Listing names of gun owners vs journalists & why it matters

[SoCalDem]

Many gun owners take offense when they are outed as gun owners..and they are armed. Many (most?) have a confrontational attitude that being armed bolsters.

Journalists, by nature, may be less confrontational, since they use words..not guns.
(some may actually have guns, but do not tend to flaunt it)

When a gun-person gets pissed off, their paranoid side could easily tempt them to ACT..and having the address & google map of someone they perceive to have "harmed" them, could escalate into a violent situation for their target ---the journalist who may have not even been involved in the decision to publish the "gun-list", but who now will have to deal with a possibly dangerous situation.

Does anyone see even a remotely equivalent possibility of journalists roving the neighborhoods looking for gun people who named them publicly?

How would such confrontations look? Journalist standing in the yard yelling headlines at them? vs someone driving around taking potshots or threatening to?

[Marrah_G]

1. I think a list of homes to rob for guns is a bigger issue

[Robb]

7. Lots of guns aren't worth breaking into a house for.

Even handguns. A lot are worth less than whatever we're typing on here.

Would you break into a house in the chance their handgun might be worth $800, knowing it also might be worth $100, or might be on the homeowner's person instead of waiting to be burgled?

It's a laughable complaint.

[hack89]

11. What about revealing the addresses of women hiding from abusive ex-husbands?

is that a laughable complaint or merely a price society has to pay for transparency?

[Pholus]

13. The crocodile is weeping...

I think Josh Marshall makes a decent point about this particular talking point. It's not like abusive ex-husbands are totally without other resources to stalk. And given a special case LEGITIMATE complaint like this, the state database is likely easily modified.

[hack89]

14. Don't the journalists have some responsibility to ask such questions?

did they even think that they might be endangering people?

[Pholus]

15. I ask gun owners that question all the time.

They typically don't seem to be too concerned about the answer.

[hack89]

17. In my case the answer is no.

judging from the historic decline in gun violence in the past 30 years it would appear the vast majority of legal gun owners would answer the same.

[Pholus]

19. You're all legal till you're not.

Then it's too late to do anything more than to clean up the mess and listen to yet another endless barrage of 2A talking points.

[hack89]

27. The same can be said for those that drink alcohol - we are all potential drunk drivers.

in fact, it is much more likely then being potential killers.

Are you part of the "alcohol culture" that contributes to death, illness, domestic violence, child abuse, suicide, crime, etc? Or are you a responsible drinker?

[Robb]

32. Mass shooters, nearly to a man, got their weapons legally.

Legal, responsible gun ownership -- if not the problem itself -- doesn't appear to be the solution, either.

[hack89]

36. Drunk drivers, nearly to a person, got their booze legally.

Legal, responsible drinking -- if not the problem itself -- doesn't appear to be the solution, either.

In my town of 60,000 there have been 2 fatal shootings in 15 years. Alcohol related traffic deaths are unfortunately a common occurrence.

Rare horrific events horrify. Common horrific events not so much it would appear. I know what the biggest threat to me and my family is and it is not guns.

[theKed]

56. Difference:

We enact laws to punish drunk drivers. Society villifies them and shames them, the very notion of it. Insurance companies persecute drunk drivers - if they ever drive again, that is.

Firearms? Not so much. If the NRA worked for Coors we'd be talking about how much booze is on the shelves already, so why bother trying to regulate it.

[hack89]

64. We enact laws to punish people that shoot other people

And we do more then shame and vilify them - we lock them up in prison.

[Pholus]

38. Teatotaller so "Option C" I guess. He swings, he misses!

But I'm amused that you responded with the "well we're all guilty of something so who are you to examine me" ploy?

How 21st century of you. Accountability is for suckers.

C'mon. The NRA has bought and paid for a huge playbook of bon mots and debating tactics that you could borrow from here. Surely you can do a bit better than that bottom of the barrel play.

[hack89]

39. I just see the risks to my family differently then you do

In my town of 60,000 there have been 2 fatal shootings in 15 years. Alcohol related traffic deaths are unfortunately a common occurrence.

Rare horrific events horrify. Common horrific events not so much it would appear. I know what the biggest threat to me and my family is and it is not guns.

[Pholus]

41. That's better. Page 38.

However, are you claiming a huge discrepancy between the number of alcohol related traffic deaths versus the number of firearm homicides annually in the US? If you are I'm amused again.

[hack89]

43. In 2009, there were 10,839 fatalities in crashes involving a driver with a BAC of .08 or higher

In 2009 there were 9,146 firearm murders.

