Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Westchester | As fury grows over publishing names of gun permit holders, critics turn on CEO Martore; her purported home address in Va. is posted online

[Updated at 5:52 p.m. ET with more reaction.]

Angry at The Journal News for revealing names and addresses of handgun permit owners in the paper's coverage area, readers have now retaliated by making public what they claim is Gannett CEO Gracia Martore's home address in Virginia as well as her photograph.

Martore
"House is loaded with highly valuable easily transprtable items,'' a poster identified only as "vintovka" wrote in a typo-riddled comment on a website for assault rife enthusiasts. "As a promonent liberal from suburban D.C. she probably goes to a lot of well publisised funerals, during which her house would be empty.

"While she does have and alarm system a simple smash and grab robbery would be highley profitable."

Separately, a blogger has posted what he says is the home address and telephone number for Journal News Publisher Janet Hasson, plus an address and home number for the reporter involved in the paper's account. That post has now been picked up by the widely read conservative blog Instapundit.

Elsewhere, readers have now posted more than 24,000 nearly 21,000 mostly blistering comments on an ABC News story about the paper's identifying the permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties in suburban New York City. The owners' IDs, in the form of a searchable map, were published on Saturday Sunday. The paper's disclosure is also spreading rapidly across Twitter.

The information doesn't include owners of long guns such as rifles or shotguns, which can be purchased without a permit, the paper said. And it noted that inclusion in the map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, only that they're licensed to do so.

'Targets for thieves and thugs'
In a statement to ABC News, the paper defended its decision, saying readers "are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods" after a gunman killed 20 young school children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., a week before.

But critics would have none of that. "When newspapers turn on the population they serve . . . making a sector of the public unwilling targets for thieves and thugs, they should be closed by that public," a reader wrote moments ago on ABC's story.

The Journal News obtained the names and addresses through public documents under open-records laws. It says it has requested similar information for Putnam County, and plans to add that to the map once it becomes available.

In an online follow-up yesterday, the paper published seven mostly-critical letters to the editor responding to Sunday's  disclosure. "The Journal News does it again," said Kevin Murphy. "A poorly written article trying to sensationalize the anti-gun frenzy."

Reaction on Gannett Blog was mostly thumbs-down as well. But there were exceptions, including this comment by Anonymous@1:55 this afternoon: "A gutsy move by TJN and one that should be applauded. The light of day is always the preferred option."

Unintended 'crowdsourcing'
Martore's reported home address is now spreading to many other websites.

In turning the tables on GCI's top executive, readers have demonstrated the power they now hold in an online world. Many newspapers encourage readers to engage in "crowdsourcing," where they gather information on their own and post it online, often to supplement the paper's own reporting.

In this case, however, crowdsourcing has backfired to a degree that the Journal News almost certainly never intended.

This isn't the first time a GCI paper has taken heat for publishing reams of sensitive information about private citizens. In 2007, the publisher of The Lansing State Journal apologized for publishing a database of state employee salaries that didn't include enough context about why it was of interest to the public.

103 comments:

  1. Pretty one-sided report, Jim.

    Someone in a previous thread said it best:

    It is simply an exercise in freedom of the press by publishing a public list of people who are exercising their right to have a firearm. What is wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm still updating this post; you will now see that I've included a favorable comment from one of my readers.

      Delete
    2. How about publishing a list of luxury car owners?

      Delete
    3. Because in the last month there haven't been any massacres where a <25 year old drove into a school and killed over 20 children and adults with a luxury car, and with a luxury car model that has been banned by two past presidents for a temporary time (aka, the assault rifle). You analogy is incorrectly applied and thus your argument invalid.

      Delete
    4. The car argument -- always a sign of a retarded person.

      Delete
    5. See if your hand held calculator can string out enough decimals to quantify the % of the total number of guns in America each year used in occurrences of death of any kind. Then go to the number of automobiles in the US and compare to the number of traffic related fatalities each year. Any questions? You are so fired up about a subject that you know nothing about that you shouldn't be allowed out of a padded room....let alone to VOTE for a traitor like Obama as you most certainly did!

      Delete
    6. ^ This dude was making a valid point, then had to get all flipping crazy about the guy he voted against being a "traitor." Sigh.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    9. That's because there weren't any cars when the Constitution was written.

      Try to think about what you are posting before you type it.

      And you gun geniuses are the ones who keep bringing up cars as an "argument." So you are now arguing against your own premise.

      Delete
    10. Owning a horse isn't a right. Pathetic argument!

