Newspaper Takes Down Map of Gun Permit Holders

[Paul E Ester]

Source: New York Times

A newspaper has taken down an interactive online map of handgun permit holders in two New York counties that had drawn nationwide anger and prompted threats against its staff, the publisher said in a statement on Friday.

The decision by the paper, The Journal News, to remove the map from its Web site at 5 p.m. came in response to the passage of the state’s sweeping gun law this week, which included a provision limiting access to previously public information about gun permit holders.

“While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit,” Janet Hasson, the newspaper’s publisher, said in a statement.

Legislators pushed to add the measure to the new state law, which also restricts ownership of certain weapons, in response to the paper’s publication after an outcry from gun rights advocates and some law enforcement groups.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/nyregion/newspaper-takes-down-map-of-gun-permit-holders.html?_r=0

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Be interesting to see how long the counter measures continue and what their impact will be

[nick of time]

2. They shouldn't have published it in the first place.

Like that asshat that carried an AR-15 into a Utah JC Penny, it may have been legal, but it was morally wrong and unnecessary.

[alp227]

7. +1, glad it is gone. N/t

[TDale313]

26. Agreed. n/t

[Eleanors38]

81. I'll go with that.

[rainlillie]

90. I totally agree. It reminds me of the nuts who put the names and addresses of abortion doctors out

there. Folks have a right to privacy. The witch-hunt mentality will accomplish very little.

[1983law]

105. Good analogy

[Cynicus Emeritus]

3. Our personal privacy needs to be protected beyond the profits of media elites.

I hope they are sued into bankruptcy. Big consolidated media owned by those such as Gannett Co. and this once independent and now puppet newspaper, is not the little person's friend.


Proud to be Progressive, Populist, and Libertarian and not a puppet to the elite.

[Robb]

5. Fuck Ron Paul. (nt)

[pocoloco]

6. Be sure to use some protection!

[Cynicus Emeritus]

8. And the corporate media too - nt

[Paladin]

11. Yeah, Thanks For That Oh-So-Progressive Post, There. (nt)

[Cynicus Emeritus]

109. Should I thank you or was it meant with a dose of sarcasm?

The right to privacy is fundamental to a democratic society and quality of life. It is a concept that rises above political ideology. Unfortunately in two generations the people will have lost the concept of being able to live a life in relative anonymity if they wish, or go here or there without someone knowing, or having a corporate Google drone watching or recording your family, friends and what you have.

Mark Suckerberg once stated that the purpose of Facebook was to condition the masses to the concept that privacy should become a lost privilege. People behave better when they are watched. Corporations (like Gannett Co and Journal News) want the right to profit off of your life, your friends, your interests, your photos, and mostly your loss of your privacy, and this loss applies mostly to the "under class", and not the ruling over-class.

[mbperrin]

17. How weird. Property taxes are public info. So are marriage and divorce.

So are arrests and convictions. And owners are always telling me what a deterrent guns are to burglars, home invaders and al Quaeda.

So gun owners have a more private relationship with their guns than with their homes, their spouses, or their freedom to walk around.

Like I said, weird.

[lynne]

21. They took it down because of the new gun laws passed in NY state -

- Apparently the law made some previously public info private. See 2nd paragraph above -

"The decision by the paper, The Journal News, to remove the map from its Web site at 5 p.m. came in response to the passage of the state’s sweeping gun law this week, which included a provision limiting access to previously public information about gun permit holders."

[mbperrin]

22. Yes, the new gun law insisted upon by the gun owners who are either ashamed, embarrassed or afraid

to be identified as such, even though their property taxes, marriage and divorce records, arrest and conviction records are all public information which they do not worry about sharing.

Really weird.

[bobclark86]

24. Marriage and divorce records are NOT public in NY

Imagine what it would be like if a paper were to have access to those records: Publishing the list of all same-sex marriages with addresses.

See the problem now?

[Zoeisright]

31. Completely fucking wrong.

Someone else's marriage has NO effect on anyone else. Some douche gun humper with a hundred guns WILL have an affect on others.

Christ on a fucking crutch.

[bobclark86]

32. People are afraid of being made a target...

for exercising a right. It's the same thing.

A guy with a gun will not automatically go kill somebody. That's like saying all scout leaders WILL molest children.

[1983law]

106. I agree with you, but here's a twist...

What about those people who donated to support prop 8 in California? Should they have been publicly outed, and in some cases retaliated against, even though many of those people were exercising a right?

[mbperrin]

59. Hmm.

http://www.legacy.com/nytimes/celebrations.asp?Page=SearchResults


http://www.archives.com/genealogy/vital-records-marriage-divorce-new-york.html

[bobclark86]

116. So...

a website link to wedding announcements and a state site saying you need cause to access records means what? That I'm right?