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_08.html

[Pholus]

58. Wow, a whole 15% difference!

Seriously, if it were like 50% you might even have had an actual point.

All you have shown is that the risk dying by a drunk driver versus some dumbass with a gun is basically the same.

[hack89]

63. Which is exactly my point

identical risk - radically different level of fear.

Why aren't we considering regulating alcohol like we want to regulate guns?

It is almost as if we accept that most people can handle alcohol responsibly and therefore there is no need to punish them for the actions of the irresponsible few.

[Pholus]

66. So the guy in post #39 was a liar?

He was basically trying to imply gun deaths are "rare horrific events" compared to common alcohol traffic deaths -- with this general thesis hidden behind some weasel words that could be explained away as local geographical effects.

Now you on the other hand are taking the more reasonable (considering the numbers) approach that the risks are nearly identical nationwide.

If pushed, I'd say the guy in post #39 was mostly guilty of underestimating risks from the familiar -- a common problem and one that leads to approximately 20000 injuries a year. People who THINK they are in control of something rarely are and in fact overconfidence is a root cause of many fatal errors.

Anyway, glad to see we came to the same point in the end. But to answer your question, it is really sad but both guns and alcohol represent large money-making industries capable of fielding literal armies of lobbyists. We accept the occasional tragedy as something that is somehow acceptable or unavoidable as a result.

Thanks for paying attention.

[bongbong]

67. NRA Talking Points

You're seeing what happens all over the Internet when guns are discussed.

Nothing productive, since the NRA has orders out to its employees & contractors to spew Talking Points, waste sane people's time, derail progress, play out the clock, all for their goal of selling more guns and causing more slaughter.

[hack89]

69. Mass shootings are rare events

DU doesn't get worked up about day to day violence - they understand that gun violence is geographically concentrated in areas with poverty, crime, drugs and gangs. Most of.them live in very safe areas. Mass shootings hit a nerve because they can imagine themselves being there - hence the panic over an extremely rare event.

So for most Americans not living in high crime areas, alcohol and traffic accidents are the much great threat. Even more so for children under 16.

Like I said, 2 gun deaths in 15 years vice a constant death toll on the roads where I live.

I understand very well what dangers my family faces.

[Pholus]

74. Ah, so we're all "Latte Liberals" then?

1) I wonder about the point you want to make with the generalities in your first sentence. Boil it down and it's just a variant of the freeper "Latte Liberal" smear. Now your normal perch in the gungeon must be shielding you from the real DU because you've missed a constant stream of posts in GD as DU'ers describe their neighborhoods and lives. I find it the main reason to stay here -- these people are interesting. I will simply say that what I read from them directly contradicts your main assertion.

2) Mass shootings are now the events that pass the threshold of sensitivity we have left after a diet of death day after day after day for years. Listening to the Chicago news every night they still cover each and every murder but in a 90 second segment that sounds like an auction in its verbal cadence. But that's the way the NRA likes it and so that's what we're used to now.

3) I think you're a fool for repeatedly stating you understand the dangers quite well. I learned one rule of thumb from my Dad's old highway trooper pal that's NEVER led me wrong. With anything lethal and high risk (guns, alcohol, motorcycles, drugs) the moment a person starts talking like they know it all just realize that you'll be reading about them in the news eventually. Without the proper respect for the possibility that things can spiral out of your control, you're overconfident and a danger to those around you.

[hack89]

75. No - stop trying so hard to be offended

this is just a discussion board.

The simple fact is that America is enjoying historically low levels of gun violence. Levels that have been steadily declining for 30 years, the evil NRA not withstanding. You have never been safer and will be even safer next year.

I understand risk. I assume it every time I drive to work. I assume even more when I hand my keys to my teenage driver. Unlike you, I have a sense of proportion about risk. I appreciate the real dangers and account for them while not getting the vapors about the extremely unlikely ones.

[Pholus]

76. Then stop trying to offend.

And leave the right winger talking points for the right wingers. Please.

[hack89]

79. Disagreeing with you is not trying to offend.

notice who is the only one of us resorting to name calling and personal attacks?

[Pholus]

97. Namecalling accusations? Page 68, NRA Playbook.

I guess you're feeling hurt (or it's NRA playbook page 68 -- start accusing of namecalling when things go south) so I read the whole thread again. I get two possible references where I "done ya wrong" by name calling:

As far as names?

When I said I thought the guy in post #39 was lying in post 66, it was by way of pointing out a contradiction in your argument and how you were sounding like two different people. You can't have both theses simultaneously (gun accidents are rare enough not to be of concern as a practical risk compared to alcohol, it's just as common as drunk driving so why are you picking on it preferentially). You are *still* weaving back and forth between them. The inconsistency is kind of smarmy actually. Pick one and be consistent at least.

