Ethical? Interactive map of gun permit holders

Unless I read too quickly, everyone here (except the original poster) redefined what the map was.
It was a map of gun PERMIT holders, not a map of gun owners. You can have a permit and not keep the gun in your house.
You could do something bizarre and have a permit, but not own a gun.
It was wrong to publish the entire list, since many retired and undercover police officers were on the list. At the very least they could have edited it to remove current and past law enforcement officers .

 

I just don't think it accomplishes anything to put out information that stygmatizes people. One can make a privacy issue of it if they want, but I just don't think it helps anyone.

Have a friend who served time in prison and is working to rebuild his life. He's very guarded and suspicious around people, somewhat of a loner. He admitted he fears if people knew about his past, he wouldn't get a fair shot. He's trying to put the past behind him and move forward and it really doesn't help to be stygmatized.

To use your example, let's say you had a neighbor on the list. Would you look at him/her any differently, even without knowing the circumstances? I fear too many people would.

If there's a real need for the sheriff's office to keep a list on file, that's one thing. But I don't think it helps to publish it or put it online. As someone said earlier, what if they did that for everyone with a DUI conviction?

 

Would I look at a neighbor differently if I knew he'd raped a 10-year-old boy? Yes, I would.

 

I hoe he isn't the friend who didn't think child rape was a big deal.

 

Yes I would, and I have no problem with that. It's part of the "consequences of your actions" part of life that no one seems to want to live up to anymore. No offense, but once you do something that reprehensible as committing a sexual crime, you shouldn't get a fair shot.

If you're convicted of a crime that requires you to register as a sex offender, you have lost the right to get the benefit of the doubt. And I'd bet most parents would agree with that viewpoint.

 

Actually, it just so happens that my parents' next door neighbor -- a guy I've known for 30+ years, whose daughters I baby-sat as a teenager -- is now on the sex offender registry. After his wife died and his daughters went off to college, he started molesting little boys. He was already on the list when he was caught fondling a kid he targeted in a shopping center two years ago.

So, yeah, I view him differently now. I thought he was an asshole before. I think he's an asshole and a pederast now. He won't get anywhere near my kids. Sorry if that bums his shimmer.

 

OK, fine. You just proved my point as to why I disagree with publishing this sort of information.

Strange how we like to rate some sorts of offenses as major and others as minor.

 

I know. Crazy how some people stigmatize a 60 year old man raping little kids.

God, your act is tiresome.

 

So the rape of a young boy is a minor offense? Is that what you're saying?

If it's an act. I have no idea of the backstory that some people know about him and allude to on here, but I'd bet it's an interesting one.

 

If he lived next door to me, it wouldn't take the local Gannett paper to let him know I was a gun owner.

 

Remember, there is a wide variation of what constitutes a "sex offense". It some places, an 18-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old is a felony sex offense. There's a lot more than just child rape that's involved.

 

In my state, you can click on the map and bring up a page that shows a photo of the registered sex offender, what their offense was, when it was, the details, etc. So you can see exactly what the sex offense was that the person had to register for. Good enough to me.

Earlier, it appeared you replied to PC's account of living next to an older gentleman who started molesting young boys by saying "Strange how we like to rate some sorts of offenses as major and others as minor."

Do you consider that a major or a minor offense?