Go read the Freedom of Information Law.

[mbperrin]

118. Read it again. You need cause for some things, but not for marriages and divorces.

I became very familiar with the Freedom of Information Act when I was a skip-tracer. But New York's FOIL with a 25 cent per page charge? Not so much.

[Flatulo]

25. There is absolutely nothing weird about valuing ones privacy. It is

no ones business what lawful property I have in my home, and it is no ones business what property you have in your home. Can't we agree to respect each others privacy?

Would you approve of publishing the names and addresses of people who have prescription anti-depressants or pain killers in their home? Those items, if used improperly (such as driving while under the influence of) could pose a risk to your safety. Does that justify making their locations public information? How about people who have been or are receiving psychiatric treatment? Want to know who they are?

There are lots of people out there who might decide to try to steal those firearms when no one is home. Would it make you feel better, if someone was killed with a stolen weapon, just to further your anti-gun agenda?

Shameful.

[mbperrin]

34. My point is that gun owners ONLY value privacy about their guns.

Not their marriages or divorces or property taxes or arrests or convictions.

Their guns are their obvious A#1 priority to the exclusion of all else.

I don't have to worry about privacy. I teach. My name, what I teach, where I teach, the hours I teach, the amount I'm paid, what my certifications and degrees are and from where, are all public information available in a link from the school district, the Texas Education Agency, and my local paper, all without spending a dime.

I don't have to worry about privacy, I'm a citizen. My voter registration is public, like all other voters, the address, value and taxes due and paid on every piece of real property I own are public information online through the appraisal district here. My marriage, the births of my children including where, how much they weigh, and the hospital where they were born with the time right down to the minute they were born. Any campaign contribution I give is publicly available in amount and to whom and what date.

There's more, and all citizens face the same information available, and YET, YET, gun owners are ONLY worried about their guns. If they were worried about anything else, they'd have included those in the new NY law restricting info on gun owners.

So no use pretending that it's just a casual thing, or the only privacy issue around, except to gun owners. To then, it is the ONLY issue around. I'm sure the DSMV has some description for that, but I've made the point I want to make.

And BTW, those kids at Sandy Hook were killed and not with a stolen weapon, but with weapons purchased legally and openly and freely given the use of to the killer. And hey, if gun owners were so responsible, they'd put them where they couldn't get stolen. But as it is, daily, some elementary kid shows up at school with a gun that belongs to mom or dad.

But we cannot discuss negligence of owners, liability through negligence, the simple act of doing a background check on all buyers, even individual to individual, or even reinstating an old ban on weaponry that's ONLY good for killing people. That's all off limits, while 900+ more people have been killed with guns in the US since Sandy Hook. Make you feel better to know that? That's a fact, not a hypothetical.

[Flatulo]

35. Nonsense. I value every aspect of my privacy. I don't believe it's anyone's business

How many flat screen TVs, Xboxes or laptops I have in my home, or whether I have a Porsche or a Yugo in my garage.

Putting this information out in the public draws a big target on my home, and I don't appreciate that.

[mbperrin]

47. So a gun is actually a MAGNET to crime, not a deterrent? Valuing every aspect?

Really? So what are you doing to get property taxes made private? Marriage records? Divorce records? All those others already mentioned?



Yep, nothing at all.

By their works ye shall know them. Look it up.

[Flatulo]

50. No. Any deterrent value derives from the uncertainty.

And if it were up to me, I would make every piece of information about individuals private.

I value privacy above all else. I don't even own a telephone.

[mbperrin]

57. What specific actions are you taking to make every piece of information about individuals private?

You do seem to have internet access, don't you? And an account here and so on.

Please.


This is not a pissing contest about privacy. Fact is, no one has said anything to dissuade me from the fact that gun owners value their guns above all else. Not a soul here has denied all the personal information that can be had for the asking quite legally.

And not a soul here has named a specific action other than the one against the paper and for the gun owners about anything being done about any privacy issue.

[Flatulo]

70. Your willful inability to understand this is simply adorable, but why dont you just admit

that the harassment of gun owners pleases you greatly? I won't mind. They're are apparently lots of like-minded folks here.

Guns are a very valuable commodity. A decent 9 mm pistol goes for $500 to $700. Plus, they are coveted by criminals, who use them in their tradecraft. A rather small collection of a few pistols and shotguns could easily be worth several thousand dollars.