I was kind enough to say "I think you're a fool" rather than "you're a fool" so there was room for YMMV in there. I obviously don't know you and perhaps you're a solid citizen. Frankly, though, your risk management argument in its entirety seems to be that your guns are basically harmless (or that you are too perfect to make a safety mistake) and shouldn't be even factored in as a possible outcome in your infallible sense of "proportion about risk." But as we had just finished the discussion of the absolute risk probabilities to me it seems to be rather "head in the sand" or, dare I say, "foolish."

Now as far as personal attacks?

Certainly it could not have been post 76 though based in proximity I guess it might be it. In that post I merely said that your assertions in post 69 are very similar to common right wing tropes and that they should be left to them. Why exactly would that offend unless it is cutting at some aspect of your personality I can't see?

Certainly I wasn't offended when you claimed that DU'ers (of which you are nominally one too I gather) are in unreasoning panics over mass shootings due to their removal from the front lines of "poverty, crime, drugs and gangs." Seemed like a large assumption to make about, well, EVERYBODY, so I thought it was needlessly derogatory to lots of people not involved in this conversation.

Now you did try to "nail me" with your attempt to force a "have you stopped beating your wife lately" question back in Post 27 which was amusingly unfortunate for you -- I presume the intention was for me to "feel shame" as I reflect in my participation in the Alcohol Culture and therefore (as a fellow flawed individual) forgive your Gun Culture. Bummer that didn't work out... You're flawed, I'm not. Ha ha ha!

Anyway, I guess it's confusing what you found offensive. You're trading barbs of the same sort. I'm just not squealing about it.

[hack89]

102. Now that we have reached the "blah blah NRA blah blah Right Wing" stage

I think it is time to wrap up this subthread. Have a good evening - you can have the last word if you want.

[Pholus]

103. Don't need it. Have a good evening yourself. nt.

[TheMadMonk]

127. By equal analogy, drunks ploughing into mass transit...

...vehicles, killing many are also "rare events", and into vehicles full of children rarer still.

And we here as individuals oftimes get at least a little worked up at everyday violence, high crime areas, poverty, alcohol abuse, etc., etc. And are repeatedly met with a whole lot of meh, from folks like yourself who still have theirs; who still live in a good quiet neighbourhood; who don't have to hide the bruises; who probably have never seen the bruises despite being surrounded by them.

Who, every day, drunk or sober, blythely take a ton and a half of metal hurtling down the tarmac, just metres away from other lumps of moving metal.

The blind spot surrounding the automobile, for all that you allow greater restriction and regulation, even larger than that around guns. I doubt very much that you do understand the real dangers to your family at all.

Or if you do understand, then once you've done what harm minimisation you can, you have no choice but to ignore whatever risk remains if you want to get about the place.

Guns ARE NOT a necessity in the same way the automobile is.

[hack89]

132. The NRA would love to have guns regulated like cars.

think about it:

Only need to pass a simple test that 99% of people from 16 to 90 can pass.
Get your license with no background check
Get your license immediately
You license is good in every state in the union.

I know that cars are a greater risk to my family - I read the obituaries and crime sections of the paper. I know how few people are shot. I know how many car crashes there are.

[oddoneout]

42. i agree

with you

[samsingh]

77. gunlovers do the following:

1. exhibit nothing but crocodile tears with little or no empathy

2. show more concern for their guns than the slaughtered victims

3. here is the key
- focus on one non-essential fact and try to refute it using circulator non-sense arguments. Feel like they've made a point when they really haven't
- condescending name calling and crying when the name calling is returned
- when their arguments fail, argue that the 2nd amendment gives them complete freedom over everything gun related

[Pholus]

86. I was thinking about starting a thread listing all the debate tactics.

That way it is easier to just classify them by their fundamental argument style.

Examples:

Gallup Junior -- living confirmation bias example quotes tons of "approved statistics" while doubting the veracity and motivation of anything contradictory.

Inspector Gadget -- "Well, bawy that thar piece is really 0.223" not 5.56 mm so your entire argument is worthless." (the joke is deliberate for the humor and metric impaired gun lovers out there)

Fantasy Land -- "If I'd been in that school it would have ended with just two thwacks, my gun shooting and him hitting the floor"

Your Honor -- "The founding fathers CERTAINLY would have allowed a grenade launcher. It's the original intent!"

It would be fun, but definitely too much work...

[samsingh]

89. it would be good to start it , i'm sure

it will get a lot of input from other members.

