The decision of a newspaper in New York’s Westchester County to publish an interactive map that allowed readers to discover the names and addresses of owners of legal guns is generally being debated as one about whether the Gannett-owned Journal News showed good judgment. It didn’t, but the problem goes a lot deeper than whether or not a newspaper ought to publicize information that is legally available to the public in this manner. The controversy goes to the heart of the entire discussion about guns in this country.
No matter what those behind this stunt say, this wasn’t about the safety of the community or the right of the public to information. Rather, this was about the desire on the part of some in the liberal mainstream media to stigmatize legal gun ownership and to whip up sentiment for not just tighter controls but an eventual ban. This makes it easier to understand why the National Rifle Association fiercely resists even the most reasonable gun control measures. If even those who have jumped through the not inconsiderable hoops erected by the authorities to gain a legal gun permit in New York are now to be treated as if they were the moral equivalent of sex offenders, it’s clear the goal of the anti-gun media is not just to focus discussion on assault weapons and large ammunition clips but to ban individual gun ownership altogether.
The article accompanying the interactive map about “the gun owner next door” made it clear the boogeyman to those who wish to push more gun control legislation isn’t just an NRA leadership that is tone deaf to the country’s mood. It is the ordinary American exercising his right to possess a legal firearm while observing all the legal niceties. That’s made clear by a piece that begins by discussing a violent crime committed by a person with two unregistered guns but then quickly shifts to the discussion of who owns legal and registered guns. The conceit of the article is to heighten suspicion of all gun owners and to render them pariahs. That effect is not softened by the fact that the author notes that he has a legally registered pistol.
For all of the incessant calls for civil debate from the liberal media, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes such a discussion impossible. Advocates of gun control in Congress claim that talk of banning all guns is crazy, but stunts like this demonstrate that such foolish ideas are bubbling very close to the surface in the liberal media. Broad support for some changes in existing gun laws probably exists right now in the wake of the Newtown massacre. But the chances for putting reasonable limits on military-style weapons or ammunition clips will be sunk if the anti-gun zealots in the media continue to show their real agenda is creating an atmosphere in which all firearms will be banned.
Legal gun owners don’t deserve to have their privacy invaded or to be made the targets of criminals who will use the information published by the newspaper as a database to aid their efforts to steal weapons from their owners. Nor do they deserve to be hounded and abused in this manner. More to the point, this is exactly what should be avoided if the country is to have a discussion about guns that doesn’t boil down to a shouting match between those who want guns banned and those who want no restrictions or accountability.
Odd that the media is not inclined to publish, say, an interactive map showing the locations of those on public assistance. Or one showing the residences of those in the Obama administration who owe taxes. n nOdder still, as Newtown shows, most if not all of these mass killers appear to have been taking psychotropic medications. It logically follow that perhaps some media attention might be focused on the linkage between prescription and consumption of these drugs with aberrant behaviour, rather than on the weapons illegally used to commit the psychotic crimes in question.
"Odd that the media is not inclined to publish, say, an interactive map showing the locations of those on public assistance." n nThe sentence above says all you need to know about the sorry state of right-wing mentality
And your post says all you need to know about the sorry state of left-wing mentality. Nice to see that you think people who have pistol permits have no right to privacy. But then your kind thinks no one should have the right to just be left alone.
Increasingly clear is that gun control is not about safety. It is about snuffing out the last spark of traditional American rugged individualism that goes back to the Minutemen, the Patriots and yes, even the cowboys. That idea that an individual matters and should be the basic building block of society is anathema to liberals and collectivists, who wish to control us first and foremost by getting us to allow ourselves to be controlled. As quaint as it may sound, owning a gun makes the owner feel more independent and in a small way connects him to a great American tradition. Liberals hate that because that sentiment makes it harder to control people, which is what they really want to do. So, they really want gun control to take away the things that empower people. Thinking is: take away guns, and people will become even more sheepish and more liable to liberal government control.
You've been watching too many cowboy movies. Even in Tombstone, AZ, there was an ordinance forbidding firearms in town.
I never know if what you say is factually true, because you have so little credibility, but even if it is true, it is of no relevance to my point. If Tombstone had such a law, whatever its purpose (probably safety), it was not to snuff out the flame of liberty, as I am arguing is the true purpose of modern gun control. You can disagree with that, but what happened in Tombstone during the Wild West era has no relevance to what I am saying.
Oh you meant the ordinance that when cowboys came to town to drink and get rowdy they had to give up their guns? n nYou do realize that is the only reason they did such a thing as even then, drinking and guns dont mix well. n nOh and there was no other kind of laws restrictions and such. n nBut hey, if gun control worked then, how did the OK Corral occur, lol, get a clue!
By the way, why are we accepting Jonathon's underyling assumption that the news media and the gun banners are (or ever were) interested in civil debate on this topic?