      Delete
    11. Let's try to help you out, 1:32. Horses weren't mentioned, either, but one thing was mentioned: slaves. In one of the nation's darker moments (rim shot), the Supreme Court ruled they were property.

      Again, though, the gun people are the ones who keep bringing up cars. Cars have nothing to do with the gun issue.

      Delete
    12. Again, cars have nothing to do with the gun argument. The gun people -- whether you or some mysterious someone else -- keep bringing them up as a distraction.

      It's not necessary to amend the Constitution to pass gun regulations. Those have been passed before, and they will be passed again. The Supreme Court that you claim to support even said its recent rulings don't mean there can't be any gun regulations. You should read the rulings.

      But once again, because I know you won't let go of this, cars have nothing to do with the gun issue. Whether they were mentioned or not in the Constitution is largely irrelevant, and even a simpleton can figure out the Constitution was around before cars were.

      Delete
    13. LOL. YOU should read the rulings. Helller v DC said guns can't be banned "by category". That of course is not the only RKBA case ever before the SCOTUS. In Miller vs US, after ststing the court's opinion, Cj McReynolds included passages from various historical sources to show that the militia consists of all able-bodied men who have a right, perhaps even a duty, to own firearms suitable for military service. There was little reason to include these references unless McReynolds wished to protect the Amendment from further encroachment.
      So good luck banning all military style firearm except the ones with a military application. Dunce. Let me guess, you're a histiry teacher at the middle school.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    16. Really? My post was deleted but the one calling people retard and telling people to learn to spell "hisstory". Go fuck yourself,blog administrator

      Delete
    17. I have removed the posts that included the word "retard." That is a word that I have banned from this blog; I failed to catch them earlier. Thank you for drawing them to my attention.

      Delete
    18. We lost the post pointing out to the crazy person that the court ruling says specifically it does not prevent all gun regulations. That should be restored.

      History is misspelled twice now, two different ways. That also should be mentioned.

      Delete
    19. We lost the post pointing out to the simpleton that US V Miller already prohibited the ban of guns with "military applications". That should be restored. We also lost the part about how Heller V DC prohibited the ban of firearms by category, like "assault weapons". That derelict who keeps trying to defend the indefensible position that people who understand the Constitution are "crazy"should be made aware of these facts, so he or she stops making such a hilarious public spectacle of herself.

      Delete
    20. There's that non-reading capability again. Those actually survived.

      And Supreme Court rulings are not the same as Constitutional writings. So I'm not sure you understand too much, especially knowing that you've needed the same clarification pointed out to you multiple times. And you believe cars are somehow the same as guns.

      Delete
    21. Good...then the criminals know which homes to avoid...they can go after hers and yours.

      You are brainwashed and uneducated in the liberal world. Obviously, you don't read and educate yourself. I don't have time for dumb people.

      You are a shame to our country, and our forefathers.

      Gun crime is down while the number of gun permits are up! Criminals don't want to mess with someone that may have a gun. However, car deaths are up. Too much media to distract from driving. I'd like to see more legislation to ban that!

      Every media sensation of multiple deaths with guns are from people with mental issues!
      Let your liberal dollars help them! Publish their addresses and phone numbers.

      We have laws against drugs as well. Let me see, the last time I looked, it's still going strong.

      The last time they tried to take guns from Americans, a successful revolution occurred and we became independent from Britain. (By the way..England has more violent crime with a NO gun law. I guess knives are cool.)

      And...Isoroku Yamamoto during WWII suggested not to invade because behind every blade of grass there will be a gun.

      No wonder America is going downhill! Fast! You better hang onto your panties. It's going to get worse. Other countries are laughing.

      I'm ready. Are you?

      NRA member and proud American.



      Delete
    22. It's happening now. Your president is making it almost impossible to get ammo. That's a dictatorship.

      How many more "executive orders" are in store?

      Delete
    23. Cars weren't invented is the best you have? Do you think the way we are communicating and finding out this information was invented?

      They are common sense laws that still apply today! Especially...today.

      Delete
  2. It would therefore be an exercise in freedom of the press by publishing a list of doctors (and their addresses) who are exercising their right to perform abortions. What would be wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually the "pro-life" crowd does this already - posting invitations to shoot them. The newspaper simply compiled public info and published it. No instructions.

      Delete
  3. Or the names and addresses of police officers?? School teachers?? Newspaper carriers? The paper sucks - and I hope that the Publisher has to move. I pity the circulation and ad people who work there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Presumably gun owners would include all police officers?