The tactics are so nefarious, self-serving, and in bad faith.

someone should start to only check a gun lover's grammar and keep correcting it. Which is more or less what they do to anyone who isn't a gun nut (including those that are saying 'wait a minute, there are alot of victims, let's do something to stop the massacres')

[Pholus]

99. You'd have to do more than that.

Like tell them because it is not expressed in proper English, the entire thesis smells of soiled diapers.

Might be amusing for a while...

[closeupready]

90. Yawn. Same shit. Different day.

Do you ever get tired of being a one-trick pony?

[samsingh]

91. do you?

[closeupready]

92. I get tired of the same shit you bring here every day, yes.

The same hyperbole, screaming, hysteria, slams, guilt-by-association, etc.

[samsingh]

93. i'm pretty tired of your ignorant crap

i've caught on, hence, my ability to breakdown your arguments into clear categories

[closeupready]

94. lol, you are a genius, Wile E. Coyote -

A sheer, super-genius.

[samsingh]

96. don't respond to my posts if you can't handle an intelligent comment

[beevul]

107. Gun haters have their own set.

Chief among them, is measurement of the empathy of others, based soully on the degree to which that person is willing to capitulate to the demands of the gun hater.


If you don't capitulate, you have no empathy.

[frylock]

70. doesn't that argument run counter to the gun humper argument..

that they keep a gun in the house to keep them safe? now they claim that knowledge of their gun ownership is endangering them? don't the humpers state that possession of that firearm, and the knowledge that the household does have a firearm, act as a deterrent to having said house broken into? i'm confused.

[Marrah_G]

85. Since I don't own a gun, I can't answer that

I'm just saying what first came to mind when I heard about the list.

[frylock]

100. your your positing an opinion on something you have no knowledge of..

to be contrarian?

[Marrah_G]

109. No, I am posting my opinion about an article here on DU

That is what you do on message boards.

As for trying to be contrarian, frankly that's just absurd. I didn't post here looking for a fight. You seem to be of the opinion that those are my motives. My only motive is discussing a current event on a message board.

Sigh...... you know what.... just forget it. This is why we have the gungeon. People are just incapable of having a normal conversation on the topic.

[rucky]

137. Burglary is a crime

Publishing public information is not.

[Sherman A1]

2. Well,

it's a first amendment meets second amendment issue in some respects. There is nothing stated in the Constitution that bars the publication of the names of gun owners or other groups.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. And that includes so called journalists

[NaturalHigh]

61. Yes, but for some reason a lot of people can't see that.

These alleged journalists invited this action by a blogger when they published the map and list of gun owners. It's not like somebody just decided to post the names and addresses out of the blue.

[FightForMichigan]

130. for pete's sake

they are not "alleged" journalists (as though that's an illegal thing) and most of the journalists at that paper likely had no say in the decision, and yes, the names were printed out of the blue when some editor got a bug up his ass to do it. How do I know? From being a journalist at a paper that ran a similar list a few years back of all state workers, their salaries and their addresses. I argued strongly against it, but the prick of an editor knew better than me and did it anyway. We lost thousands of subscriptions over it, and yes, some people did publish the reporters' addresses, too, in retaliation.

[NutmegYankee]

105. Right to Privacy?

Come on, this is a Democratic website. Generally Democrats are ardent defenders of the right to privacy versus right winger who say it doesn't exist.

[Sherman A1]

108. Right to free speech?

Yup, it is a Democratic Website are you indicating that free speech is no longer allowed?

[NutmegYankee]

111. I doubt posting the information of other people is "free speech".

How are medical privacy laws constitutional then?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

112. It was because it was public information, then again so is the data being posted on the people

who work for that newspaper.

They are not liking being under the spotlight and the tensions are rising. Social media pages are being taken down left and right.

[NutmegYankee]

115. And that information shouldn't have been public.

In my state, it is required by law to be confidential.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

118. I agree

Given that it was not confidential, those upset by it have no real option except retaliation...and its working

[NutmegYankee]

120. I expected there would be retaliation.

One of the reasons I oppose releasing info like this for any side.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

121. It a trick that has been tried before with similar results

Right now the employees are maintaining a stiff upper lip in public, but that is starting to crack. It should be a lesson learned for many

[NutmegYankee]

122. It had negative consequences in California and Wisconsin too.

Both were for political acts (donations or petitions) and each resulted in some unpleasant side effects for those exposed.

I noticed the Facebook links posted are all deleted now. What I'm somewhat surprised by is that the Newspaper editors didn't think this would get personal. Classic Golden rule...