Making the location of this valuable commodity public serves absolutely not one other purpose than to 1) encourage harassment of gun owners and 2) give criminals a convenient roadmap to the whereabouts of the tools of their trade. How you can derive enjoyment from this eludes me, but I suppose you have what you believe to be good reasons.

The Journal was called on their bullshit by adults.

[mbperrin]

73. Find a single post by me expressing joy at harassment of gun owners. You can't.

First, no one has demonstrated any actual harassment from this information being out there. Increase in burglaries or assaults at those addresses and the like? Nope.

Second, my entire point has never been, and I've said it over and over, there are MANY privacy issues that could be worked on, but the gun ownership is the ONLY one being worked on, and it has been handled swiftly, where these others continue as they have for decades with no interest at all in doing anything about them.

Third, the priority shown by actual action simply means that gun owners value their guns above all their other life information, including marriage, divorce, property values, taxes, campaign contributions, voter registration. That's what I question" WHY is this the ONLY issue that warrants action?

I'm still wondering.

[Flatulo]

77. Because the value of my home, generally, cannot be used to cause harm. In general, this information

is used to assess similar properties in a neighborhood.

Firearms, like gold and jewels, have an appreciable cash value. I don't want the location of my gold made public. I don't want the location of my jewelry made public.

There's a secondary consideration - guns are the tools of choice for criminals. Since they are forbidden to own them, they resort to stealing them from legal sources. Making the precise location of these tools public information is incredibly irresponsible and can only serve a perverted agenda.

First ammendment issues do not enter into this. Would you like your local newspaper to publish the names, genders and whereabouts of your children during the day? This is all public information, but publishing a list is just craven and misguided.

The first ammendment, just like the second, is not a license to do whatever the fuck you want.

Adults understand this.

[mbperrin]

83. Oh, you mean information about kids like this:

http://www.maxpreps.com/high-schools/abilene-eagles-(abilene,tx)/football/home.htm

Name, numbers, position, schedule, address where they will play, and when and so on. You mean that kind of craven?

[Flatulo]

85. Your link is bad.

[mbperrin]

93. Sorry. Try this one.

http://www.mojoland.net/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=61

[Flatulo]

96. I see a list of names, weights and player numbers. I don't see where they live. nt

[mbperrin]

113. Oh, so if we give the workplace names and phone numbers and addresses of gun owners, you're cool

with that? Well, why didn't you say so?

(BTW, if by using the game schedule, you cannot locate each of those players to the exact address they will be at playing the game at that exact moment, then you're really not trying, are you?)

[Flatulo]

115. Your powers of extrapolation are a marvel.

[NutmegYankee]

40. I'm a gun owner and a card carrying member of the ACLU.

"But I only value privacy about my guns"

[mbperrin]

46. So what are you doing about those other issues already mentioned by me?

:crickets:

It's that old "actions speak louder than words" thing. And YES, I KNOW your mom or grandma or somebody told you that at one time.

It's still true.

[NutmegYankee]

48. Try using the search function of DU.

What's your excuse? Did mommy not teach you that?

I've said much on the topic of guns and background checks.

Also, do you understand what the ACLU does?

The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

These rights include:

Your First Amendment rights - freedom of speech, association and assembly; freedom of the press, and freedom of religion.
Your right to equal protection under the law - protection against unlawful discrimination.
Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.
Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.

The ACLU also works to extend rights to segments of our population that have traditionally been denied their rights, including people of color; women; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people; prisoners; and people with disabilities.

My actions are quite obvious.

[mbperrin]

56. What have you said on the topic of getting marriage announcements,

property tax values, divorce decrees, and all those other things made private? Nothing.

Please don't blow smoke about the ACLU to me, either. They're not working on the other items mentioned by me, either, or you could cite them.

Yes, your actions are quite obvious. The only specific action you're working on is to prevent the identities of gun owners from being known. Then you wrap yourself in a generic cover, but that generic organization isn't working on any of the issues mentioned here, either.


So yes, your actions are quite obvious. I also had no idea that ACLU favors ridiculing my mother. Hmm

[slackmaster]

58. Just a few data points here - Not all of those things are quite as public as mbperrin presents them.

Public vs. non-public information is not a black-and-white thing.

The state of California, and I am sure others, offer confidential marriage licenses under which all personal information is protected from public view. A court order is required for that information to be disclosed.

http://losangelesmarriagelicense.com/confidential-marriage-license.html

Here in California property tax information per parcel is public information, but it is possible to have the property vested in a trust or even an assumed name, so the owner cannot be readily identified.