      Delete
    2. Because in the last month there haven't been any massacres where a <25 year old drove into a school and killed over 20 children and adults with a luxury car, and with a luxury car model that has been banned by two past presidents for a temporary time (aka, the assault rifle). You analogy is incorrectly applied and thus your argument invalid.

      Delete
    3. "In the last month....." That is an incredibly short attention span you have there, son. They make medication fpr conditions like that, but if you seek treatment, your neighbors there in Gannett might have you declared unfit to own guns or dogs or cars or shoes or a toilet brush because of your mental deficiencies.
      No rifle models were banned by any Presidents, because Presidents have no such authority. Furthermore, the state of CT has an Assault Weapons Ban, and the AR-15 Adam Lanza murdered his mother and stole from her was not legally an assault rifle. Your facts are incorrect and thus your argument is invalid and indefensible.

      Delete
    4. Except that person never said half the stuff you claim. Again, learn to read. Don't just make shit up.

      All of your arguments are simply lies and weak ones at that. As a result, they are all invalid and indefensible. In addition, you clearly need some sort of mental help yourself.

      And once again, it has to be pointed out to you that cars have nothing to do with the gun argument. You are really slow to catch on to that point.

      Delete
    5. LMAO that the jackass who thinks an assault weapons ban can be passed, or any legislation restricting magazine capacity can be passed, or that either would pass a SCOTUS challenge calls anyone else "slow". You cowards already handed my party a decade of setback by pulling this crap in 1993. Thank god you don't have the legislative capital to do it again. You are a blight on the democratic party, of which I have been a registered member of since I started voting at 18 in 1996. America already tried your way. Its done. Over. The past. Kaput. How long you gonna cry about it?

      Delete
    6. All of that comes from the guy who thinks cars are part of the gun argument. They're not.

      But now that slice of insanity has been deleted. Maybe you can pretend it never happened. That seems to fit your style.

      Delete
    7. Your mascara is running, sweetheart. Keep boohooing ineffectively while I laugh and point.

      Delete
    8. Teachers are listed on line. Just look up any school website. Has pictures and names.

      Delete
  4. This makes me mad. If I own a gun it is only my business as long I know how to use it and it is legal. Publishing names is a sad act of ignorance. This opinion comes from a die-hard, liberal, democrat. This move was intimidation and wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have no faith that you or any of the people you live with are "safe" or "responsible" users of guns. Sorry. And speaking of intimdation - that os what having guns are meant for, no? They intimdate all those fearsome "bad guys."

      Delete
  5. If the names and addresses of anyone who has a permit to own a gun have been published, well, there is no reason to not publish the names and addresses of those that profited from listing them to the public.

    If I own a gun and I know how to use it, the last thing I want is for it to be known. Publishing names is an error in editorial judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It just doesn't make sense, as a matter of good journalism. "Here's some raw data, make of it what you will." No wonder people think they don't need what we do as professionals any more. No context, no anything. A waste of newsprint, and nothing more than an attention seeking stunt that will backfire when public record laws are made more restrictive. (And if it matters, I favor stronger gun laws)

    ReplyDelete
  7. What angers many is that they published an interactive map, like mapqust and when you zoom in to street level, there you are. Problem I have, these maps are not 100 percent, and the map pointed to my house. At this point I hope this really backfires on the JN, they have been treading water for years and the reaction of social media shows this paper truly doesn't understand the technology or their community they are reporting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tough shit, dude. Start pushing for changes if you don't like it.

      Delete
    2. And there you have it: your family put in jeopardy by factually challenged, emotionally-driven imbecils, and when you mention it, they assure you " tough shit". I expect change is exactly what you'll see. Change in the law that makes purchase license applicants' addresses no longer public info. There is already just such a law being drafted. Fight it as hard as you can, and lose pitifully, son.

      http://politicker.com/2012/12/state-senator-slams-asinine-newspaper-editors-who-published-gun-permit-map/

      Delete
  8. Cheap publicity stunt by another dying Gannett newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The test for this kind of public disclosure if whether it provides a meaningful public benefit that outweighs any negative impact on individuals. The Journal News made an error in judgment by publishing the list for a number of reasons: 1. The list didn't include rifles because that info is not available, so it's not an accurate account of who likely has weapons in their home; and 2. Knowing that my neighbors have handguns at home is not actionable information. It doesn't make me any more or less safe, unlike, say, a list of registered sexual offenders, who I might keep my children away from. And there's no surprise in knowing there are a lot of guns out there. This feels like something the paper did because it good, not for any contribution to its readers or its community.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can keep your kid from the homes of friends whose parents own guns unless you KNOW that the weapons are locked away. There is pretty simple action for you.

