"The gun owner next door"

[SteveGuzzi]

Not big on creating a thread when there's already several similar ones, but this is slightly different I suppose.

So anyway, in the aftermath of Sandy Hook my local paper had published the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in the area in an interactive map that they posted on their website. Naturally this pissed people off (not just within the area, but around the country) and led to a string of further articles both for and against the paper's actions. Here's where it started:

"The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood"
http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312230056 &nclick_check=1

You're hardly ever going to find universal consensus about anything, but, it seems the oooovvveerrwhelming majority of people thought that this was a stupid fucking thing to do. The paper claims that the intention was to provide information that people could use to make safety decisions for themselves and their family, and the very few folks I've seen who support this typically supplied comments along the lines of "now I know whose houses my children won't be allowed to go to". The general opinion of everyone else is that the paper only did this to cash-in on the Sandy Hook tragedy and to stigmatize gun ownership. These folks argue that the map provides criminals with a 'blueprint' of which homes are least likely to be protected, or which homes to steal a firearm from, thus making everyone less safe. They also point out that the map includes the names and addresses of police and correctional officers, judges, people who have orders of protection against others, etc.

It does seem that the paper is full of shit in claiming that it was an issue about safety, since the map only includes data on legally-registered pistol permits -- not the actual PRESENCE of handguns, let alone shotguns or rifles (which do not require registration), and obviously not illegal firearms. But by that same token I don't entirely believe the argument that the map actually makes people less safe. It's a crap-shoot either way. One of those dots is my crib. I don't really give a shit.

Now, the irony is that after this occurred, someone went ahead and published the names and addresses of all the paper's employees, and the paper eventually hired armed guards to protect their offices. Even still, the paper defends their original actions.

I'm guessing that barely anyone here would agree with what the paper did, but hey, if you do, chime in. Is this type of information REALLY useful in any way? If you agree that a paper has a right and obligation to publish this kind of stuff, do you think they should also post maps of, say... people with criminal records? Histories of mental illness? Tax dodgers? Etc? Is the paper's refusal to remove the map or acknowledge how its publication doesn't really make anyone safer indicative of some type of journalistic integrity or just indicative of them being a bunch of stubborn assholes?

Anyone have any thoughts on this shit?

[TheMason]

At 1/10/13 11:06 AM, SteveGuzzi wrote: But by that same token I don't entirely believe the argument that the map actually makes people less safe. It's a crap-shoot either way. One of those dots is my crib. I don't really give a shit.

In the US about 13% of all break-ins occur when the occupants are home. Compare this to a place like the UK where so-called 'hot break-ins' account for about 45% of all break-ins. So on one hand, the article probably makes the people themselves more safe since would-be criminals know to be extra vigilant about breaking-in when those people are home.

On the other hand, some idiot who thinks that it is a good idea to steal firearms...now has a shopping list.

So their property and home are less safe now.

I think that publishing the names of the paper's employees is just.

[Camarohusky]

At 1/10/13 11:18 AM, TheMason wrote: now has a shopping list.

No. They always had a shopping list. The names and addresses of concealed carry holders is public information that anyone has access to.

[SteveGuzzi]

At 1/10/13 12:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/10/13 11:18 AM, TheMason wrote: now has a shopping list.

No. They always had a shopping list. The names and addresses of concealed carry holders is public information that anyone has access to.

These are pistol permits, not concealed-carry licenses.

There is an obvious difference between folks going through the proper channels to request that information on an individual basis, and a newspaper publishing the information online en masse. From what I understand, 'Freedom of Information' requests typically require the person to state their own name and contact information, as well as a stated purpose for the request, and are subject to individual approval or denial.

No one denies that the information is a matter of public record or that the paper is within its legal rights to publish the information; the debate is primarily over whether they had reasonable justification in publishing it, whether the publication achieves its stated goal, and whether or not this act constitutes a gross abuse of their First Amendment rights.

[TheMason]

At 1/10/13 12:27 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/10/13 11:18 AM, TheMason wrote: now has a shopping list.

No. They always had a shopping list. The names and addresses of concealed carry holders is public information that anyone has access to.

