Notice! Care2 will go offline for site maintenance July 28 at 9pm PST. Thanks
START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
Group Discussions
Paper That Printed Gun Owner Names Hires Armed Guards
1 year ago



Jan 2, 2013 1:18pm
Newspaper That Printed Gun Owner Names Hires Armed Guards
 

The New York newspaper that printed a map with all of the names of residents who have handgun permits has hired armed security to patrol its headquarters.
 

The Journal News, which covers Rockland, Westchester, and Putnam Counties in New York, faced a backlash from readers after publishing the names of residents who had handgun permits registered to their names. The newspaper created an interactive map which showed permit owners’ names and addresses, which they posted on Dec. 23, 2011, as part of their coverage of the Newtown, Conn., school shooting.
 

The Gannett-owned paper received a wave of angry comments in which readers published the names and addresses of reporters and editors at the paper.
 

Caryn McBride, the Rockland editor for the newspaper, filed a report with the Clarkstown police about the “negative correspondence” received by the newspaper in response to the map.

On Dec. 28, she reported that she received an email from an unknown sender who wrote that he “wondered what McBride would get in her mail now.”
 

The email did not contain any specific threats, and did not constitute an offense, according to a Clarkstown police report obtained by ABC News.
 

The report also noted that RGA Investigations, a private security firm, had been hired by the paper to perform security services in the wake of the controversy.
 

The company’s “employees are armed and will be on site during business hours through at least January 2, 2013,” the report said.
 

Continued:
 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2013/01/newspaper-that-printed-gun-owner-names-hires-armed-guards/
 



This post was modified from its original form on 04 Jan, 22:24
Seems a bit ...
1 year ago

like an invasion of privacy, despite the "public record" aspect.

What was the point?

1 year ago


I think it was to let others know how many guns are around them. If the neighbourhood is bristling with guns, you may want to move away, or not want to move there in the first place.

Of course, the gun owners were incensed at that idea (along with the invasion of privacy part), claiming that if theirs was a home containing a gun, then theirs was a safe and law-abiding home, less likely to be broken into. Moreoever, they pointed out, the homes that did not show up on the list were presumed to not have firearms on the premises, and therefore more likely to be the target of a break-in.
 

It was an assinine move ...
1 year ago

on the part of the publication.

1 year ago


Some might argue that publishing a list of gun owners' addresses is a public safety measure much like when a neighbourhood publishes the addresses of sex offenders.
 

A public safety measure?
1 year ago

How do you figure? Please explain your logic.

Legal gun ownership is nowhere near comparable to being a sex offender.

In any case ...
1 year ago

it seems to have backfired and now the newspaper has apparently hired ARMED guards. I wonder how safe the employees of that publication feel now?

Now THAT is ironic.

1 year ago


There is no correlation between legal gun ownership and responsible gun ownership. Someone could have a legal gun, but for whatever reason, use it criminally, or find it stolen by someone else for criminal purposes. The mother of the recent school shooter in Connecticut owned several or more weapons, all legally, including an assault rifle, yet they were stolen by her son and used to massacre over 20 kindergarten students.

An entire neighbourhood with most homes containing guns could very well represent a bigger danger than an entire neighbourhood containing a single sex offender.
 



This post was modified from its original form on 05 Jan, 14:20
1 year ago


The gunman who killed 12 people and injured 58 others in Aurora, Colorado last year owned all his weapons legally. His arsenal included tactical shotguns and semi-automatic rifles. Some people might want to know about that in advance, for obvious reasons.

 

On a related note ...
1 year ago



Coulter calls to name abortion patients because they ‘might be willing to murder a child’
By David Edwards
Friday, January 4, 2013 11:33 EST
 

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter says that if newspapers are going to publish the names of people who have gun permits then they should also publish the names of women who had abortions because “mothers might want to know what other women on their street might be willing to murder a child.”
 

New York newspaper The Journal News earlier this week said that it would hire armed guards after receiving threats — including an envelope of “suspicious white powder” — that could have been retaliation for publishing the names of gun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. The newspaper has defended its decision by insisting that readers had a right to know who owned guns in their area in light of the recent mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
 

Fox News host Sean Hannity, however, told Coulter that the situation was “really dangerous” because criminal who wanted to “rape, rob and steal” could find out which residents did not own guns.
 

“This is a wake up call to New York state,” Coulter agreed. “To make these a public record has got to be changed.”
 