DMV vehicle registrations used to be easily available to the public here, but that changed after a stalker tracked down and murdered a young actress by pulling her car registration. Some may remember her in a sitcom called My Sister Sam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

Handguns are registered here too, but that data is not available to the general public without a court order. It is possible to have things like guns registered for government (i.e. law enforcement) purposes, but not available to anyone who wants it. Personally I think it's outrageous that New York requires a permit to own a handgun, and that it makes permit information available to the public. I hope the outcry over this fiasco creates a movement to make it more secure.

BTW, the right to privacy is explicitly codified in the California state constitution.

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

[mbperrin]

62. Here's some handy links for you.

Property values, locations, taxes, dates of deed executions and all the rest for property:

http://www.ectorcad.org/


Log in here for marriage and divorce records and much more. This information is from public databases.

http://www.ancestry.com/ or for a specific state, http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/vs/default.shtm

teacher credentials:

https://secure.sbec.state.tx.us/SBECONLINE/virtcert.asp


Anywho, as I said, there's lots of information out there, but if you want some of it blocked, make it about guns and see how fast that goes compared to other areas.

[slackmaster]

110. I was a systems admin at a company that aggregates and sells public record data for five years

I'm very well aware of what's available, and what's not available.

[NutmegYankee]

61. Now your flailing wildly.

Tax values are published publicly to ensure fairness in tax assessments. If my neighbor's home across the street is of the same type of structure and land area and yet is assessed far below mine, then I can challenge my assessment. This system of "comparables" is the only effective method to ensure fairness. And our systems of local government have always had this openness on property assessments.

In my local paper, marriage announcements are made voluntarily. The local paper does not publish divorces.

What I have fought allowing to go public is information like who in the area uses Welfare or SNAP. Obviously this is a use of public money, but the release of this info would be used for abusive purposes like shame or ridicule. I also oppose releasing public employees salaries if they are regular wage/salary owners with zero control on that pay.

As for firearms, Most localities do not collect information on gun owners, so this information has historically not been available. In fact, one of the best arguments to resist giving government this information is the fear it would be abused. The only people who should have access to this info are law enforcement.

[mbperrin]

68. Now go ahead and tell me why my campaign contributions are public.

Our local paper publishes every marriage and every divorce in a section called "Matter of Record."

And how come the value of my house, along with the location, dates and types of improvements and so are "openness" but gun ownership information is a "violation"? What if I just want to compare the rate of gun ownership in one neighborhood versus another to make a decision on buying there? No legitimacy to that? None of my business? But everyone with an Internet connection is good to know that a storage shed was added to my property in 1988, and it's currently worth $6700?

My voter registration is everybody's business, but that is just the "open" aspect working? Bosses never fire anyone based on their politics? http://gawker.com/5977165/racist-business-owner-fires-obama+supporting-employee-to-cover-new-obongocare-costs

And yet, only 5 states do anything about my political beliefs.


Flailing? Nope. Fact is, GUN OWNERSHIP PRIVACY is the hottest issue around and more is being done to protect it than any of these other categories, where no one on this board has been able to demonstrate ANY measure being done about any of the other privacy issues raised here.

My one and only point in all this? That gun owners value their guns above all else; families, property, politics, you name it.

[NutmegYankee]

75. Your point holds less water than a sieve.

For marriage and divorces records - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

I already explained why real property assessments are public. They have to be for fairness. And how the hell did you buy the house without looking at the property card provided from the local taxing authority? That's one of the first things you look at! You are not taxed on household property, so no one is required to list their TVs, Computers, Digital devices, Kitchen appliances, Musical instruments, Firearms, Swords, or Jewelry.

I live in Connecticut, one of those 5 states. If you want it changed - DO SOMETHING ABOUT!

[mbperrin]

86. Not taxed on household property? Really?

http://dor.wa.gov/docs/pubs/prop_tax/persprop.pdf

Might want to give this a look.

Now why are you disregarding your own advice - you tell me that your state is fine, and I should stay in my state and do something, so why are you here on this NEW YORK issue?

[NutmegYankee]

88. That applies to businesses, not to homes.

You are expressing enormous amounts of envy about other people's privacy and seeking in accordance with that emotion to deprive them of it. Why don't you instead act to reverse what you dislike?

[mbperrin]

91. I have never said once that I have a problem with privacy.

It's making gun ownership the only privacy issue worth acting on that I have an issue with.

This happened weeks ago and has been undone, while the others I've mentioned have been going on for decades and nothing is even trying to be done about it.

I'm trying for a delicate point here, but I keep getting run over by the ad hominem bus.

[NutmegYankee]

97. Good grief, you are no martyr.

People have done much about privacy in the past decades. Look at legalized abortion. Now the fight to protect privacy is even larger as we face the "Facebookization" of everything in our lives.

