The outrage is twofold:
The newspaper has just told the thieves n their town which unoccupied houses to break into if they want to steal firearms.
The newspaper has also told the thieves which houses they they can break into with impunity, occupied or no, because the residents of those houses don’t own firearms and the thieves face no risk of being shot.
How are either of these good things?
That’d depend on how they’re stored.
The paper actually only identified people with handguns. Every single other person could own a shotgun and that would not have been disclosed. Anyway no guns doesn’t equal impunity, and by Friday or Saturday, everyone in those counties who doesn’t have a handgun could have acquired one.
Not to mention there are plenty of gun owners who think guns are for home defense, not for carrying, or who use guns for hunting and not for any other reason. My husband owns a shotgun for deer hunting, and having someone publish our information in the paper on that basis would be distressing.
Edit: Just saw the handgun clarification, but I agree that the idea of calling someone’s bluff on this topic is bewildering.
No, the argument goes that EVERYONE is safer if thieves don’t know who might be armed. If they risk being shot whenever they break into an occupied house, they’re more likely to change their behavior and target unoccupied residences (which is safer for everyone).
Now the thieves in that community know whose houses they can break into with impunity, and which ones to target when unoccupied if they want to steal firearms. (Storing guns in a safe reduces the risk of theft, but can’t eliminate it entirely; with the right tools, a thief can break into anything, given enough time.) So what this newspaper did was make everyone in the community less safe. How is that a good thing?
Actually, no. Even the biggest, most secure gun safe can be broken into by a thief who has the right tools and enough time. Safes make guns more secure, not perfectly secure.
That does make the situation slightly better, but it was still a dick thing to do. I certainly don’t go around talking about my firearms to all and sundry precisely because I don’t want everyone in the community to know I have them. I don’t talk about how much money or valuable jewelry I have in my house, either. Why draw attention from the wrong people?
Yes. But at a certain point you might wonder if this would really be worth the time and risk to your average newspaper-perusing criminal.
This isn’t the first time that a newspaper has taken it upon itself to publish gun owner data. When one of the papers here in Arkansas did it, the law was changed so that only the zip code could be released. And IIRC, another state made the list completely exempt from FOI requests in response to the same issue.
So maybe some good will come of this.
This is obviously part of a witch hunt designed to get people to look askance, harass, or maybe throw a rock through the window of their neighbors, who, despite the shrieking of the masses, are not in fact the ones who shot up that school. The people who did this are morally equivalent to those who would publish a list of “known Muslims” or “known homosexuals” and did it for the same reasons.
people like me who think the purpose of journalism isn’t to give people a mouthpiece to push their political views. And that’s all this is; a purely political move that exploits their influence as a “news” outlet, a la William Randolph Hearst.
it’s the same kind of thing Fox News does, but since you agree with what th NYJN did, it’s A-OK in your book.
just because the government doesn’t classify name and address as “Personally Identifiable Information” doesn’t mean it can’t be used to personally identify you.
Does Apple post lists online of people’s barhopping habits? Nevermind the fact that if they used data from Apple Maps I could easily claim I was in church at that time.
So I guess the newspaper only published the addresses of NRA members, right? I find it troubling you think all gun owners agree with Wayne LaPierre. Less than 5m people are members of the NRA, and many NRA members have come out in opposition to LaPierre’s most recent verbal diarrhea. But you’re basically saying anyone who owns a gun has advocated for “everyone being armed” or has advanced the idea that “everyone should have guns because that will make us all safe.” That’s simply a stupid, ignorant argument.
I think the word “obviously” should have been “fictionally” here. This reflects nosiness and plays to paranoia, but it’s not an attempt to incite people to violence. In fact telling people “hey, your neighbor has a gun - go throw a rock though his window!” would be a good way to get your subscribers murdered.
