted.

This release was politically motivated, pure and simple.

**d-usa**

BaronIveagh wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

Actually it receives government funding, so, yes, quite a few of those addresses are a matter of public record.

Receiving public funding doesn't mean that all your records are public records. They are not a government agency, they release the relevant records that they have to. But employee lists are most likely not one of them.

And like I said over and over again now. All physicians are available already anyway. The majority (if not all) states have that information online, just click the button and go look. There is most likely not a separate "abortion" license though.

I did like the example someone gave of lists and pictures of all the children in a given area, and their addresses. Those too, are a matter of public record now. Imagine pedophiles cherry picking (ho ho a pun) through such a list! People don't realize that information is far, far more powerful than any gun.

I think people are giving themselves pretty free reign regarding the definition of "public records". AIDS patients (Health Department lists are public record!) are protected by specific privacy laws, Schools are protected by specific privacy laws. Again, if you want to compare the release and publishing of information that was legally shared then please compare them with the release of other information that was legally shared. Comparing legally released information with the hypothetical release of information that is protected by separate privacy laws and prohibited from release is dumb.

This release was politically motivated, pure and simple.

Which does not make it illegal.

I do find it ironic that you're anti-gun, but in favor of actions that could potentially destroy more lives than Bosnia.

Feel free to enlighten me how you come to the conclusion that I am anti-gun...

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
whembly wrote:
d-usa wrote:
Is planned parenthood a government agency? So it has nothing to do with the situation.

And all physicians are already online in Oklahoma, including where they work. So I can already get that information.

Why does the pre-requisite need to be a government agency?

Because government agencies are covered by various laws that state that information is either supposed to be available for public release or not. Nobody published the membership roll of the NRA (a private agency). So we are talking about the publishing of a public record, obtained legally and available for all to see.

Yes... I'm following you...

You're not answering my question.

I did, but let me break down the straw man for you some more.

No, you didn't. You're simply arguing why the question isn't relevant.

A) It's legal to own firearms, but in NY you need to be licensed thus the state knows who and where you live.

And if the law states that the names of handgun license owners is a public record and available for release to the public then there is nothing wrong with publishing it.

Sure... I wasn't arguing if it was legal... only questioning if it should be made public.

B) In NY, it's legal to perform abortions and since they're licensed medical professionals, the state knows where they work and live.

And I would imagine that NY is similar to Oklahoma in that the names, licenses, education, residency, and place of employment is available for all to see. I doubt that there is a special "abortion license" that classifies those providers separately.

Sure... that's the crux.

State license would contain where the physician would practice, hence it'd be quite easy to determine which licensed individual is working for Planned Parenthood. However, that license would also have their home address. THAT shouldn't be made public.

Both A and B are legal.

Yes.

Glad we agree on something!

If you're okay with some news agency (Gannett) publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then you ought to be okay with Gannett (hypotetically) publishing the whereabout of those who works at Planned Parenthood.

If I am okay with some news agency publishing the whereabouts of the licensed gun owners, then I am okay with a news agency publishing the names and addresses of physicians licensed in the state. Like I said before, Oklahoma already makes that info available by going to the state website. My information is there for all to see as is the information for my wife.

Okay... glad we have an understanding.

Planned Parenthood is not a government agency and is under no obligation to release the list of their employees, so trying to single them out has absolutely nothing to do with government information that is a public record.

And here's where you are wrong.

If you're claiming that because the state has "licensed" individual for firearms, and because of that it could be (it may not) be made public WHERE these licensee live, then you're okay with it.

My argument is that, it isn't far-fetched to correlate to which physician is working for PP and THEN correlate the physician's home address, as that information would be with the license information. Then anybody with an agenda (ie, a Christian Anti-Abortion publican) can publish a map showing WHERE the physician lives.
SLIPPERY.SLOPE.

Me... it's a slippery slope and wouldn't allow this sort of thing to happen, but I'm not sure if Gannett broke any laws.

The law is the law, irregardless of personal feelings.

**d-usa**

There is something you can do: Quit whining about it on the internet, investigate what the laws are that affect you, and start working on getting them changed.

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
There is something you can do: Quit whining about it on the internet, investigate what the laws are that affect you, and start working on getting them changed.

Me "whining"?

Jeez... forget your coffee this morning? o.O

I was just pointing out what a slippery slope this is...

Oh... @Baron, D ain't "anti-gunz"... he just likes to argue.

**dogma**

BaronIveagh wrote:

There are a lot of thing that are a matter of public record (under the law) though that really shouldn't be spewed by the mass media. Example: PA keeps a list of every single person in the state of PA diagnosed with AIDs (ostensibly because it's considered a 'disability' under the law). It is, technically, a matter of public record.

No, it almost certainly isn't. The concept of public record refers to all non-confidential information held by a government body. In other words, records available to the public.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Further, the drones that process FOIA requests are not too bright at times. I've seen things released that probably should have been redacted or flat out refused due to the potential for public harm they represented.

FOIA requests cannot be denied on the basis of potential public harm.

**AustonT**

d-usa wrote:

d-usa wrote:Just because a state "keeps a list" doesn't mean it's public record. The law will state if the general public is entitled to the information.

How is knowing who is licensed to own guns going to ruin lives? It doesn't seem like that many pages ago that everybody was arguing that knowing there are armed people somewhere would make the world safer.