Half the stuff you complained about isn't even a rational argument on privacy. Professional licensing and real property values have been public since day one. And they have to be for the system to function. I'm a professional mechanical engineer. My license is listed with the state of issue. That's no different than your teaching certificates. How else can people prove we are licensed for our respective professions? I've covered real property in quite some detail. Neither of these things can be used for abuse, like shame, harassment, or criminal targeting

Some things are not public. No one knows if I own firearms, and I want it to stay that way. It's no one's damn business! I don't know if a neighbor gets SNAP. It's none of my f'ing business! No one knows about another's medical conditions. Because it's none of their f'ing business!

Why are you arguing to remove someones privacy and yet complaining that you feel yours is violated? I see post after post on this thread leading the charge to invade other folks privacy. I seriously question whether you respect it at all!

[mbperrin]

101. See? You've turned it around. They don't respect mine, because they do nothing about it.

But their one and lone issue? All the way.

As a former skip-trace collector, I long ago lost the illusion that we really have any privacy. I don't care about my teaching info being made available, even though one local principal here was attacked at home and had an arm broken by a kid he had suspended for fighting the week before.

I don't think people realize how little real privacy they have, and that's why I'm amazed that those who care about privacy or say they do only work on the one issue.

I have no complaints. I've made plenty of life choices to please myself, and all actions have consequences. I accept those. But I do hate it when others try to skip out on theirs.

Well, I can see that we've come to the end of this road, since you now doubt my sincerity or personal integrity, so I'll see you around DU on some other something.

[mbperrin]

95. None of those businesses are owned by people?

So you would be okay with a list of businesses which own guns? That's the distinction you're drawing here.

[NutmegYankee]

98. Ah, You believe Corporations are people!

Woopsie!

[mbperrin]

112. I believe that businesses are owned by people. You?

Go ahead and bring up corporations - so you believe that they are BETTER than people who own businesses?

[NutmegYankee]

114. *yawn*

[obamanut2012]

66. I know, right?

The broadbrushing being allowed against liberal DU gin owners is really getting old.

[obamanut2012]

65. Broadbush BS

gun owners ONLY value privacy about their guns

[mbperrin]

76. Sorry you feel that way. I have been as specific as can be about at least ten other issues

that affect privacy but have received no action in decades nor have any planned. Specific issues, like voter registration, property values and locations, my teaching certificate and salary and job description, marriage, divorce, and others.

Those are as narrow as I can make them.


Evidently, the priority assigned to guns above all else makes them not available to talk about compared to other issues, and that saddens me.

But I'll get over it. I'm crazy anyway: I'm the grandson of an IWW organizer in the oilfields of west Texas in the 1920s. I'm a native of Texas and teach social studies to adolescents with all the success implied there. I support LGBT right, including marriage. I support a woman's right to choose, unconditionally. I support a single payer health program for everyone in the USA. I support a living wage, not a minimum wage. I worked in the wellhead business for a decade, and I oppose fracking. I oppose drilling offshore anywhere. I support wind and solar power subsidies at least as large as those given to the petrochemical industry. I'm an atheist. I actually think the world could be better, but not by wishing it so.

Like I said, I'm entirely used to chasing the wind, being out of step, and just plain being written off. It's okay. I'm too stupid to quit.

[Eleanors38]

89. See #58 above. Still want license plate info out there?

Even TEXAS stopped giving that out.


We both know why that rag did this: To start up a little of that culture war. Right?

[Riftaxe]

38. If you want to dig, the name of every man and woman who ever brought

Last edited Sat Jan 19, 2013, 08:00 AM - Edit history (2)

a sexual assault charge to bear is public record. You could publish that, you would be the lowest piece of scum possible, but surely this is something you would wholly embrace.

[mbperrin]

49. Nope, many of those are sealed and not simply available to the general public.

So what are you doing to make sure that those names are never revealed?

Nothing?

Just what I thought. But oh let's work hard on those gun owners and THEIR privacy! Rape victims? Not worth the effort.

Unless you can show me where an organized effort is being made and bills being introduced.



Yeah, I won't be holding my breath.

[Riftaxe]

123. Absolutely nothing,

Why should I?, never filed a claim and have no reason to protect those who have filed false ones. Would i not support someone who appeared as a victim and upon a conviction proven so, hell yes.


Now big guy, what have you done other then shoot your mouth off and prove you have never been in a petit courst in any other role then a defendant, never called a court or talked to anyone related to the legal system or our governance?


Blow all the hot air you want, but due for the sake of the discussion pretend you you have a basic awareness of reality.