Like Steve said...it makes it easy.

Furthermore, is that a good idea allowing personally identifiable information readily available? Not just guns but driver's licenses too. I remember a story about a preacher who took pics of cars parked outside a porn shop and made post cards to send to their homes to shame them into going to church.

He got that info from public records.

====

On a side note, I did some training this weekend at drill about information security and included on it was whistle blower protection info. They had some quotes from journalists which basically boiled down to: "It's our job as journalists to make profit off of information...getting it and selling it. No matter who gets hurt."

I find this fascinating since the NRA and other gun rights groups are targeted for protecting 'corporate' interests. And yet here's proof of the sociopathic tendencies of journalists doing things for profit and attention.

Similar to liberals who knee-jerked to protect the entertainment industry for criticism over the stream of violence (and the money it makes off of it) that Hollywood pumps into our pop culture.

[wildfire4461]

At 1/10/13 01:37 PM, TheMason wrote:

On a side note, I did some training this weekend at drill about information security and included on it was whistle blower protection info. They had some quotes from journalists which basically boiled down to: "It's our job as journalists to make profit off of information...getting it and selling it. No matter who gets hurt."

Then hopefully they're the ones who get hurt. Especially that newspaper.

Though a more likely scenario I see happening is a crime wave does start after publishing the map, then the victims try suing the paper.

[TheMason]

At 1/10/13 05:14 PM, wildfire4461 wrote: Then hopefully they're the ones who get hurt. Especially that newspaper.

I don't really want to see anyone get hurt. However, I think they should realize that their actions have consequences. Perhaps some of these journalists will learn empathy for their fellow citizens and their community, having experienced the shit they've put others through.

[Ceratisa]

Criminals in general are dumb. Making an guide to pistol permits in the area for idiots really only assists them.

[RydiaLockheart]

Let's take guns out of the equation for a minute. Let's say you had a nice plasma TV or your wife had an expensive jewelry collection. Would you want everyone knowing you had those?

[919CDS]

I heard about this, and its such BS, you shouldnt be aloud to do that, but the governments just dumb, idk what this solves, this will just make more break ins occur, and this is another reason i wont own a handgun any time soon, that's my business not anyone elses, BUT ill still keep that shotgun, its better for home defense anyway :)

[Iron-Hampster]

democrats went from posting a list of people and businesses that served black people and were opposed to segregation.

now they are posting the names names and addresses of everyone who owns a gun.

this looks like an intimidation tactic.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

heres a dandy list of anti-gun journalists thanks to the NRA!

Steve Benson - Cartoonist
Tony Auth - Cartoonist
Jim Borgman - Cartoonist
Jimmy Breslin - Columnist
Stuart Carlson - Cartoonist
Marie Cocco - Columnist
E.J. Dionne Jr. - Columnist
Bonnie Erbe - Columnist
Tom Fiedler - Columnist
Michael Gartner - Columnist
Mark Genrich - Columnist
James Glassman - Editor
Bob Herbert - Columnist
Bill Johnson - Columnist
Donald Kaul - Columnist
Mike Lane - Cartoonist
Leonard Larson - Columnist
Mike Luckovich - Cartoonist
Jimmy Margulies - Cartoonist
Deborah Mathis - Columnist
Colman McCarthy - Columnist
Jim Morin - Cartoonist
Tom Oliphant- Columnist
Mike Peters - Cartoonist
Leonard Pitts - Columnist
Robert Reno - Columnist
Frank Rich - Columnist
Cindy Richards - Columnist
Kevin Siers- Cartoonist
Ed Stein - Cartoonist
Tom Teepen - Editor
Tim Toles - Cartoonist
Garry Trudeau - Cartoonist
Cynthia Tucker - Columnist
Steve Twomey - Columnist
Steve Villano - Columnist
Adrienne Washington - Columnist
Don Wright - Cartoonist

we can play that game to I could even drop addresses to if I wanted.

[SteveGuzzi]

They took down the map, but the publisher's defiant and misleading/disingenuous letter just goes to show how clueless she is.

http://www.lohud.com/article/20130118/NEWS02/301180125

ah well. world keeps spinnin.