[Sherman A1]

117. As stated it is a matter of Public Record

just as are vehicle registrations, real estate information and alike. Is it responsible? Is it a good idea? Perhaps not, but we have had some rather dramatic examples of gun owners being rather irresponsible of late and one suspects the posting was done in regard to those recent events. Nevertheless, it is freedom of speech. As to medical records, those would be available, however it has been decided that Free Speech needs to be restricted (and those are not a matter of Public Record in any case), so there can be a logic drawn that the rights granted in the Amendments can be restricted including those in the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

[NutmegYankee]

119. Vehicle registration is not public in most states.

Sorry, the public record excuse is just bullshit. It's just an attempt to justify an obvious effort to bully innocent people.

[Sherman A1]

123. Vehicle and real estate

Ownership are indeed matters of public record. A car has a title which is one file with the state. It must also have license plates which are on file with the state and other agencies , those while perhaps not always available to the general public are indeed public records just as are birth, marriage and death certificates.

[NutmegYankee]

124. Not available to the public.

Many records are not and it's likely the pistol permits in NY won't be after this next year.

[Sherman A1]

129. You do realize

that you and I are not participating in the same discussion and pretty much haven't been from the start.

[MadHound]

3. No, what I see are a bunch of homes being broken into while nobody is home,

And being stripped of all the guns. That's where most illegal guns come from in the first place, and now, by publishing maps to gun caches, the newspaper just insured that the number of illegal guns will skyrocket.

It was stupid and irresponsible for the paper to publish the names and addresses of gun owners. Throw out the privacy argument, the fact of the matter is that the newspaper just insured that a raft load of new illegal guns will hit the streets, guns that would have otherwise remained in the hands of decent, law abiding people.

Frankly, if I were to become a victim of a crime at the hands of a criminal who had an illegal gun that was ripped off from one of these published addresses, I would sue the shit out of the newspaper for its irresponsibility.

[SoCalDem]

4. Here's hoping they are bounty-hunters who will visit the gun-buy-back events

win-win.

maybe the cops should work a deal with the gangs.. gangs steal the guns & get money when they turn them in..

[MadHound]

10. It takes a sick, sick person to wish a robbery of any sort,

Either by stealth or by home invasion(gangs' preferred MO) upon anybody, gun owner or otherwise.

How about we put a bounty upon some of your questionable possessions and encourage a gang to rip you off.

Fucking idiocy, sick, sick, fucking idiocy.

[madinmaryland]

26. I thought all responsible gun-owners kept their weapons locked up in a safe,

making the theft of their weapons much more difficult. Are you suggesting that gun-owners just leave their weapons laying around in the open. That does not sound like a responsible gun-owner to me.

[hack89]

28. The thieves can take other stuff you know - most are very flexible that way. nt

[frylock]

72. how does that relate to the discussion we're having..

now you're stating that publishing a list of gun owners opens them up to having their teevee stolen?

[hack89]

73. Thieves come looking for guns to steal

The guns are locked up.

They steal other shit instead.

[frylock]

83. but having a gun is alleged to be a deterrent to such occurances..

I see lots of homes with stickers that say "Protected by Smith & Wesson." now, all of the sudden, gun ownership is an invitation to have one's home broken into. is this now the official stance, or will that change based on any particular circumstance?

[hack89]

87. Only when a person is actually in the house

thieves are not that stupid.

[frylock]

101. third base..

"Protected by Smith & Wesson, except when I'm not at home" doesn't sound quite as badass, does it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. That's not going to do much for the rest of your stuff...

...when the burglar seeking guns uses the list to target your place.

[frylock]

71. i would sue the shit out of whoever was incapable of securing their guns..

granted, guns aren't nearly as cool when safely stowed away in a locked safe as they are when on display in a glass cabinet, in the drawer of a nightstand, or under the bed.

[Mojorabbit]

80. I would sue them also. nt

[pipoman]

5. Tough shit..

maybe journalists should stick to the news and leave innocent people to their privacy....sauce for the gander and all that...


Further, what about those people who have a gun for self defense against a stalker or ex who has threatened to kill them....until the paper published their address their address was unknown to the stalker..what was accomplished by the paper doing this? Nothing. Now they get to live with the same freedom they exercised when they published personal information of innocent people..

[SoCalDem]

6. bang

[obamanut2012]

82. Why in the world are people being stalked by abusers funny to you?!

Just wow.

It is a terrifying feeling.

[Robb]

9. I just had a Nixon flashback.

[NaturalHigh]

62. Thank you for that.

I couldn't agree more.