[obamanut2012]

64. Many divorce PSAs are sealed

DMV info is public info, but is also usually "sealed." Many states don;t allow most people to get a copy of someone's birth certificate, which is also public information.

Publishing that info puts the lives of LEOs, abuse/stalking victims, and others at risk. The authorities have that info, which is enough. Also, that info was just people who were approved for permits, not who own guns.

[mbperrin]

71. Thanks for some good specific information.

"Also, that info was just people who were approved for permits, not who own guns."

See? That is a distinction that I have not been aware of. Thanks for offering that. So in fact, there is no mention of any kind of gun or other detail like that in the information by the paper.

Good, I appreciate that.

[frylock]

60. yet the staunch defenders of the constitution were nowhere to be found when george w bush..

was shitting all over the 4th amendment in order to keep us safe. but make any proposals to minimize gun violence in order to make ourselves safe, well then we have a crises.

[NutmegYankee]

69. What a load of crap.

Many of us here were protesting all along. The ACLU was suing all throughout the decade. We just didn't have the power needed.

[frylock]

92. i'm talking about the idiots on the right

[NeoConsSuck]

117. Progressive *and* Libertarian?

No such animal exists, they can't be cross-bred.

[Cynicus Emeritus]

119. Most all of us are ideological hybrids

I haven't checked this organization out yet www.ruck.us but I will.. Their premise is that none of us can be neatly compartmentalized politically on all issues.

Some libertarian views I have are no wars of choice, privacy rights, Congress declares war, due process for all, no supporting dictators, equality of all before the law. Other than economics there are shared views.

[Flatulo]

121. Actually, Libertarians were the most vocal opponents of the Iraq war, if anyone had been listening.

True, they very strongly support 2A rights, but there are some other areas of overlap.

People make the mistake of visualizing ideology as a left-right line. There is actually an orthagonal axis as well, and one's position can be approximated by a set of coordinates in a left-right, up-down plane.

[LanternWaste]

122. I imagine many people believe the 2nd trumps the 1st.

I imagine many people believe the 2nd trumps the 1st...

[Robb]

4. 2nd Amendment beats the 1st. And the idiots cheer.

[Piazza Riforma]

15. Dontcha know? Folks here in the USofA would rather cling to their guns

than have a free press. After all that's what the Founding Fathers wanted.

[Robb]

51. Quoth the bard:

"Many wearing rapiers are afraid of goosequills."

[Flatulo]

99. Old frontier saying:

'God made men, Sam Colt made them equal.'

Never truer than today. Except maybe the part about God.

A gun makes a frail little old lady the equal of her 6'4" 280 pound attacker.

I'll never understand why this isn't a progressive value. The only rationale I can imagine for opposing self-defense is if there is no self to defend.

[mbperrin]

18. Looks that way to me.

Seems weird, though, huh?

[Flatulo]

36. Oh, please cut the crap. The Journal used their 1A rights to call attention to a

group of people who have committed no crime. They did this to harass them, plain and simple. Using the bully pulpit of a newspaper to target and harass innocent citizens because of a social agenda is morally reprehensible. They got called on their bullshit by the adults and took the map down.

Any other interpretation of this is pure sophistry.

[Robb]

45. Dead kids are a "social agenda." Roger that.

And death threats from bubbly-nuts gun owners is getting "called."

Your planet is an interesting one.

[Flatulo]

72. How does making the exact location of firearms public information make fewer "dead kids"?

If anything, it makes those firearms the object of theft and creates potentially more "dead kids".

And making death threats is a felony.

I eagerly await the flood of arrests and prosecutions.

[mbperrin]

55. This is a confession that when people think you own a gun, it's a negative and amounts to harassment

and that would be because?

Must mean that owning a gun is unacceptable and akin to criminal activity if the mere mention of it is such an issue that we must dump the First Amendment overboard>

Sophistry? Nope. Very reasonable interpretation of language. The paper reported exactly that those folks owned guns. There was no editorial that said, so now burn down their houses, or hunt them down like dogs, or any other overt statement. Now if the mere mention in a newspaper means that you are in harm's way, why in God's name aren't you working to get baby shower announcements out of the paper?

Or marriage records?

Or divorce filings?

Or real estate sales? Taxes due on property?

In fact, if being mentioned in the newspaper is an incitement to violence against those mentioned, shouldn't we simply outlaw newspapers as being a criminal enterprise? That's really all they do, ya know, is put people, places, and events in writing for the public to read.

BTW, has there BEEN an increase in crimes committed against gun owners in the area? Or is this just the usual deathporn scenarios I find typical of folks who stockpile weapons that are good to kill people?