There a still a few who believe that it is possible to have a "civil" debate on any subject with progressive aka democrats nee marxists. Because 95% of media is progressive, by their own admission, no one should take anything they say without checking. And, because 95% of "educators" are progs too, most progressives have been carefully taught since probably birth, but certainly pre-school and/or Head Start to believe only what their parents, teachers, professors have taught them. For them, there is only one side of any issue in the universe. They are truly unable to hear, see or understand. Hence the nasty comments, attacks or distortions…but never a civil discussion. There is no truth to them but the pablum they were fed since they were born.
"There a still a few who believe that it is possible to have a 'civil' debate on any subject with progressive aka democrats nee marxists."____Yes. They're called "chumps".
The hypocrisy is that liberals think their lives are more important, so they have guns such as Dianne Feinstein, or they want armed guards at their chidlren's schools, such as David Gregory. They always think the American people are simpletons, so have to be limited in their rights, but certainly not the elitist liberals. It's a two-tier system for them.
I am starting to notice our country vs. its elites is beginning to resemble the general situation portrayed in the movie Hunger Games more and more. On account of that alarming growing similarity I recommend the movie in spite of its deplorably violence. It is certainly violent because almost two dozen young adults get killed – but not with guns (thank goodness /sarc), just every other imaginable way. In the movie the elites get the food, the rest of the population, not so much. Replace ‘food’ with ‘guns’ and you get a pretty accurate picture of the thinking of our present-day rulers.
I am starting to notice our country vs. its elites is beginning to resemble the general situation portrayed in the movie Hunger Games more and more. On account of that alarming growing similarity I recommend the movie in spite of its deplorably violence. It is certainly violent because almost two dozen young adults get killed – but not with guns (thank goodness /sarc), just every other imaginable way. In the movie the elites get the food, the rest of the population, not so much. Replace ‘food’ with ‘guns’ and you get a pretty accurate picture of the thinking of our present-day Progressive rulers.
I have a feeling all of this is not going to end well.
In addition, I don't think that Gannett noted two important facts about their 44,000 pistol permit holders: n n– In NYS, all peace officers must have the same license for a handgun as any other citizens. Since a huge number of NYC's cops, corrections officers, court officers, etc. live in the northern suburbs, they likely account for a lot of the permit holders. My guess is that these folks, retired officers and professional security guards comprise something like half the total. (44,000 is not such a big number in an area with 1.5 million people.) n n– In Westchester county, where I live, getting a permit to keep a hangun in the home is exceedingly difficult. One must demonstrate a specific need, undergo an extensive background check, and submit four character references. With all that, whether to issue a permit remains entirely a matter of judgement by the County Public Safety Dept. Standards for a carry permit are much tougher than that. Virtually no one other than law officers can get a carry permit. n nNeedless to say, this kind of control regime is far tougher than anything the NYS Legislature, Congress or local lawmakers in more gun-friendly communities will ever enact in Gannett's wildest dreams. The only possible reason for Gannett to target people who managed to run such a legal gauntlet is to pout about guns — that and exploit the post-Newtown environment with something "controversial" to sell papers.
I guess that IS the problem gigireceda, I believe my right to be alive, to continue to live IS more important then your right to be a “rugged individual” r nr nCall me an elitist but the right to life trumps the right to do what you please.
Correct, the right of the rugged individual to continue to live by defending himself with a gun in the face of an imminent threat to his life IS important, and it trumps liberal bed wetting over the mere thought that someone might be capable of defending himself without having to ask the government's permission.
So your right to be alive is endangered by gigireceda's having a gun? Has he threatened you? Do you have a reason to believe he is dangerous to you or means you harm? n nDo you have similar fears about people who are larger or younger or stronger than you, or more skilled than you in using edged weapons or at unarmed combat? Or who have potentially dangerous tools like chain saws or axes or automobiles? n nBecause in a world without guns, you would be at the mercy of any of those people. n nAnd if you do have similar fears about anyone who could even potentially do you harm, have you sought therapy for your anxieties?
Talk to me about your "right" when a criminal puts a gun to your head while you're in your comfy bed because you don't have the "right" to defend yourself! You know, stupid truly is a stupid does.
Oh, that's easy, Sue. The Right will just put up a Gun Free Zone sign outside of the house, and that way the criminal will know that he's not allowed to come in and rob the place with a gun. That will make it okay, as TheRight has no apparent objection to being robbed in his bed at knife point or beaten to death with a piece of metal pipe. It's a well known fact of nature that people who are killed by means other than a gun aren't really dead.