[obamanut2012]

81. My first thought, too

[Hoyt]

8. Gun culture tells us that armed homes are safer. Now they want us to believe they aren't.

Not for publishing names of gun owners, but they need to get their gun BS straight.

[hack89]

12. Only when there are people in them. nt

[avebury]

16. Actually, if I am house hunting, I would like information

on gun ownership in a neighborhood. I would more likely to pass on a house if there are too many guns in the area. I never assume that a gun owner is a responsible owner.

There was a story the other day of a gun owner who opened up his door and shot a dog that was visiting a neighbor and playing outside with the neighbor's dog.

http://whotv.com/2012/12/25/dog-killed-neighbor-shoots-dog-for-playing-in-snow/

A Quad Cities woman spent Christmas without her best friend, after a Cass County man shot her dog.

Wrigley was a playful pup who just loved romping around in the snow, but that playfulness cost the 1-year old chocolate lab her life.

Her owner was visiting friends in the small town of Marne, near Atlantic, and Wrigley was playing in the snow with another dog. That’s when a neighbor came out of his house with a shotgun and killed Wrigley.

“I ran up there and I found her under a boat trailer that was lifted off the ground.” Stacey Ernat says, “She was curled up in a ball, really scared and confused about why she was hurt so bad….So I picked her up and I held her an I told her it was gonna be okay. I just wish he would have thought about what he was doing because I wouldn’t be here right now. I wouldn’t be heartbroken without my best friend.”

We knocked on Cutler’s door, but no one answered. Police say Cutler admitted to shooting Wrigley because he didn’t want the dog playing in his yard. Cutler was ticketed for discharging a firearm in the town.

On Wednesday an aggravated misdemeanor charge of animal abuse was also added. Cutler is expected to appear in court in January.

[SoCalDem]

18. I would not want to buy in a neighborhood like that and I would LIKE to see a map

Kids' sleepovers are notorious for "midnight snooping".. and with so many latchkey kids these days, I'd bet that most kids KNOW how to get to "the guns" ..even if parents think they are safely tucked away..

[avebury]

20. I am kind of wondering if you can submit an

open records request to find out gun license information on a geographic location.

[SoCalDem]

21. Realtors could use the info as a selling feature..

[musiclawyer]

23. If the government keeps such a record

You can get it in most states.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Yes

You can submit a records request. This is exactly how the paper got it.

[lynne]

136. There is no such thing as an accurate gun ownership map -

- as there are too many undocumented guns. Guns handed down in families, guns brought back from wars, guns traded/given as gifts between friends, guns stolen, etc. Any map with names and addresses only gives you the info known from gun purchases and registration and that's probably not even half the story.

You need to assume that every neighbor is armed. To do otherwise is naive.

[musiclawyer]

22. This is more complicated than you think

The rationale for disclosure articulated by courts is so the people can assess how local law enforcement is exercising their discretion in handing out various permits such as concealed carry etc

In CA for example the price of getting concealed carry is your privacy. The courts decided. It's over The government will redact stuff in your application regarding financial info and medical info etc.
But who you are and where you live is public record


The courts listened to the possible theft argument and rejected it Anyone with a brain can find where you
live.

It's about what the government does. Not you, the gun owner .

[WilliamPitt]

24. Some women buy and register guns because they are being stalked or threatened.

Publishing their names and addresses makes them easy to find if they are hiding from an abusive husband or boyfriend, or if they are being stalked.

This is not just about "gun people."

[Robb]

31. You think this list has what, witness protection program people on it?

People so far off the grid for whatever noble purpose that this is the only evidence of their whereabouts on the planet?

Didn't you do actual reporting before the column? You really think THIS is a stalker's best tool??

[slackmaster]

33. Probably a few battered women who are living in rented apartments and aren't listed in a phone book

But thanks to the Journal News, their names and addresses are now available to any clown with access to a computer.

That simple truth seems to be, let say, uncomfortable for some of us.

[Robb]

35. The gun lobby's sudden interest in violence against women is welcome.

Hopefully it will extend to working to curb the disproportionate number of women who are shot by their male partners.

[slackmaster]

37. The gun lobby doesn't object to the law saying that people who are subject to restraining orders...

...can't have guns.

The NRA helped write that one.

[Robb]

46. Wait.

So does it work? Are they somehow less likely to shoot their partners if the law says they can't have a gun?

Because I hear tell if you take away their guns, they'll just go kill 'em some other way.

So does taking away guns improve public safety, or is the NRA talking out of both sides of its mouth? Because you can't have it both ways.

[slackmaster]

47. Laws work only to the extent that people obey them

So does taking away guns improve public safety...

