Comments on: Let’s not go crazy over publishing gun lists

By: Aldo1887

Aldo1887 — Fri, 08 Feb 2013 08:24:55 +0000

The author is flat-out being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. How would the author feel if this paper took tax records of jewelry purposes and posted all the addresses? Luxury car locations? Now let’s look at what they posted CONCEALED carry permits… Let’s be honest, this paper was trying to demonize gun owners, and treat them like sex-offenders, not carry out some noble purpose…

By: willowsmoon

willowsmoon — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:31:35 +0000

I have so far read quite a few of the comments here and find most if not down right funny, and some very obsessive about gun ownership. Let me get a few things out of the way first. I live in Texas, yes you read right. Texas. We do not usually hid our guns down here, at all. most times you will see gun racks in pick-ups, inside the cab, with the guns on them. you also find homes with placards big as day, with the law that allows them to shoot you if you enter uninvited, with intent to steal or harm. We don’t normally have night time break ins the criminals tend to go for a healthy life and try to break in during the day. This way you are not home when they take your things. Then of course, you may wind up with the man who will take the day off so he can catch you breaking into his house. You may wonder how this works, and we in Texas will say. Just fine, thank you very much. In due seriousness though, those who do have conceal carry, usually are not wanting you to know they have them, that would have been what caused the whole ruckus to begin with

By: SandersKaufman

SandersKaufman — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 06:26:59 +0000

If you want to live a sociopath’s off-the-grid lifestyle, don’t go putting your name on government records.
But for RESPONSIBLE gun-owners, accepting the fact that your name is on public record is one of the things that you do.

By: mjb0525

mjb0525 — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:47:55 +0000

Jack,

The mere suggestion that Journal News was simply going about their daily business with respect to the public record is insulting. The move was highly unusual; a jerk reaction, an opportunistic spitball in the direction of gun owners as the emotional temperature of the country was running high. It just seemed like a cheap shot. Freedom of information is not synonymous with obligatory publication, and neither journalistic integrity, it seems. That was irresponsible and put people at risk. “Can,” or “within my rights” doesn’t mean “ought” or “should”. We don’t live in a vacuum, there are consequences for bad judgment.

By: LesLegato

LesLegato — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:16:01 +0000

“:In my short juvenile career as a breaking-and-entering artist, we never trespassed where we knew we might be greeted by a gun barrel.”

What a surprise, that your attitude towards aw aiding Americans is so cavalier.

More important, by your logic, Gannet is responsible for painting a target on those who are UNARMED.

If some criminal harmed XYZ’s family and XYZ found out the criminal made his decision based on what he thought was a soft target from that Gannet story, can you guess what XYZ’s mood toward the Gannet publisher would be?

And since you think any info thats public is fair game, lets go for YOUR address, and lets add to that by following you and your cohorts around and post the addresses of all the gay bars you and they visit.

With any luck we can add you to the list of those carrying penicillin-resistant gonorrhea or HIV.

Oh, THOSE LISTS ARE PRIVATE?

Wouldn’t want to make it harder for them assault / infect the innocent, would we.

By: PrivateJoker

PrivateJoker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:21:34 +0000

Hey Jackie….since we shouldnt go crazy about OUR names and addresses being tossed out to the whole world maybe you can man up here and give all of YOUR personal information too…I mean, since its evidently not a big deal to you…

By: PrivateJoker

PrivateJoker — Wed, 09 Jan 2013 06:19:37 +0000

“I know it’s a big ego trip for someone not so confident in their own self to have a gun, but that is a dangerous as putting a sign on your back saying “Shoot me”, time to wake up and realise that guns breed violence and that’s what you have got and are exporting abroad!”
=================
WOW….this is the DUMBEST thing Ive read all week.

1. So, tough guy, what do YOU do when 6 street thugs dont want your wallet….but instead want to beat you have to death and rape your date/wife/daughter?
Oh…thats right…you get beat half to death and whatever female your with gets raped and beaten half to death herself.
While that may be ok for you and yours, its not ok with me and mine.
One unarmed man and I might be inclined to do to him what I did to the last unarmed man who attacked me physically. But I know in this country today it doesnt work like that. Criminals come armed and/or in pairs/groups these days.
So you have fun with your “Im a tough guy, I can bounce criminal bullets and blades off my manly chest” mentality and *I* will keep carrying my 357 magnum.

2. If youre ‘guns breed violence’ ignorance were actually true then we’d have 300 MILLION guns in the hands of about 140 MILLION law abiding gun owners all killing each other.
So….whens it going to happen there, Capt Crunch? Because the FACT is that FBI crime stats show DECREASING violent crime during the SAME time frame that gun ownership and concealed carry laws have INCREASED.

Bet thats got to damaged your pride and ego…

By: jj11123

jj11123 — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 16:09:58 +0000

The author mistakenly assumes that those who reacted to the newspaper publication with their own release of names and addresses of the newspaper managers were acting out of the belief that there had been an “invasion of privacy” that was illegal. I don’t think I ever heard that assertion from the pro-gun people. What I saw was the “fighting of fire with fire”, that is, the use of legal, First Amendment protected rights of speech and publishing, to fight the newspaper managers, who had employed their own First Amendment rights. Sometimes all that is needed to combat someone’s exercise of free speech is to exercise your own free speech. That is what was done here. Please do not confuse the issue by claiming that the pro-gun group was guilty of hypocrisy, as they were not.

By: MarkCardwell

MarkCardwell — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:34:42 +0000

Exactly — the data is the news! It is 2013 and there are ways to tell stories that go beyond the traditional narrative. As somebody who lives in the area covered by the map, I thank the Journal-News for publishing this public data. And thank you Jack for adding some thoughtful analysis to this matter.

By: lawgone

lawgone — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 14:55:22 +0000

This is exactly why the state I live in doesn’t allow information like this to be public information. Anyone caught trying to keep or provide a list such as this would be brought up on criminal charges, its in the state statues. I suspect the media outlet that has done this will cause the states that don’t currently have laws against this to enact laws to protect law abiding gun owners in the future. A certain amount of responsibility should be exercised when it comes to the media and public information.

In my opinion, this media organization has acted in an irresponsible manner by putting the lives of people in danger, especially those that are hiding from spouses/people that may have seriously abused them. Now their name and address is literally being put on the internet and newspaper. On top of that you have retired and active police officers on this map as well. The potential for this to explode into something that it wasn’t meant to is very real. It could indeed turnout tragic just like Sandy Hook only it might be at a home instead. If that happens, this media outlet will have blood on their hands and it makes them no different than a murderer.