"It's a well known fact of nature that people who are killed by means other than a gun aren't really dead." n nIndeed; I think I read it in a Thomas Friedman column. Or maybe it was Gail Collins…
Well, in fact, we have serious objections to robbery, rape, beatings…etc…..but I can guarantee that with a gun under my pillow, Gun Free zone or no, I'll use it to defend myself. Of course, your ilk will cower in a corner or whine and cry. There are so many ways to die, you name just a nano few…truly dim!
The newspaper published public information. If you think the information shouldn’t be public then talk to your state legislators about changing the law. A legislature makes information public for a reason – to ensure that government operations are transparent, so citizens can detect and work to overcome any problems. What exactly is the problem?
First, there is no duty to print everything that you have a right to print, just as it may be dumb, or rude, or irresponsible to say everything that you have a legal right to say. For a good example of the latter, borrow or rent the movie "The Women" (the original, not the recent remake.) Or the Sally Field movie "Absence of Malice". n nAs to the legislature, you have a good point, which is why Ohio's CCW statute does take measures to protect the privacy of permit holders.
I have no problem so long as they also provide me with the information on themselves, the politicians, police, firefighters too!
What makes 10 rounds the magic number for "reasonable" gun control? Why not 9? Why not 11? Why not 5 or 3? Let's stop pretending that arbitrary bans based on arbitrary or cosmetic criteria are reasonable, or that any lives would be saved by picking magic number for magazine capacity or compiling a list of forbidden cosmetic features. n nAnd if a news anchor can get his hands on a banned magazine, only wishful thinking would suggest that a criminal could not.
The Journal News is an all but bankrupt paper that is run at a loss by Gannet to continue to promote its progressive agenda in an area of higher wealth and lower intelligence. The newspaper is itself paper thin having last all advertising and any of the quality reporters it had. It regurgitates information for AP, Reuters and other outlets. Most of its staff would be covering local high school sports in real media companies. No one reads it, no one advertises in it. Its website needs to be connected through facebook to function. Local resdients get more information out of the online papers like the Patch. Having said that, the gun map shows two things. There is a heavy concentration of legal hand gun ownership in the poorer, minority city sections lile New Rochelle, Mt Vernon and Peekskill and many of our local neighbors with hand guns run their own business. This says volumes about how NY's vaunted gun control laws are working so well that if you own a business, you had better own a handgun even in cozy Westchester. In the old days, I would accuse the editors of trying to sell newspapers but interactive maps don't work in a hard copy paper.
A bit of sauce for the goose– n neporter of the Story: nDwight R Worley n23006 139 Ave nSpringfield Gardens, NY 11413 n(718) 527-0832 n nJournal News President: nJanet Hasson n3 Gate House Lane Mamaroneck, NY 10534 n(914) 694-5204 n nEditors: n nCyndee Royle n1133 Westchester Avenue, Suite N110 nWhite Plains, NY 10604 n(914) 694-9300 n nNancy Cutler n9 Woodwind Lane nSpring Valley, NY n(845) 354-3485 n nhow about them apples??
The whole point of this dirty trick by the Journal News is to deprecate and marginalize gun owners and their interests. It is of a piece with the Liberals’ thorough-going campaign to stigmatize anybody who criticizes Obama or his policies as being “racist.” The is a wonderful device because it not only calumniates AND marginalizes those who have opinions contrary to “Liberal” Progressives but it also serves to aggravate and exacerbate the divisions within our country, thereby providing justification, in such roiled circumstances, for more fascistic Progressive legislation, e.g., gun control. I will just say right now – now that Obama has been re-elected and is thus “more flexible – watch for much more of this to come. I guess this makes me a racist for pointing this out. Oh, well, that’s cool. n nWe know that even Commentary makes excursions into this slimy territory occasionally by dismissing and labeling those who want material proof that that Obama is a natural born American as “birthers,” even though the thing on the White House website claiming to be Obama’s Birth Certificate is a demonstrably fraudulent forgery. n nAnyway, let’s conclude on this concluding statement: n n“More to the point, this [kind of caper on the part of the Journal News] is exactly what should be avoided if the country is to have a discussion about guns that doesn’t boil down to a shouting match between those who want guns banned and those who want no restrictions or accountability.” n nExcuse me, Mr Tobin. Would you please substantiate your implication that NRA members “want no restrictions or accountability”? Or are you, in a very subtle way, doing the very thing you are ostensibly deploring?
Given the "ethics" of those who want gun bans, why should we have restrictions or accountability?
The entire idea behind publishing the names is to eliminate one side from participating in the debate… n nAs Aaron Sorkin once wrote (I forget the episode of The West Wing, it was one of the few with the Ainsley Hayes character), "you hate the people that own guns, the people."