Taking guns away from people who don't use them responsibly improves public safety.

Attempting to take guns away from everyone does not improve public safety, because the people who can't be trusted with them are also the least likely to give them up.

[obamanut2012]

84. +1

[Buzz Clik]

25. So... gun owners are paranoid, confrontational, and likely to get violent?

Um.... that's total bullshit. That comes from not knowing many gun owners but being willing to make empty generalizations. (You are now tempted to tell me that your best friends and family members are gun owners, but I will call bullshit on that, too. Back your empty, hateful crap with facts. Or, be willing to be called on your bullshit.)

DU is dripping with bullshit, so this doesn't surprise me.

[Robb]

29. They are as paranoid, confrontational and prone to violence as everyone.

Only they also have guns.

[SoCalDem]

30. nope.. no one I know has a gun

we are not a fearful group.. I guess we also have better things to spend our money on.. to each his own..

your have your NRA facts & I have my own beliefs and unfortunately they are backed up too often (for your taste probably) by news accounts daily..

I had a 9mm at my head once in a robbery, but the police handled it and I testified in court & put the creep away for 7-12 years..

[Buzz Clik]

34. In other words, you made it all up and you don't care. Okay

[MicaelS]

40. Wah-wah, the poor, poor journalists.

Arrogant media assholes think they can question anyone, about anything, anytime, and those being questioned are just supposed to kiss the media's collective ass and answer.

The media can violate people's privacy, stalk them with still and video cameras, dig through people's trash, intercept their private voicemails and other private conversations, in sort do what the fuck ever they want, and seldom do any of the bastards ever go to jail.

Then when the media gets outed and confronted on their misdeeds, the want to proclaim themselves as untouchable because of free speech and freedom of the press.

And in those cases when the media is proven wrong, they try their best to weasel out of any real punishment. They might pay a fine or settlement, but will admit no real wrongdoing or malice. Then they apologize on some back page, or at the end of a broadcast, and go right back to their slimy ways.

[Robb]

44. And your tribe fucking shoots people.

Your moral high ground is a sewer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

49. Actually it is the media's high ground that is nonsense

And the more push back they get for being high handed asshats, the better.

The paper is feeling a multi level backlash, and that is a good thing

[closeupready]

53. I agree.

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. My lord

The media can violate people's privacy, stalk them with still and video cameras, dig through people's trash, intercept their private voicemails and other private conversations, in sort do what the fuck ever they want, and seldom do any of the bastards ever go to jail.

When exactly did the media get the right to get warrants?

What you described is police action with a proper warrant.

As to the rest, do not confuse paparazzi with the rest of the media and educate yourself on what media can legally do. Most reporters stay within the lines. The AP manual is a good place to start.

[jmg257]

45. Hmm...probably a good reason why you don't want to piss off most people,

or the very group you fear most for that matter, just to make some silly point in your newspaper.

Doesn't take "many" or "most" - just one with an attitude.

[bluerum]

51. BS

[closeupready]

54. That's just the way it goes.

Your empathy is misplaced in my opinion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

55. Been watching this with considerable interest...

To me this is just another example of media excess, not a gun issue. It is also an example of people power.

To be clear, I have no respect for the media or people who are in it. IMO journalism is not a profession, those participating in it are not professionals. The media has built a false claim that they operate on a higher plane, which is clearly nonsense.

Here we have a case where a paper publish what many people consider private information. Even other media types agree. They are now experiencing a backlash. Cancellations, advertiser boycotts, and direct action against their staff. All tactics we have seen used elsewhere in other social conflicts. They are having an impact. That a backlash would occur should not have surprised them. Other media outlets have done this and there was this kind of action. To somehow expect it would not happen to them was madness, and the company and all of the employees are paying the price.

The most interesting part of this is the crowd sourcing aspects. The original data publish by the blogger is being supplemented by others who feel the paper crossed the line. Its not one blogger on a crusade, its a growing group. All sorts of data is coming to the fore and it continues. At this point Facebook pages and other social media is being turned off, email addresses, and voice mail are overflowing.

The media transgressed in the eyes of many, and since there is no legal redress available, they are feeling it where they live using their own tactics of publishing public information.

Hoist on their own petard they are...with help from the geeks.

[NaturalHigh]

59. So one violation of privacy is fine...

but violating the privacy of the people who first violated others' privacy is wrong. Yeah, got it. No sympathy here for these alleged journalists who pulled a publicity stunt to further their agenda.

[jody]

60. This and other distractions such as renewing AWB highlights how misguided those

who believe firearms create crime are and how their failure to help find a solution to prevent another Sandy Hook Tragedy almost guarantees another one.

