You've probably heard by now that the Journal-News in the lower Hudson river valley, NY, has published an interactive map of all pistol-permit holders. If an enterprising thug wanted to scope their places out, they'd just have to flip over to Google Earth for satellite and street views. If they could have gotten information on who owned what specific types of weapons, those putzim would have published that, as well.
In response, you can now find the information on the publisher, editor, reporter, and other douchenozzles of that paper.
Serves them right.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Responsible news media without an agenda. Not!
16,000 people exposed to criminal, nutcases and harassment.
Whats significant is of those how many may be hiding from a stalker, abusive ex, or other unsavory types? If it is one then its too many.
No it wasn't smart of responsible. It was a crafty abuse of the law. I suspect it will cost them more than they know. See even some of the non gunny sorts know if they can publish that what else?
Eck!
I want to know where the list of criminals is, and where the list of those with mental issues is...
Well, I have a different view. I posted this at a political blog I frequent:
Wait a minute…
Aren't these the same people who claim their guns deter crime? And now they're worried that if criminals know they have guns they're now at risk for burglary?
Seems to me, according to their logic in the second case, this policy is no different than having a sign in the window like this:
(at which point I had posted a "protected by Smith & Wesson" image)
I don't think they can have it both ways.
LRod
ZJX, ORD, ZAU retired
Well the problem as I see it is if the gun owner is around its high risk.
But if you see them going out at 8am for work it's likely an opportunity
as they A) may be carrying but have several others at home or B) maybe
they left it at home due to not carry or a gun free zone thing.
It is a paradox as well. One is a cheap attempt at stigmatizing firearms.
Or if I chose a word an outright form a propagandizing. The other is
that hey there are a lot of people that own and don't do bad things.
It's all in presentation and since the producer chose the first that
set the context for a negative outcome more than a positive one. So
it is treated in context. It's clear to me from reading the article
that the presentation is OMG those horrid guns everywhere.
Personally I feel placarding that I have weapons is something I'd rather
others not know unless there is a reason. Then the real thing and not a
picture is likely needed. But from personal experience its way better to
avoid getting to that point.
However for those 16,000 people the word is out and depending on their
world view they got a news report making them look like bad people and
maybe having to justify that they have and do believe in self defense.
All in the context of they'd sooner rather be left alone and now they
are not.
The last bit repeated, how many of those 16,000 might have had an abusive
partner, stalker, or might even be enforcement people?
Then again if it puts two people that feel that gun ownership is a right and
that self protection is a valid use at odds, then they have achieved their goal of fragmenting the gun culture as they call it. I believe that is
their ultimate goal.
Eck!
Post a Comment