We Have Met the Enemy
…and he is the Gannett newspaper chain (for which I once worked, decades ago), which offers this helpful example of “service journalism” for its readers in Westchester and Rockland counties, New York — the names and home addresses of pistol permit holders in the circulation area:
The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.
What possible use can such a map serve? You can start by asking this woman, who’s already getting quite a backlash from her readers. Discuss among yourselves, and have a Merry Christmas.
UPDATE: Where are the Journal News employees in your neighborhood? Find out here.
I’d laugh my ass off if people not at those addresses experienced a sudden uptick in robberies. Ooops. More liberal unintended consequences. I’m sure if the editor’s address was likewise published he/she would go ballistic.
It does give criminal a “where not to rob” map showing gun free zones. Unintended Consequences.
But there is always an upside…including, giving those up to no good – for this or that reason – some punishment for their efforts…I’m just saying….armed and all.
And the leftist media is more than listing addresses, they are aiding and abetting a criminally bent leftist machine, politicians who have a habit of burying dead bodies without telling the citizens what the hell really happened. So, if one thinks they are living in the land of the free, the home of the brave….think again – http://adinakutnicki.com/2012/08/01/what-happens-when-a-compliant-media-ceases-their-due-diligence-thus-parroting-officialdoms-narratives-commentary-by-adina-kutnicki/
My thoughts exactly. If I had a gun permit but no gun, I’d be somewhat relieved that criminals now believe my home should be avoided.
But it’s just as likely that this map can provide valuable help to our county’s hard-working criminals who need to acquire a weapon inexpensively to help them with their vital services to the community. After all, those rotten gun owners can’t stay home all day, all night, every day, every night! Stake out one home, and soon there’ll be a chance to relieve one of them of his unnecessary possession (throw in some jewelry and consumer electronics as a bonus). All the Journal News asks in return is that said gun be used/found at the scene of a crime, so that it can then editorialize that legal, licensed weapons in private hands (at one point) are the cause of crime.
For the Love of Life Orchestra, my job REQUIRES that I read this pathetic excuse for a newspaper! And it becomes more of a personal insult every &%@%ing day…
I’m sure if the editor’s address was likewise published he/she would go ballistic.
You mean like this (via InstaPundit): Sauce for the goose or, home address and phone number of Journal-News publisher.
Turnabout is fair play. And if Obama has taught us anything, our pursuit of fairness above all is the mark of a civilized society.
Gag. Choke. Puke.
+1
In their haste to stick it to all those eeeeevil pistol owners, they seem to have overlooked the fact that they have also published the names and addresses of some current and former law enforcement individuals.
Needless to say, this sort of public disclosure hasn’t gone over well with the exposed LEOs. Sit back and watch the fun. Retribution is nigh.
I suggest that the next time a Muslim madman commits an atrocity on American soil that the media should go public with the complete personal history including home address and phone number of every member of the Muslim faith who lives in the surrounding area. Is that a crackpot idea? Yes, of course it is. But it is on a par with the actions of the liberal anti-gunner crackpots that pulled off this White Plains newspaper stunt. This episode serves to demonstrate the sickness and danger that liberalism has become in America. If you don’t measure up to their view of political correctness they will seek you out and attempt to destroy you. And it won’t be limited to the gun ownership issue. This is just a beginning.
I know this is off point. But this reminds me of the once when I was pulling Jury duty and at the start of the trial(criminal) they read off our names and addresses. Now I am sitting in the jury box thinking “Not Guilty” at this point when the thought occurred… why did they not read off the address of the judge, lawyers and Police officers involved.
Bogus it was.
Which brings up the point I have thought about lately. Every bureaucrat, and government official should have their addresses in a public online database… like sex offenders.
Imagine how responsive they would be at the DMV then.
Just a thought.
This is a great idea. The information should be available via a FOIA request. This would put public officials on notice that they work for us. Therefore we should know where they live and what their income is, and what their resumes look like.
This was extremely short sighted on the part of the newspaper. I know many gun owners in the affected area and I can only imagine what these people will do with her information…it won’t be pretty but I assure you it will be legal and very clever.