      Delete
    2. Fair point, but what about all the guns these stats don't cover? Seems like a false sense of security to me.

      Delete
  10. because it could (not "good")

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ill advised stories such as this one result in bad laws being passed. Watch and see what happens because of this ill advised exercise in press freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  12. These were primarily owner permits, getting a carry permit is much much harder. That means when the homeowners are working, the handgun is still at home in most cases. Hopefully they have a gun safe or take care where they stow it. The paper has given lawful gun owners the same treatment afforded to registered sex offenders by offering up a snazzy interactive map. Nice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We publish the names etc of sex offenders because they pose a threat to the community. The existence of guns in a home poses an analogous threat - especially if they are not locked up. Do you want your kid visiting the homes of friends whose parents do not show proper care with guns?

      Delete
    2. Gun ownership is not a crime....a convicted sex offender is a criminal

      Delete
    3. Comparing legal gun owners to sex offenders.....so sad.

      Delete
    4. What the liberal idiots won't do next....

      Delete
  13. It could have been a good story with analysis, context and reporting--for example, finding that convicted felons do indeed have guns (illegal in my state); examining the permitting process; etc. Putting up a database with none of those is sloppy but sadly, the way Gannett works now.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would love to see reactions from the general population if Gannett tried this at one of their newspapers in the Midwest.

    ReplyDelete
  15. http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/

    Blog that has posted the addresses of LoHud reporters in response to the posting of their information.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As a journalist, I find the decision to post this map stupid beyond belief. Stunning. It would not surprise me one bit if some legislator uses this to successfully propose that all information about guns be sealed from the public. Totally and completely. Or perhaps that other categories of public info should become not public info. What were they thinking??

    ReplyDelete
  17. Only some nitwit, sanctimonious Gannettoid could screw up the legitimate gun-control debate with a pathetic stunt like this...

    ReplyDelete
  18. I understand the public right to know angle. But just because information is public, isn't necessarily good reason to publish.

    I agree with posters who worry that the response to this will not be more responsible gun control, but more irresponsible limits on public information.

    I'm not certain the newspaper has served its readers here.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The implicit thought here is that the residential or suburban gun owner is somehow in the wrong or should not be trusted. I could give a rats a$$ as to who legally owns a handgun, as long as he or she were properly vetted for a permit. Only arrogant buffoons would sanction a story like this. I don't own a gun. Rarely fired one. I live in a state with probably more guns per capita than cars. Gannett has done some good work. I hope I helped get some of it done back in the day. Unfortunately tripe such as this gets more attention. Sad sad sad.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I own a pistol, but I have been in poor health lately and have never, ever thought to use it in self defense against a person, only against animals, since I live in the country with sometimes rabid critters.
    If my name and address were published, it would be an open invitation to criminals to come to my home and steal my guns.
    As a legal gun owner. I should not be targeted by a newspaper. If criminals try to steal weapons because they have been given this info by the newspaper, the organization should be sued out of existence for this frightening act against law-abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Actually, I wouldn't mind thugs knowing I owned a gun.

    If I was one of the NON gunowners in that area, tho, I'd be really pissed. Talk about having a neon sign out for thugs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would guess that if Matore's home is ever burglarized, blogger "vintovka" will be arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. And should be.

    I am fascinated by this discussion, not so much because of the particular issue of publicizing who owns guns in a community, but in view of the larger discussion of what our expectations for privacy should be in the internet age. In reality, citizens have always been able to access public records of this sort. In the past they would have to travel to a courthouse or municipal office and it would have been inconvenient to look, but with persistence they could find the same information that's now available at the click of a mouse. Should we now have different expectations of privacy, just because the tools to find information have changed? Many people readily give away intimate details about their lives on social networks. Where are the "lines" now? Does the fact that many people don't seem to mind that marketers are making money from their facebook posts and then commoditizing the resulting personal data influence our view of an issue like this? Who needs to go to a newspaper to find out who owns a gun, after all, when you can probably buy that information from a big data profiler anyway or just troll facebook posts from your neighborhood?

    The issue of personal privacy really deserves a serious discussion in the press, in light of new technologies which make a disclosure of this type so easy. I'm very interested in the thoughtful exploration of the fallout from this disclosure.