[NaturalHigh]

65. Just FYI...

When the information of the journalists and other newspaper bigwigs in this case was first posted, I reposted them several times on Yahoo just to make sure they got a wide viewing audience. I have no sympathy for these people. Frankly, I hope they have to sleep with their phones turned off for a few months because they won't stop ringing all night. I also read that one of them has disabled her facebook page. It seems they couldn't take what they dished out.

Anyone who values his or her own privacy should respect the privacy of others.

***Edited for grammar***

[tradecenter]

68. I couldn't agree with you more.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
They should have realized what was going to happen when they put those names and address' of gun owners out there.
I'm very happy that I live where firearms aren't registered, but I could live with a national registry that was not available to the general public, just law enforcement, as one member suggested.

[frylock]

98. so you have no sympathy for the guy that drops off newspapers for distibution..

just because someone else at the newspaper published the names on a publicly available database. you want to go on record as supporting collective punishment as a reaction to your hatred of a free press. duly noted.

[MicaelS]

104. I see plenty of calls for collective punishment right here on DU.

Plenty of calls for collective punishment of all gun owners, and anyone who asserts their right to own a gun.

[NaturalHigh]

113. The information of delivery drivers was posted?

I haven't read that anywhere. I know that what I reposted was all reporters, editors, publishers, bigwigs, etc. Somehow, I don't think you put a lot of thought into your reply.

If you can show me a link to a reputable source that reports information of delivery drivers being posted, I will gladly be outraged along with you. Until then, I'm just going to consider your reply more frantic hyperbole from the anti-gun crowd.

Duly noted.

[obamanut2012]

78. I see the names and addresses of abused men and women

Who are trying to hide from their abusers, having all their info published, making it easy for their abusers to find them and attempt to finish the job.

[joeybee12]

88. KNR...what bothers me about publishing the journalists' names is that it was vengeance

pure and simple...and directed against people--most of whom--had nothing to do with the decision made by the editors of that paper.

[Piazza Riforma]

106. Agreed

Sadly some here on DU who support this blooser and his minions have forgot that thing that most of us are taught in Kindergarten - "Two wrongs don't make a right".

The paper was wrong but the gun nuts won't stop until their disgusting collective punishment is complete.

[NaturalHigh]

114. No, two wrongs don't make a right...

but you have to stand up to bullies. The reporters (journalists, editors, whatever) were the bullies in this case. They thought they could pick on someone and have a good laugh about it. Welcome to consequences.

[Piazza Riforma]

128. Exactly how are they "bullying" these people?

Tasteless? Maybe. Wrong? Absolutely.

If the paper posted an editorial encouraging people to confront or harass the permit holders THEN you might have a claim to back up your accusation of "bullying".

That being said, I can neatly summarize your reply: "Two wrongs DO make a right."

[NaturalHigh]

135. Do you really believe that the paper posted these addresses just to inform the public?

No, they wanted to make pariahs out of the concealed carry permit holders - in other words bully them.

As for your summary of my reply, you are, of course, welcome to your interpretation. My interpretation of this entire event is that the newspaper people who posted the information of the CC permit holders are the bad guys. If they suffer a little inconvenience because their information was posted in turn, I again say "welcome to consequences."

[FightForMichigan]

131. Hey

do you know for a fact that all reporters named had any say in the decision to publish the list? If not, how do you justify naming all the reporters?

[shadowrider]

133. Help me understand the logic here

Reporters who had nothing to do with publishing the story are being vilified by having their personal information published and that's wrong. IOW, punishing everyone for the actions of a few is not right.

Permit holders (having a permit does NOT mean they actually own a weapon, just they have a permit to do so if they want) who had nothing to do with any gun violence and having their personal information published is right? IOW, punishing all permit holders for the actions of a few is perfectly ok?

Is that what you're saying? If I'm wrong, I apologize in advance.

[Lizzie Poppet]

116. That was my problem with the dox: it was too broad.

They posted info on people who had nothing to do with the original idiotic decision to publish.

[ehrenfeucht games]

126. Vengence with an implicit threat of violence. Stochastic terrorism.

These journalists are being presented as enemies and targets to gun nuts.

[shadowrider]

134. None have been shot at yet

which seems to imply that law-abiding gun owners are, well, law-abiding.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

110. Goose meet gander.

Did the journalists think the gun owners would be happy about a list of them being published? No. And the journalists probably weren't happy about their information being published. Oh sweet irony.

[malz]

125. First comes before Second

As in Amendment.