Germany 1938 wrote: I don't understand what you have against the registration of certain people's property being a matter of public record. I mean, what's the worst that could happen?

GODWIN!!!!!!!!!!!!

**BaronIveagh**

d-usa wrote:

Which does not make it illegal.

No, New York law does that, if you pick it up and read the section on what has to be redacted in order for it not to be considered 'invasive' says.

Item 1 on the list is any personally identifying information.

d-usa wrote:

I think people are giving themselves pretty free reign regarding the definition of "public records". AIDS patients (Health Department lists are public record!) are protected by specific privacy laws, Schools are protected by specific privacy laws. Again, if you want to compare the release and publishing of information that was legally shared then please compare them with the release of other information that was legally shared. Comparing legally released information with the hypothetical release of information that is protected by separate privacy laws and prohibited from release is dumb.

I wasn't The list in question is kept by PA's department of labor. OVR applications are not protected by privacy laws, and one of the requirements in an OVR application is disclosure of your disability. Since AiDs is a disability in PA, yes, you can get the list that way, as department of labor works by different rules than the Health Department.

So don't presume you know what you're talking about when it comes to other states laws and how hte rules for them work.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

FOIA requests cannot be denied on the basis of potential public harm.

Yes they can. They use the blanket 'national security' or 'executive privilege' and it ends up being a lengthy court battle, win or lose.

**whembly**

And it has begun...

SLIPPERY.SLOPE!

http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood

Where does it end?

**GalacticDefender**

To the Fethers who tried to blame this on Mass Effect, go feth youselves.

A bunch of idiots tried to blame the shooting on Mass Effect when they saw the facebook page of a guy who they thought was the killer and saw that he was a fan of the games. They got the wrong guy for one, and anyone who suggests banning art in any of it's forms is a fethtard. Sorry about the rant there, but that REALLY pisses me off.

**whembly**

GalacticDefender wrote:
To the Fethers who tried to blame this on Mass Effect, go feth youselves.

A bunch of idiots tried to blame the shooting on Mass Effect when they saw the facebook page of a guy who they thought was the killer and saw that he was a fan of the games. They got the wrong guy for one, and anyone who suggests banning art in any of it's forms is a fethtard. Sorry about the rant there, but that REALLY pisses me off.

Mass Effect? THAT game?

Sheeet... I can think of a more violent game than THAT!

Like Demon Souls... that game was so torturous and frustrating, its no wonder no one didn't go psycho! (I'm kidding guys...).

**KalashnikovMarine**

whembly wrote:
And it has begun...

SLIPPERY.SLOPE!

http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/map-where-are-journal-news-employees-your-neighborhood

Where does it end?

Turn about is fair play I suppose

GalacticDefender wrote:
To the Fethers who tried to blame this on Mass Effect, go feth youselves.

A bunch of idiots tried to blame the shooting on Mass Effect when they saw the facebook page of a guy who they thought was the killer and saw that he was a fan of the games. They got the wrong guy for one, and anyone who suggests banning art in any of it's forms is a fethtard. Sorry about the rant there, but that REALLY pisses me off.

Yeah poor Ryan Lanza being mistaken for his brother... on the day his mother was murdered by said brother. I think it's fair to award that guy a "worst day of the year" award.

That said the guy's FB said he was into community theater... and if that's not a sign of a mentally unstable, dangerous individual, I don't know what is.

I understand most of the knee jerk reactions to gaming and games connected to violence IRL, especially when there's an ACTUAL connection, but ME's facebook page got mass spammed with thousands of hate comments about how they caused the spree. The other knee jerks cover a wide spectrum for a variety of reasons but blaming an inanimate object safely owned and used by millions upon millions of people world wide without incident mystifies me.

My theory is we've reached a point as a culture where we're so wimpy and shy of personal responsibility that even in extreme situations we can't accept that every bad thing ever past "acts of god" happen because people make choices.

**Seaward**

Well, Feinstein's proposal has been revealed.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds

Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

If this goes through, every firearm I own except my 1911 becomes an NFA gun.

**WarOne**

Here is something interesting; an interactive map showing gun owners who are licensed to carry guns within Westchester county, spurred by a newspaper who obtained this information legally over the shooting:

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

**Alfndrate**

Seaward, is there a specific list of what weapons would be banned?

**Seaward**

Alfndrate wrote:
Seaward, is there a specific list of what weapons would be banned?

Not that I've been able to find yet. I'm sure it'll be hilarious when it's revealed, though.

**BaronIveagh**

WarOne wrote:
Here is something interesting; an interactive map showing gun owners who are licensed to carry guns within Westchester county, spurred by a newspaper who obtained this information legally over the shooting:

http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-

You must not have read the last few pages. And the legality is questionable, as under New York's FOI law, the personal information such as addresses should have been redacted.

**Seaward**

BaronIveagh wrote:
You must not have read the last few pages. And the legality is questionable, as under New York's FOI law, the personal information such as addresses should have been redacted.

Speaking of it, though, a blogger has published the home contact info of people involved in publishing that map. Apparently there are some unofficial movements on Arfcom and the like to call and politely discuss the issues individuals have with the decision to publish that gun owner map with the publishers, usually between the hours of 11PM and 7AM.

**Kilkrazy**

The next thing is that someone at the ISP will publish the home contact info of the blogger.

If some gun owners go around to the map publisher's house, isn't there a risk of violence?