I won’t link to it here or anything, but I’ll note that the gun nut crowd has already published the home address, facebook profiles, individual photos, vehicle registration information, phone number, pictures of houses (in addition to the address), and information on family members of the editor-in-chief of the paper, the reporter involved, the computer guy who helped put the map together and etc. Basically like 15 people associated with this paper and this story have been singled out in far greater detail than any of the gun owners.
I’ll say that I have no sympathy for them. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. I don’t wish them any ill, but if they didn’t think gun nuts would pull all this information (all of it publicly available, just like the handgun registry in New York), then they were stupid.
We’re not obligated to assume good faith on the part of the newspaper. This is the real world, not Wikipedia. They know damn well what’s going to happen. Again, if you post a “list of all Muslims in town” with no further comment on September 12, 2001, it doesn’t let you off the hook, morally, for what might occur afterwards. This is no different.
No, but you should post evidence for your opinion. You don’t have any, so I expect you’ll keep saying “it’s obvious.”
I would say that the argument you posted and what I am saying are pretty much the same. Deterrence is better with firearms, and like NRA supporters say, the more firearms, the better. Their utopia is that if everyone has a gun, and criminals know it, then there will be almost no crime of the type that one can get shot in response. Using that line of logic, they feel that break-ins are in a large part due to a criminal gambling that the owner is not armed. I and the newspaper took that to its logical conclusion: show the names and addresses of those who are safer, who can and will defend themselves, and criminals will avoid those houses. Pro gun people should be jumping for joy, as their probability of being robbed and assaulted in the streets just went down. At least according to their logic
When you say that the possibility that some armed will deter criminals, and they are safer if they have a gun during a break-in, I’m agreeing with you. Now we know who they are. These people are like the Spathi High Command, The Safe Ones, now that their ability and determination to blow away intruders is out on display for all to see
Are you uncomfortable because it seems to presume that their beliefs are being tested and they might not stand up under scrutiny? Because all the newspaper has done is make them safer
That doesn’t make sense then for gun owners to be mad because this way they know they are objectively safer since thieves know they have guns. Their houses might as well have a hobo graveyard mark on the front door and everyone will avoid them. Except most of the anger here is from gun owners who presumably want people to think they have guns but think that the possibility that a criminal may assume they don’t have one makes them safer somehow. If the anger only came from those without guns because the paper makes their houses less safe, I would feel you are being more sincere. But you, The Safe Ones, are angry. That part doesn’t make sense
If I were a thief, I would, just for my own safety, assume every house has a firearm. And if your house is unoccupied, it can’t be defended by a firearm anyway, so it makes no difference whether people know you are armed or not. In fact, if I were a thief, I would just assume that if I didn’t find the gun, its cleverly hidden or on your person. You see, it doesn’t matter if a thief knows you have or don’t have a gun for sure. If you’re home, he should assume you do. If you’re not, he should assume he can steal your gun.
My opinion is that if just one person is injured or killed because of this list, then the newspaper bears responsibility and has “blood on it’s hands”.
When the NRA is doing something you don’t like, most of you are silent. Even when surveys say that most NRA members actually want sensible gun control, the NRA’s position in reaction to the latest shooting is more guns for more people, in schools, hospitals, firehouses, wherever there can ever be a shooting. Let these people stand up and throw out the jokers who are leading the NRA because even if they don’t agree with them, they support their evils with their inaction. Because its awfully convenient to say nothing when the NRA defends your guns at any cost since it benefits you and you don’t have to squat, but when it turns around and does something that it gets chastised for you come out of the woodwork and say you don’t support them. Well if you don’t do something about it. Where is the hundred million gun owners who don’t belong to the NRA, who may think the opposite of them, standing up for gun control? They don’t exist, or they are too lazy or cowardly to say something.
In fact, if a newspaper ever publishes any information that anyone ever uses in the course of committing a crime, such as which bus goes to which part of town, or what the weather will be like on Tuesday, then that newspaper will have “blood on it’s [sic] hands”.
You people are [sic].
Well geez, let’s just print up a list of their names and addresses and get a good lynch mob going. That’ll show them to disagree with you on the Internet!