    ReplyDelete
  23. Interesting. I get that its outrageous for the paper to publish these addresses, but I thought the whole point of having a gun was to protect the owner, that maybe they'd be happy the "thugs" know they are packing heat and stay the F*ck a away. Nobody seems to point this out. What a mess!, Hunh?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Press freedom is supposed to be trumped by 2nd amendment rights? Right. I'd be happy to know whether the house where my kid goes to play has guns. If you are responsible gun owner (as the NRA and its ilk claim for most people) why do you care about this? If you have a gun the "bad guys" won't bother you now, right? I live in a a Gannett town and generally think the paper is a joke. This time the Gannett folks have done the right thing.

    ReplyDelete
  25. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This has nothing to do with press freedom or "the public's right to know". It is all about the editors' and publisher's vendetta against the Second Amendment and people who support it by owning guns. The Left couldn't care less about privacy or the safety of the families who live in those homes. The tragedy is that Gannett used to be a newspaper chain, and now it is just another collection of liberal rags with declining readership. I live in Rochester, where the local paper has become one huge editorial page pushing every Left-wing political and cultural agenda imaginable. The Ithaca Journal at least reflects the Peoples' Republic readership. The Elmira Star-Gazette is hopelessly left-of-center even on its news pages. Frank Gannett must be rolling in his grave.

    The question is, what will replace the formerly-mainstream, now-Leftist newspapers in the future?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you think Gannett newspapers are left wing you need clinical help. And therefore should not be allowed near firearms!

      Delete
    2. Thanks for demonstrating why we have to be czutious about requiring psychological exams or some such before buying guns. Who decides what is acceptable behavior? Is paranoia about guns a disqualifier? What about paranoia about the POTUS? Too bad aviation and firearms are just way to complicated for the kind of moron who wants to be a "reporter" to ever understand.

      Delete
    3. Single-digit math is too complicated for you, Josh Jones.

      Delete
  27. If you are a gun owner are you weapons locked up? If not, why not? If so, they are of little use if someone "invades" your home. This whole discussion is inane.

    ReplyDelete
  28. These are public records, thus the newspaper was within its rights to use those records. If I were a neighbor of one of these individuals with a young child, I would likely find this information very useful.

    I realize that this blog is anti-Gannett (as a former Gannett employee, I sympathize), but your bias seems to have blinded your judgment. In this case, I believe the reporter and editors made the correct decision in making this information more widely accessible. They've shown great courage in facing down the gun nuts.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Embarassed again to be a Gannett employee. This is nothing but an open invitation for thieves to visit the home without firearms since no resistence will occur. On the flipside, the criminals now know where the homes are with the firearms if they are interested in stealing those.

    Sometimes public information is better off not posted.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This doesn't feel like journalism to me.

    At its most benign, it feels like whoring for pageviews.

    At a more realistic level, it feels like LoHud is using the
    tragic deaths of murdered children to try and publicly shame
    law-abiding citizens who disagree with LoHud's editorial stance. It feels
    dirty.

    I'm forced to ask if the editor of LoHud would have
    approved a similar map of other law-abiding minorities if the records
    for home addresses of doctors who perform abortions were available...or the home addresses
    of women who received abortions were publicly available. I suspect that even if
    those records per publicly available, LoHud would not map those home addresses.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I see my former paper has taken advantage of the latest tragedy to trot out its controversial gun lists. Love the little disclaimer that they are still working on getting the Putnam info.

    Wonder if we'll ever see that info from Putnam County because last time TJN did this, the Putnam records were still on paper files and not electronic, and TJN didn't care enough about "protecting" its readers to devote the manpower that would have been needed to send someone up there to copy the info by hand. Nope. Debilitating staff cuts made that one an easy call.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As a followup to my earlier post (journalist stunned by the stupidity of running this map), I'll add that posting this list serves no responsible end. What is the purpose?
    I personally have no interest in guns and don't want them near me. But the people outed in this map are presumed to be law-abiding citizens who have done nothing to put themselves into public view, save following the law in getting a gun license. What is served by posting their addresses AND names?
    If a paper does a story on bankruptcies, should it post a map of people who have filed for bankruptcy?
    If doing a story about court judgments, will there be a map of everyone who has a judgment or lien against them?
    Should there be a map listing names of people whose homes have been taken in foreclosure, to go along with a story about the housing crisis?
    Of course not. Because it serves no end. It is arrogant, biased journalism that debases all of those who seek to be leave our personal views at the door and provided objective reporting. And it gives legitimate ammo to people who already think we don't give both sides a fair shake.
    Disgraceful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apologies for my hasty typing above...repeating the last grafs...
      Of course not. Because it serves no end. It is arrogant, biased journalism that debases those of us who seek to be leave our personal views at the door and provide objective reporting. And it gives legitimate ammo to people who already think we don't give both sides a fair shake.
      Disgraceful.