The newspaper missed a very important issue. n nNew York is a may-issue state. n nThis means officials in charge of handing out gun permits do not deny permits merely because applicants meet a certain set of criteria established by statute. Officials have discretion to deny permits even if there is no statutory bar to the applicant obtaining a permit. n nSuch discretion can invite abuse. Officials may choose to issue permits only to celebrities, the rich, and the politically-connected. Some may even deny permits to those who are not white. Others have pointed this out. n nWe did not need the addresses of permit holders. What we did need to know was: n nWere they celebrities? n nWere they politicians or immediate relatives? n nWere they major donors to incumbent politicians, political parties, or PAC’s? n nAnd most importantly: n nWere they politicians who have a track record of favoring strict gun control laws? n nThat is what we needed to know, not their home addresses and phone numbers. Of course, even if a newspaper were to list the names and cities or towns of residence of politicians who favor stricter gun controls and who have pistol permits, it would still go too far to publish their home addresses, let alone post them on an interactive map. n nSuch a shame the newspaper did not use the information to write about this issue. But I guess eliminating individual rights requires covering up possible cronyism and even racism.
"But the chances for putting reasonable limits on military-style weapons or ammunition clips will be sunk if the anti-gun zealots in the media continue to show their real agenda is creating an atmosphere in which all firearms will be banned." n nVery unimpressed with your limp-wristed defense of the 2A. What are "reasonable limits" and who decides? Dianne Feinstein? n n12,000+ people were murdered in the US in 2011. 6,200 murderers used handguns. 323 murderers used rifles ("assault weapons"). 356 murderers used shotguns. 728 murderers killed people with their bare hands. FBI Uniform Crime Report is the source. The shrieking, poo-flinging media monkeys are leaving these key points out of their sickening blood dance over the corpses of children. n n"Assault weapons" and pistols will be banned and wimps like you will pat yourself on the back for "doing something." Next, Grandpa's scoped deer rifle will become a "sniper rifle" and those will be banned too. After that, Grandpa's duck hunting shotgun will become a "street sweeper" and it will be banned too. Any kind of remaining repeating arm will be labeled "high-powered, rapid fire favorites of drug dealers and terrorists" and be banned regardless of mechanism or capacity. n nIn the meantime, criminals won't give up any of the above and the slaughter will continue. Check out the crime rates in the UK and South Africa after they banned good people from defending themselves. n nFeinstein and her ilk have communicated quite clearly for decades that total disarmament of civilians in the US is their ultimate goal. If we give ground on anything, they will take everything. Wake up.
The whole thing is a farce, on both sides. n n Both sides have now violated the other's right to privacy. n n Plus, the Bill of Rights, nor anywhere else in The Constutution, gave the government the power to license and regulate guns or gunowners. n n The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights. It severely limits the government power to interfere in rights. Rights aren't privileges granted by the government. Rights cannot be limited by thegovernment. If they can be limited by the government, in any way, shape or form, The Constitution is meaningless. n n 'Shall not be infringed.' Not in any way, shape or form. Period. That's the line in the sand for gunowners – not a debate about which gun restrictions are just, or a debate about who gets to own guns and who doesn't. n n 'Shall not be infringed. Period.
Interestingly, while there could be targeting by criminals of the gun owning houses for theft of guns, the likely potential victims here are not the gun owners, most of whom have their weapons well secured. The risk is that criminals can now target those with no capability to defend themselves. And with that map format rather than the spreadsheet they did in 2006, it is even easier. Hmm, unintended consequences.
Why not publish the names and addresses of those with Ilegal weapons charges instead?
Putnam County,NY, refused to give the list today. In a conversation with the Westchester Clerk Tim Idoni yesterday at an event, he said case law was against him and he had no choice. Support for S2488 and A9388 is now a must. Senate passed it twice, Democrat Assembly keeps letting it die in "Codes". n nPASS THE LAW!! EVERY STATE MUST DO THE SAME!!!
One thing that might not be so obvious here is this map will tell would be thieves where they are most likely to be shot.. Is the safest house the one that's identified as the home of a ARMED home owner, or the home of a possible UNARMED victim.. I think I would like to be on that list, then see if anyone is stupid enough to break into my home knowing they will become a victim of their own victim selection process!
I went to the local gun store today and Obama's reelection did take guns off the street. n nThe gun store shelves and walls were bare but for the few awaiting the ATF paperwork to go through. nAmmo too was gone for all the popular calibers and not much for the rest. nWhat little was left was limited to 2 boxes of 20 rounds per customer. nThe clerks said they did not know when they would be resupplied and are no longer taking orders as the back-order list has become so long as to preclude timely delivery. n nObama reelection and the Sandy Hook media overkill did have the effect of removing nearly all guns off the market. nNow the guns are in the hands of the law-abiding citizens where the criminal and deranged elements can not easily reach them. n nSo Obama and Sandy Hook did some good in getting most guns off the market and made it extremely difficult to obtain any gun, pistol, shotgun or rifle. nA classic "Run" on any product will do that.
The continued distortion of the real argument: control of our lives in every nano way available!