[Flatulo]

74. Why not publish the exact location of where homosexuals live?

I mean, after all, objecting to that would be an admission that homosexuality is bad.

Why not publish the exact locations where large amounts of diamonds and jewelry are stored? I mean, after all, admitting that one owns such things is bad.

Do you really want to base your argument on this kind of creepy logic?

The default action in every single case should be to respect privacy. Otherwise you're no better than those creepy ultra-Christians who want to know what goes on behind every set of closed doors.

[mbperrin]

78. Psst. Here's a list of where large amounts of diamonds and jewelry are stored.

http://www.yellowpages.com/new-york-ny/jewelry-stores




Oh, as an atheist, I'm offended by being compared to Christians. Watch it.

[Flatulo]

82. I'm a devout atheist as well, so no need to fear a religious angle from me.

But most people's homes are not as secured as retailers of firearms, jewelry and other valuables.

I support safe storage laws, including inspection by the local CoP, even though it does tread closely on my rights to privacy. I voluntarily, and as a responsible gun owner, keep my guns locked in a safe with a sturdy combination lock and a stout steel frame. My intention is to keep out children and casual thieves, but any determined and trained person could obviously break it open.

I simply cannot understand why the risk of this happening is worth taking just in an attempt to cast shame on or encourage harassment of gun owners. It boggles the mind.

[mbperrin]

87. See? You're trying to do the right thing by securing your guns.

But all too obviously, many are not:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=elementary+school+student+brings+gun+to+school&oq=eleme&gs_l=news-cc.1.10.43j0l10j43i400.6072.6598.0.11872.5.4.0.1.1.0.55.194.4.4.0...0.0...1ac.1.JVT0_4C9mBI



Now admit it, my post about jewelry stores was a little bit funny and surprising. Wasn't it? Give me SOMEthing here.

[Flatulo]

94. If Adam Lanza's mom were alive, I would be delighted to see her spend her life in prison.

As it is, I almost wish there were a hell so that she could burn in it.

I just cannot imagine what she was thinking, to have an obviously very emotionally disturbed child living with her, and note have those weapons secured in a safe with a combination lock known only to her. Hopefully it will be a bit of a wake up call to others who have guns lying about the home.

As to the original point you were trying to make, one cannot gauge one's passion about issue A by their zeal about issue B. we all have our special causes, and supporting one more vocally doesn't diminish the importance of the others.

Regarding your link to the jewelry store, I honestly didn't know if you were trying to be funny, or were just being intransigent. If you were being funny, then LOL.

[mbperrin]

79. Ooops, forgot. Here's a list of where lots of homo-sexuals can be found.

Or maybe just call them gay.

http://newyork.gaycities.com/

[Flatulo]

100. And their names and addresses? Fail.

[frylock]

63. all the while relinquishing their 4th amendment rights without batting an eye

[petronius]

9. Good choice on their part. I favor personal privacy as a starting point in all things:

no compelling public need was served by publishing the map, so while they may have had the legal right to print it it was the wrong thing to do...

[pasto76]

12. not so much. I'd like to know if I have a gun nut on my block; never'd let my kids go there

47 TIMES (not percent) more likely to have a family member or friend SHOT if you own a gun. My kids will not be part of that 47 times.

[petronius]

13. You would certainly have the right to ask. I don't have kids, but if I did and they were

planning to visit a neighbor, I'd want to meet those folks and make my own assessment. What was or wasn't in the newspaper would have no relevance at all.

So I disagree: this original action by the paper served no legitimate public purpose...

[Socal31]

19. Owning a gun = gun-nut?

You could have left that out, and the rest of your post which is very reasonable and frankly a very responsible stance which leads me to believe you are a great parent, would have resonated with more people.

[slackmaster]

20. Kellerman's research that produced that number (actually 43, not 47) is based on a lot of...

...fallacious assumptions. Kellerman has refused to allow anyone to scrutinize the raw data he used in his calculations, and has in fact backed away from that conclusion and revised it to say the risk factor is 2.7 times higher than for a household with no guns.

But that also fails to account for things like storage policies. A gun locked up in a safe and unloaded poses no risk whatsoever.

BTW, simply owning a firearm doesn't make a person a "gun nut."

[Flatulo]

28. How about homes with prescription meds? Those are more likely to not be locked up.

Shall we publish the names and addresses of these people as well?

If you don't want your kids to associate with kids whose parents may own lawful firearms, just ask the parents.

You should also be teaching your kids to get away immediately if a friend should come upon a firearm in the home.

And parents should obviously secure any guns if there are children in the home.

