... and is surprised at the public backlash.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new...s-addresses-of-gun-owners-hires-armed-guards/
Newspaper publishes list of gun owners
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
According to the article, no. The police investigated the two worst "threats" and found they had no merit. For example, one email included something to the effect of "I would hate to see what you get in your email from now on." The owner of the paper decided that was a threat and reported it to the police, who (rightly) decided it didn't contain an actual threat.
So yeah, this is a hilarious case of a newspaper publishing people's info, then getting paranoid when they get hate mail in response.
GasBandit
Staff member
And then hiring private sector citizens with guns to protect them from the scary private sector citizens with guns.
Which is priceless.
Necronic
Staff member
we've got a case of journalist tards
nice link to "the blaze", Glenn Beck's media empire, lmao
GasBandit
Staff member
Are you suggesting that the newspaper did not publish the addresses, or did not hire armed guards?
no, I'm just ridiculing Steinman for reading "The Blaze"
I'm sure you can find similar reporting about it in other news sources you might prefer:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gannett’s+Journal+News+gun+owner+map
I don't regularly read any news site. The only sites I hit regularly are halforums, those contained in the following link lists:
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic (daily)
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic3 (3x week)
As well as
notalwaysright (and related/romantic/working)
regretsy (and related sites)
batoto (foreign comics)
I used to go to BBC.co.uk and news.google.com for news, but I can spend hours a day reading that stuff, and I had to cut them. I already waste too much time with the above stuff I visit...
I found the above linked article in the sidebar of some other article that I found probably linked from here.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Gannett’s+Journal+News+gun+owner+map
I don't regularly read any news site. The only sites I hit regularly are halforums, those contained in the following link lists:
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic (daily)
http://www.delicious.com/stienman/comic3 (3x week)
As well as
notalwaysright (and related/romantic/working)
regretsy (and related sites)
batoto (foreign comics)
I used to go to BBC.co.uk and news.google.com for news, but I can spend hours a day reading that stuff, and I had to cut them. I already waste too much time with the above stuff I visit...
I found the above linked article in the sidebar of some other article that I found probably linked from here.
I quoted all of that just to say I love not always right!
It's surprisingly well curated.
This has been getting a lot of media attention of late, and I'm sure that the paper people felt some sort of responsibility, some need to act in response to tragedy, but I don't believe they thought it all the way through, thereby Goldblooming* themselves in the process. For one thing, this makes about as much sense as publishing the names/addresses of people who make more than $1,000,000/yr. It just means the thieves don't have to do their research and comb through Facebook posts and pics to decide who to rob next, the newspaper has done all the work for them. Many (if not most) of us have played FPS/RPG videogames where the whole reason you went after X enemy first was so that you could get the best equipment...well, the newspaper has essentially handed the thieves a list saying, "If you want to be well-supplied for your future endeavors, here are the places you should rob first." Or, for that matter, any house which is not on that list could be seen as "easier pickings" instead of having that moment of uncertainty in the thief's mind about whether or not they might die.
--Patrick
*This really needs to be a verb.
--Patrick
*This really needs to be a verb.
Right.. but put yourself on a robber's shoes, would you rob a house you KNOW has gun-toting people living in it, or the ones you know DON'T?
Guns are not "instant get out of trouble free" cards. Even when properly handled and stored there are many situations where they cannot or should not be used. When you aren't at home, for instance, guns do nothing but sit there waiting to be stolen.[DOUBLEPOST=1357674359][/DOUBLEPOST]
Depends. Do I need a gun, or am I looking for other random valuables?
If I'm specifically looking for a gun, I probably have a different set of priorities than other robbers, and am probably much more dangerous a robber as a result.
That's a good point, yeah.
I think the main point here is that the paper thought that doing this would be a public service, warning all the non-owners about the potential threats living among their respective neighborhoods. However, guns are not like dogs. If you have a dozen guns, they will not break out of your house when not supervised and go running up and down the streets, threatening people and messing up lawns. Also, I am less likely to worry about someone who has complied with Federal, State, and Local regulations regarding the buying and keeping of firearms. If the paper really wanted to make a statement, then they should have published a list of the whereabouts of all the UNregistered gun owners. Now that would have been useful.
--Patrick
--Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
BUMPUSES!
You may substitute horses, seagulls, or even doomweasels if you prefer. As a long-time owner of multiple guns, I resent the idiotic notion some people have that my guns will get up and terrorize the populace entirely of their own accord simply because they exist, or that they serve as nothing more than a predictive yardstick of how many people I will kill once I realize someone has switched my coffee for Folgers crystals*. I chose dogs because they are often trotted out as a "safe" alternative to gun ownership ("You don't need a gun. What you need is a good Doberman/Alsatian/Akita in your house.") and yet somehow dogs also kill a number of people every year**, scare and annoy the neighbors (I guarantee if you have a dozen dogs in your yard all the time, people will talk about the noise/smell, etc), and require a lot of upkeep and handling to keep in check.
For the life of me, I can't see why you would resent the comparison. I don't own any dogs, but I have no hate for them. (rereads comment) Ah, perhaps I see it. I did not mean to imply that all dogs, when released into a quiet, suburban neighborhood, are looking for an excuse to bay and rampage willy-nilly, growling and baring their teeth at residents and ripping unsupervised children to shreds. That's unrealistic, and more reminiscent of post-apocalyptic movie dog stereotypes. However, if you own a dozen dogs ("toy" breeds possibly excepted), and they decide to get curious enough about the land beyond their fence to go exploring through an open gate for an hour or so, then no matter how well-behaved they are nor how much restraint they show, I'm willing to bet the local newspaper's headline the next day will still be WILD DOGS ROAM THE STREETS. Not because your dogs were mean, but because your neighbors felt threatened, and because people tend to be easily scared. Likewise, if I went for a casual evening stroll minding my own business but with a dozen guns strapped to my person, people would be nervous.
Obliquely like guns, the attitude of the dog(s) will be a direct reflection of the attitude of the owner. A gun owned by a responsible and well-adjusted individual is less likely to harm someone the same way that a dog which is cared for by a loving owner is unlikely to go hunting prey in the neighborhood, and the only people who need fear the bark of either are those who wish harm to the owner. And those people...probably deserve what they get.
--Patrick
*side note. I don't drink coffee. Don't like the taste.
**granted, a much smaller number. About one reported death in the USA every two weeks, if Wikipedia is to believed.
(Edited after reading Calleja 's following post)
GasBandit
Staff member
There is no "gun show loophole." Just the demonization of free commerce between private citizens. Cracking down on that would be scarier than anything ripped from the headlines of the last 4 years.
The law requiring dealers to do a background check is implemented in a roundabout way already to avoid problems with the freedom to buy/sell/trade. I haven't looked into it recently, but like many things the ATF does it probably has to do with tax code. It's funny the way the US regulates "undesirable" things using taxes, but there you have it.
I don't think they can legally close the gun show loophole without either limiting commerce or changing the second amendment (or simply interpreting it differently and hoping it passes the supreme court).
- Status