“Why aren’t we getting the names of recently paroled criminals?” she wondered. “People with gun permits, by definition, do not have criminal records. Why can’t we get the criminal records?”
 

Coulter continued: “Why can’t we get a record of women who have had abortions? They get money from Planned Parenthood, they get money from Medicare, from Medicaid. Much of this is tax subsidies. I think mothers might want to know what other women on their street might be willing to murder a child.”
 

The conservative columnist went on to call for the names of people living in rent-controlled apartments and the names of “rich liberals” who had bodyguards with guns.
 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/04/coulter-calls-to-name-abortion-patients-because-they-might-be-willing-to-murder-a-child/
 

1 year ago


Speaking of nowhere near comparable ...
 

No kidding, Christian ...
1 year ago

There is no correlation between legal gun ownership and responsible gun ownership. Someone could have a legal gun, but for whatever reason, use it criminally, or find it stolen by someone else for criminal purposes. The mother of the recent school shooter in Connecticut owned several or more weapons, all legally, including an assault rifle, yet they were stolen by her son and used to massacre over 20 kindergarten students.

There is also no correlation between legal gun ownership and criminal activity.

I disagree with your statement about neighborhood of legal gun owners and a single sex offender. Again ... how do you figure? Wheres the logic?

If people need to know in advance who is a legal gun owner, then let them look up the records themselves if it's that important to their perceived safety. 

The newspaper had no call to publish what they did ... there is no valid comparison between publishing the names/locations of legal gun owners and that of sex offenders. You haven't provided a single bit of good logic validating your statement.  For that matter, why don't they just publish the names of all owners of penii ... they have the potential to be sex offenders.  And vagina owners as well. 


For the record ...
1 year ago

I am in favor of tighter restrictions on gun ownership. 

1 year ago


I said "some might argue." I didn't personally make a statement. As for the logic, it has already been spelled out. There are many issues at play here, and only several have been touched on. It is indeed complex.


 

I haven't seen anything logical ...
1 year ago

Except this:  The newspaper clearly published the names and a map of where of gun owners live to make some sort of statement and it came back to bite them in the ass. 



This post was modified from its original form on 05 Jan, 14:53
1 year ago


Possibly proving the paper's point in the first place. If all those gun owners were "responsible," the paper wouldn't have to hire armed guards to protect themselves against the "responsible" gun owners.

 



This post was modified from its original form on 05 Jan, 14:54
Ann Coulter is a c*nt ...
1 year ago

and dangerous only because some idiots take her seriously. 

By the same token ...
1 year ago

If they hadn't done what they did, they also wouldn't have to hire armed guards. 

That doesn't prove a "point" ... only that they did something stupid and invasive and it came back to haunt them. 

1 year ago


This demonstrates exactly why allowing gun ownership to all and sundry can be a dangerous proposition. It seems that all it takes is for the wrong responsible, legal gun owner to get angry enough at something to cross that line between being responsible and irresponsible.
 

1 year ago


Publishing names and addresses is indeed invasive and controversial. One might get angry enough to want to go on a shooting spree at the newspaper's offices in revenge. Then, and only then, do you find out which of the "responsible" gun owners is actually responsible. By that point, it's too late to prevent tragedy.

 

Possibly ...
1 year ago

Makes a very good case of thinking before one goes ahead and does something really stupid and offensive. 

FOR thinking ...
1 year ago

Not "of" thinking ...

I thought your contention ...
1 year ago

was the "legal" ownership did not equal "responsible" ownership.  Now you seem to be saying otherwise.

1 year ago


How so?
 

Go back and read ...
1 year ago

your own statements.

1 year ago


I did, and I still don't understand how I said otherwise. Legal gun ownership does not automatically equal responsible ownership. If you think I said legal gun ownership it never equals responsible gun ownership, then maybe that's where the problem lies. I never said. Of course there are responsible gun owners, but the mere fact that one owns a gun legally doesn't automatically mean they are responsible. The inference by legal gun owners that in every case where a gun was legally purchased, the owner is automatically a responsible gun owner is simply not true.

Even in cases where the gun owner is responsible, who is to say they will remain responsible for the rest of their lives? Maybe seven years after legally purchasing and keeping a gun responsibly, their spouse leaves them, they become depressed and angry, and then one night, after lengthy alcohol consumption, they go on a rampage with their gun. 

There is never a guarantee that a legal gun won't eventually be used criminally, no matter how responsible the owner.

 

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.