      Delete
  33. They really should be ashamed of themselves, trying to get publicity at the expense of the massacre in CT. Let's call it for what it is. Get as much attention as you can for the sake of selling papers and getting page views... Let's see what happens if one of those employees or for that matter one of those gun owners is actually hurt because of this piece......I bet they'll run another story on that and milk it as much as possible....again!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's see traditionally newspapers print the name of a person arrested for rape and even though they aren't convicted they print their names. No one complains. A local CEO is arrested for DUI and the newspaper prints their name even though they haven't been convicted. And no one complains. A local resident is accused of embezzling funds and the newspaper prints their name. Sooo it's okay to share people's name when they haven't been convicted of anything but they print the names of gun owners and its a blatant example of power mad, capitalism. What a bunch of hypocrites.

      Delete
    2. Those other examples you gave are people implicated in an actual news story. The gun permit data are private citizens who are not implicated in anything. Why not run a map of all those who have not broken the law today. They had nothing directly or indirectly to do with the school shooting. It's a question of news judgement and relevance. The paper showed neither.

      Delete
  34. As for the records being publicly available, that's correct and if you wanted to spend a year in the vault looking at gun permits - that is your right. It is the centralization and aggregation of records which has caused the government to impose limits. The NCIC criminal history records by law are strictly private. Yet I'm sure each separate criminal charge and adjudication is public info if you knew where to look. Mark my words - this idiotic effort will result in a law(s) limiting access for others. As others have said. What's the point? What story are you trying to tell? What purpose have you advanced?

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Nothing good will come of publishing those maps, only harm. Neighbor A is going to confront Neighbor B, and someone will eventually get hurt or killed because of this. These maps IN NO WAY rationally advance any 2nd Amendment or Pistol or Assault Weapon discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  37. The Journal News has every right to publish what is aleady available to anyone who submits a request. These gun owner always quote the 2nd amendment like the gospel but, when someone else uses their amendment rights, now it's an uproar. You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every right 1:24 PM, it also has the "right" to publish the much if not all of the following publicly available information into a searchable database:

      • Dog licenses
      • Vehicle and boat registrations
      • Home values with links to photos and rough layouts of them.
      • Vehicle traffic data
      • Political party
      • Gun license data.
      • Criminal records
      • Background info on residents…single/married/divorced, family size, ages, including social media links, schools and even employment.

      Shall it start with your data first?

      Point is, just because Gannett – and others can, doesn’t mean it should.

      Delete
  38. I think the people with the guns will win, they have the moral, legal, and actual, firepower.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  40. This is the stupidest thing I have ever read. Aside from helping no one, since there is no actionable result to publishing a list of potential gun owners, this article misses the point of the causation of public killings like that in Connecticut.

    The publisher's energy would have been better spent publishing a list of all mentally disabled people . . . or maybe home addresses of residents where they have both guns and mentally disabled people in the home.

    Personally, I would not want to give up the element of surprise, but it would not bother me that the bad guys knew if they come to my house, there is a better than average chance they aren’t leaving.

    ReplyDelete
  41. The rationale is to make available to the public something that can be deemed a credible threat. Mearely having a firearm doesn't do that, by any rationale. Otherwise, the deadly properties of an automaobile are just as valid - "intention of design" is irrelevant to the end result. How alcohol drinkers - now THERE's a genuine, credible threat to the public. Publishing a list of gun owners was an infantile reaction of someone who should have wielded the information they had available maturely. Publishing a list of people who own firearms that have a demonstrable criminal history - sure. Commit a (genuine) crime, and some measure of liberty is forfeited.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The analogy to cars is very relevant. You want to quote stats.....don't talk out of your rear, look them up.

    For those who are too caught up in emotion to be bothered with facts, let me help you.


    How many people are killed in car accidents annually in the U.S.? 32,326 in 2011 according to NHTSA.

    How many are killed by guns annually in the U.S.? 8583 homicides in 2011 were attributed to guns, according to the FBI crime statistics. 400 of those were deemed justifiable by police officers, and 260 were deemed justified by private citizens. So, this means that there were AT LEAST 660 lives SAVED by guns. Automobiles account for about four times as many deaths as guns do. Should we ban them? Of course not.

