On Dec. 22, LoHud.com, powered by Journal News, released a story titled “Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?” Based on information acquired through the Freedom of Information requests made to Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties, the maps have dots that indicate and list the names and addresses of those in the community with permits for pistols or handguns.
The map, along with the accompanying article by Dwight R. Worley, “The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood,” have generated more angry comments about irresponsible journalism rather than support of publication of this type of information.
The paper has upheld its decision based on the public’s need to know and that the information IS public.
Opponents of the maps cite that not only does the information make gun owners the target of potential theft, it will make some unlikely to renew their permits when the time comes to do so. It will also likely make new owners hesitant to legally register their personal firearms. It also makes note of which homes do NOT have registered firearms, perhaps making them a larger potential target for crime.
From a journalistic standpoint, Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at The Poynter Institute, says the following:
Just because information is public does not make it newsworthy. People own guns for a wide range of law-abiding reasons. If you are not breaking the law, there is no compelling reason to publish the data.
Publishing gun owners’ names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause.
What do you think? Does the public have the right to this kind of information? Is it continued sensationalism of a hot topic or is it the responsibility of the media to provide the community it serves with the information? Or is this an invasion of privacy and perhaps "journalistic arrogance"?
Even the right to free speech can be used a way that could be bring unintended consequences to others.
Bloggers and newspapers. There's a question of the day in there somewhere.
I really don't think people who have gun permits will not get a gun permit again because of this, that would be stupid on their part. The whole purpose of small arms that can be concealed is for personal protection. Although, it would be better for them to not renew so that no one knows how many guns they have. It is our duty as protectors of our homes to own a firearm or other forms of protection. I have worked for a security company that installed security systems in homes. There have been more times than I would care to discuss where I went into a home after it had been burglarized. There was one where I was not allowed to go in because someone had broken into the home, with the people there and shot the husband, who had a baseball bat. It would have been a much different story if he had a gun and proper training with that weapon. Disgusting if you ask me, what happens to our unarmed civilian population. I will close with, this is journalism arrogance at its finest and I expect we will see more as the gun battle continues on.
Two of the people on that list were abused wives who had moved to keep their ex's from finding them. If something happens to either of them, if I were them or their families, I'd sue til they had nothing left but their underwear. I think you could prove that one easily. It's disgusting that a paper can hide behind a right, but that's what we've come to expect from a certain side of the spectrum - immaturity and revenge.
A note on the gun issue: According to the FBI, the number 1 weapon used in violent crimes…is a baseball bat. WHY is there NO outcry to RESTRICT baseball ownership? Anyone want to go after baseball bats? The worst part about them is tens of thousands of them are in the hands of children. OMG! Maybe because so many law-abiding citizens enjoy them safely, for sport? Hmmmm!
Just because something is legal, doesn't necessarily mean it is ethical. I suppose this newspaper had a "right" to publish the information. But I think it was a poor decision that has the potential to put legal, law-abiding citizens at risk.
As a first pass, were I considering doing some daylight robberies, I might cross-check to keep my risks low. Sucks for everyone else in those neighborhoods, though ...
Have you looked at Drunk Drivers, They Kill 40 + People a day each day of the week plus hurt a lot of people, cause a lot of damage, Why don't they call on the newspapers to print the names and address of the Drunks that have been arrested for DUI or Public Drunkness Plus the Night Clubs or Bars, Liquor & Beer Stores that sold them the Beverages, They Tell the Names & Address of the Sex offenders. I have no problem with a gun permit, I have one, The People who apply for a permit do have back ground checks, If you have committed a crime or several other things, they will come get you, you have to have a clean record, so a lot of people that have guns don't apply for a permit, because of this. But they have Guns anyway. I would reather have a registered Gun owner living next to me than a Drunk or Sex offender. If you want to stop the 40 plus killing a day in the U S A have a Liqour & Beer Control First. Year ago a Drunk Driver coming back from a sports avent, Killed a Mother & 3 Children, this is just as back as what happened in the Schools
This push from the government has nothing to do with actually solving a problem. I can assure you that they have no intention of solving any problems. It's about power. It's about that thorn in their side, those that are able to protect themselves from the abuses of government, those that keep this country from sliding downhill into the morass of evil and chaos, those are the ones they're after with this latest attempt to get all the guns. Until we actually turn that corner past being able to help ourselves, we will never be truly dependent on government. They want to coddle us, to nanny us, and until they take away our last means of self preservation, they're unable to do that to the extent they want to. Never mind that data that says they're wrong. Never mind the countless examples that show they're doing the wrong thing. The media is completely on their side. And I just haven't yet figured out why. Maybe because a nation in crisis makes for better news. And yes, I know at this point I should probably be wearing my tinfoil hat. But remember, you're not paranoid if somebody's actually following you....
About the tin foil hats...then I guess we should change all those pictures of our founding fathers to have muskets and tin foil hats. The fact that is HAS happened before is precisely why we have to fight to preserve it. The left are of a mindset that you get something and someone else will preserve it for you. Or, you just rewrite history or pretend it never happened. No....it (freedom) is given to all of us, and we were admonished that wolves will always be at the door to take it from us, therefore the need to preserve it. "Give me liberty or give me death?" Sound like a guy who needs a tin foil hat?
Why do most of us just assume that it is OK for the government to hold this personal information in a public fashion the first place? While government background checks for carry permits are necessary, there is no good reason the results of these checks must be held for public display. After the check is complete and the permit issued this data should be sealed like our medical records and IRS files - This small change would resolve the entire issue.