[iamthebandfanman]

10. Good and bad.

Good, because it is an invasion of those folks privacy..
Bad, because guns arent a deterrent if nobody knows you have one.

[Flatulo]

37. Er,

The deterrent value, if any, arises from the uncertainty.

I don't see either side in the gun debate rushing to erect either "Gun-free zone" or "We are armed" signs on their property.

[mbperrin]

80. This listing might interest you, then.

http://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Warning-Amendment-Bumper-Sticker/dp/B004X8AWO4

[Flatulo]

84. Oh sure, such things exist, even though I've never seen one. Not even remotely equivalent to

publish a roadmap to where valuable firearms are stored.

In order to map out firearms locations using only those stickers, I'd have to survey every home in town. Decidedly more inconvenient.

[iamthebandfanman]

120. I guess it depends on what type of person u r

or should i say how desperate you are to commit a crime.

to me, id much rather have the uncertainty (hey , 50/50 chances arent so bad) than to know for sure the house i was about to break into had a loaded gun in it.

[slackmaster]

14. Fuck the Journal News

They were assholes for compiling and posting that data. It was done with malicious intent and served no good purpose.

[Cynicus Emeritus]

107. Agreed, how would it have been accepted if they published

names and addresses of homes or locations that are gun free zones or homes where there are single moms. Privacy is soon to be a lost concept if we permit it. It is no one' business and I hope they get sued big time.

The media (print, cable and TV) need to get back to publishing only the news and exposing corruption, instead of promoting culture wars and divisiveness in society. We didn't have all of this divisiveness when Superman worked at the "Daily Planet" and it was an independently owned newspaper and not there promoting Wall St and corporate agenda.

[Newsjock]

16. Now, perhaps many of these same newspapers can take down ...

... their databases of full names, salaries, and work addresses of teachers and other public employees who have committed no sin other than wishing to work for the public good.

[Flatulo]

39. That's a little different, no? They're being paid solely with my tax dollars, so I believe I have a

right to know how my money is being spent.

[NutmegYankee]

41. Nah. That was a jerk move also.

Not as personally dangerous as home addresses aren't listed, but it did make people uncomfortable. Discomfort inflected for no good reason.

[Flatulo]

42. I agree that the first approach should be maximum privacy. However, public servants

have been found to game the system from time to time.

In MA, the Chelsea Housing Authority director was paying himself $360,000 per year. He also swindled an estimated $2m for himself and his family.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/10/01/chelsea-housing-chief-allegedly-diverted-federal-funds-drawing-investigation/kGWr15sTqOM08vO0O7kRGN/story.html

[NutmegYankee]

44. Higher levels are often required to file financial disclosures.

But regular employees, who don't control their own pay, shouldn't be exposed. They are wage/salary earners like everybody else.

[obamanut2012]

67. I agree

That can be requested, it doesn't need to be available like that.

[and-justice-for-all]

23. Why would someone do that? that is just assinine..nr

[Flatulo]

27. Fuck them. Publishing that information in the first place was just hateful and served no public

interest. I wonder if any of those guns will be stolen and used in a crime...

News outlets should publish the news, not pursue personal agendas. That's the role of advocacy groups.

[Jenoch]

29. How magnanimous of

Ms. Hasson.

[Flatulo]

102. Yah, after all the potential harm and lost privacy.

[Zoeisright]

30. Oh gee, "threats against its staff", huh?

Typical rotten fucking gun humper behavior.

[Great Caesars Ghost]

33. I am trying to figure out what they're threatening them with.

[slackmaster]

53. If I were a subscriber I certainly wouldn't threaten them

I'd just cancel my subscription.

[Flatulo]

43. I believe that someone posted the names and addresses of some staffers, which is exactly

what the newspaper did. Print names and addresses.

I wonder how much they liked having their privacy violated in this way?

Threatening someone with violence is a crime. I eagerly await the blizzard of charges.

[slackmaster]

54. Yes. Public record data.

Goose, gander, sauce, sauce.

[slackmaster]

52. The paper has never published any of the alleged threats, nor has anyone been arrested for them

The claim sounds bogus without anything to back it up.

It's just drama.

[Flatulo]

103. I await the blizzard of arrests for threatening violence with baited breath. nt

[Cynicus Emeritus]

108. Insider hype intended to get them sympathy and armed security. OWS

faced the same types of claims. False flags and overblown false reports have become SOP by those who prefer manipulating reality to reporting the facts.

[Flatulo]

104. Why don't you just go ahead and enlighten us with the details of these threats

by the ' fucking gun humpers'.

[Ian Iam]

111. Milksops!

Intimidation is precisely the way in which rightwing nutters prevail. Quite sad.