    As a matter of fact, for the last 10 years, more people have been killed by hammers than by assault rifles. So, maybe we should ban hammers???

    No wait, you're right. The analogy to cars isn't quite right. Let's fix it - the same way our moronic politicians are trying to fix crime. Let's find out the most popular make, model, and color of car that has been used in the most recent drinking and driving fatalities and ban just that make, model, and color of car. That should significantly reduce fatalaties from drinking and driving, right? Or how about we ban cars with gas tanks that are bigger than 10 gallons....because you just shouldn't be able to drive that far without refueling - you could injure or kill someone by driving for too long and falling asleep at the wheel. Maybe we should ban economy cars with big wings on the back, because certainly, those cars must go faster with that big wing on the back, and that would make them more "deadly," right?

    Anything can be used for good or evil. The FOIA was good for finding the names and addresses of gun owners, but it was also helpful for finding information on Martore, wasn't it?

    If you don't like the car analogy, how about alcohol? Let's ban that. Just think of how many lives would be saved from drinking and driving accidents. To quote Mr. President himself, "If only one life can be saved, it's worth it." Think of how many police calls could be avoided by preventing drunk people from doing all the stupid stuff they do.

    Wait....let's not ban alchohol all together. Let's use the gun logic some of our idiotic repesentatives are trying to use and apply it to alcohol. Despite it not providing any benefit to society, we all know people like alcohol. It's not on the FDA's food pyramid, but it is loved by many. Instead of banning it all together, maybe we should make it illegal to have more than 6 ounces in your home at any time? That should prevent people from getting drunk, doing stupid things, and injuring or killing others while intoxicated, right?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Don't get me wrong. I don't drink, and I don't want to ban alcohol. I do drive and I certainly don't want to ban cars. I'm making analogies with other items to show people who have been caught up in the emotion of guns just how ridiculous these ideas are. I don't condone drinking and driving, but I don't want to see alcohol removed from society. Why? Two reasons. First, because we live in a FREE COUNTRY....or at least we used to. If that's what you want to do, that's fine by me - just do it responsibly (i.e. don't drive when you're drunk). Second, I know that banning alcohol won't work. Ever hear of prohibition? That didn't work too well, did it? Ever see that show called, "Moonshiners?" People still make alchohol in dry counties....despite the law. You know why? People want it.

    So, you know what happens when you ban guns? The law abiding people turn them in, but the criminals don't. You know what that means? The criminals have an advantage. Do you think it's a coincidence that D.C. and Chicago have the HIGHEST violent crime rates in the country despite having the most restrictive gun laws in the country?

    Do you think it's a coincidence that all of these events have occurred in gun free zones? Why hasn't it happened at a police station? I can tell you why....criminals don't want to be shot at!!!!

    Let's look at some more stats.

    In 2012, Chicago had 513 murders. Comparatively, we lost 136 soldiers in Afghanistan in 2012. So, the wonderful job the government of Chicago is doing to make people "safer" by restricting guns results in Chicago citizens being three times more likely to be murdered than a soldier fighting in Afghanistan. Sounds good....sign me up.

    The U.S. has the highest gun ownership rate in the world.....88 guns per 100 people. Despite having the most guns, the U.S. is 28th in gun homicides....only 2.97 homicides per 100,000 people.

    Great Britain banned guns. Let's see how that's working out for them and let's compare. Now I know their gun crime rate will be lower, because they don't have guns, but let's look at all crime and voilent crime. The UK has the 2nd highest overall crime rate in the EU, the fifth highest robbery rate, the fourth highest burglary rate, and has been named the most violent country in the EU. They have 2034 violent crimes per 100,000 people....worse than even South Africa!!! In the U.S., we have only 466 per 100,000 residents. That means that the wonderful laws in the UK result in their residents being almost five times more likely to be a victim of violent crime than the laws here in the U.S. So, Piers Morgan, you can suck it!!! Why don't you go back home, where it's, "safer?"

    I realize the media has been sensationalizing the gun issue for years, but let's look at the FACTS people. Set your emotion aside for a minute and look at the data.

    ReplyDelete
  44. For those of you who are afraid to let your kids go play in homes of gun owners, get real! Do you think the houses where your kids play have kitchen knives? Do you have kitchen knives? Do you think they have a baseball bat? Do you think all these items are locked up? What you just don't get is that evil people will do evil things. If it's not a gun, it will be something else. Look at the UK stats above. If we could make people good with laws, we wouldn't need prisons!

    ReplyDelete
  45. I have never been so proud of Gannett.
    We need to stop being so afraid of our shadows (govt military take overs) and get smart about taking reasonable precautions (like discouraging weapons of war from into the hands of dysfunctional folks). We need to be able to have a civil conversation.
    About privacy... Got to the Internet, go to Facebook, go to the dang phone book... People give up there name/address without regard for a free sample of shampoo; some willingly give up far more about themselves. It may be uncomfortable to be singled out as a gun license holder, but if you're proud to own a gun (which I do) then you shouldn't be so ashamed for people to know it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you go ahead and share your name address and phone number for all to see here then?

      Delete
  46. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles. They believe guns kill. If that's the case cars kill, knives kill, hammers kill. None of these things kill. Irresponsible, unstable, warped minded people kill. Liberals will never get it. They are the problem. Let's start holding people who break the law accountable. Punish those who break the law not those that follow the law. People abusing guns kill a lot more people with handguns than they do with assault rifles. Do Liberals not care about all the people killed with handguns? Wait, assault rifles are just the start. Next they will want our handguns once they realize the assault weapons ban won't curtail a damn thing.

    If I'm ever in a situation where I need to defend myself or my family I prefer to defend rather than beg for mercy.



    ReplyDelete
  47. Don't listen to the rhetoric. Look at the data from an independent source: http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

    Also, typos don't invalidate a person's opinions nor their right to contribute to discussions. However, personal insults DO invalidate the sincerity of the opinion or contribution.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Let's go back to the first killing of another person which was "documented" in an ancient text. One would have to believe in a certain story about a pair of brothers who had a disagreement that left one dead. The killer most likely used a club of wood, since there were no guns back in the olden days. In those days there was just one judge. Did He forbid the use of clubs because of the resultant death? NO, and in today's world no judge can say we should ban all guns. Just like in the 20's when there was a liquor PROHIBITION, the banning of anything the public desires only leads to gangsters taking over and making matters WORSE for everyone concerned (except the underworld bootleggers)! When the public at large is denied a legally obtained product, "they" will get the product illegally just to have it!! BUT that said, it is the legal responsibility for those who want this product to register it just like cars, boats, trucks & planes. If someone steals your product it can be traced, identified and returned to you. You cannot drive or pilot without a license, you must insure your vehicle against damages caused by it. It is your right to own but, too, it is your right to be responsible.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I am surprised that no one has mentioned the obvious... that it would make homes NOT listed a greater target for burglary (they don't have guns, so you're good to go!)

    To me, that is more comparable to publishing a list of homes that have alarm systems. Yes, I realize that the information was available if someone decided to search for it, but what is the point of these people publishing it all in one place? I suppose I just don't understand what they were trying to accomplish here, if not just to get a ton of attention (which it seems they were successful at).

    And obviously, my comment has nothing to do with the current debate about the right to own firearms, so calm down.

    ReplyDelete
  50. How about the number of deaths caused by health care facilities?

    In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA
    http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/11856.php

    One in 20 hospital deaths preventable
    http://www.dunstabletoday.co.uk/news/health/one-in-20-hospital-deaths-preventable-1-4062360


    According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, deaths caused by guns annually were 30,896, of which, 642 accidental, 16,883 were Suicide, 12,791 were Homicide, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention. Remember that in the same year, 43,664 were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintentional falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke. Looks to me that hospitals are more dangerous than guns.

    ReplyDelete
  51. That is what you call the freedom that was given to the press.Every people should be aware of the information around them.So, as long as it is the the right, they can do it whatever or whoever may stand against it.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't understand the uproar over the gun list. It is a list of people NOT to rob, they have guns. I would be more worried about being robbed if I were not on the list. Also, why are legal gun owners not proud of exercising their constitutionally afforded right? When I vote, another constitutionally afforded right, I am proud to wear the "I voted" sticker. What is the issue with wanting to hide that you are a gun owner?

    ReplyDelete
  54. THE WESTCHSTER JOURNAL NEWPAPERS IS BEING RUN LIKE AND MOM AND POP STORE. THE MANGERMENT TEAM IS BAD.

    ReplyDelete

Jim says: "Proceed with caution; this is a free-for-all comment zone. I try to correct or clarify incorrect information. But I can't catch everything. Please keep your posts focused on Gannett and media-related subjects. Note that I occasionally review comments in advance, to reject inappropriate ones. And I ignore hostile posters, and recommend you do, too."

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.