Left/liberals aren’t responsible for their behavior, the taxpayer is.
When these gun owners are robbed of their guns and whatever else, they should have a law suit against the newspaper or whoever published their addresses,names etc. People do break in when they know there are guns to be stolen. This was a criminal act that put lives and property in jeopardy, and the courts should punish the offending publisher.
I can recall in decades past, when a local newspaper published the names and addresses of everyone at a local utility who made over $50k annually. The list was longer than one might have suspected, but to the untrained eye, it was intended to look outrageous. Instead it made the newspaper look very stupid for having published such detail about people who were just trying to do a decent job.
I wouldn’t worry about those who own guns. Worry instead about their neighbors who may not. I’m sure there is an app for this already. Let’s see how many burglaries there are and which homes they happen in. If there is anything of a skew toward the unarmed homes, these idiots will look even more stupid. Once again, the anti-gun movement will have the opposite of the effect they had intended and in a backhanded way actually cause a huge boost in sales of guns.
The more these fools try to limit or embarrass gun owners, the more they’ll cause people to buy more.
I think it’s important to realize that publishing this info about gun-owners isn’t just an attack on gun-owners, it affects the safety of gun-owners families, as well. So, I think it is right that any pushback affects the families of the “reporter” and editors families as well. Why does Dwight R. Whorley get the final say about what is or is not relevant information regarding gun-owners? He doesn’t. He admits to owning a gun. I say, we have a right to know who has access to his gun, which would be ANYONE in his immediate family, parents, spouses, and definitely INCLUDING minors. We also have a right to know where they work and go to school. After all, if they steal his gun to use it, they’ll probably take it to a place that’s familiar to them. And, we don’t just need to know their names, we need to see their pictures as well, so we can identify them as potentially in possession of a stolen gun. The same goes with EVERYONE who had a hand in publishing this information. However, at least one of the editors seems quite a bit older, so I’d like to see the same information about their grandchildren. We should certainly have access to their criminal histories, if they have any. I’m only talking about information that is public, and can be obtained legally. The best part is that all this information could be released anonymously.
I have never advocated bringing anyone’s family into the fray before. If these people didn’t want their families involved, then they should have thought of that before they involved the families of HUNDREDS of legal gun-owners. As far as I’m concerned, make the Journal News howl.
Anyone at Lohud who had anything to do with the article and map has had their name, address and phone number published on several pages. I hope they appreciate the gesture.
JMarie,
That’s not good enough. I’m sure the reporter and editors were prepared to give up that information. I want to know, for example, the “make and model”, AS WELL AS the license plate number of the car their children, grandchildren and/or parents drive. I want to see EVERY BIT of legally obtainable information about their families.
I say, we have a right to know who in the households of the newspaper employees and publishers has access to, and is currently prescribed psychoactives such as SSRIs, anti-anxiety drugs and similar such medications. That would include ANYONE in their immediate family, parents, spouses, and definitely INCLUDING minors. After all, we surely deserve to be ‘safe’ against any potential psychotic outbreaks, don’t we?
Ward Dorrity,
If you can get that information legally, then “yes”. But, I don’t think you can. I’d be satisfied with an IN DEPTH criminal backgroud check, like you would do if you hired someone, as well as pictures of their children/grandchildren(possibly from Facebook. The name and address of the school, pictures of the school(inside and out) would be nice, too. Legal, also. Make it PERSONAL. Make them howl.
I can guarantee you if I had subscribed to this yellow rag, it would be cancelled immediately. I would think about the only use for such a disgusting excuse for a newspaper would be to line the bottom of a birdcage. Since they think it’s important to “neighbors” to know where the firearms are (something they consider life threatening), I want to know where people with communicable diseases live and what disease it is they suffer from, including aids.
Who cares if it’s news as long as we feel good “making a difference” for Leftism?– the credo of today’s journalist.
If the listing includes names and addresses, somebody ought to consider a class-action lawsuit against the author and the paper. Providing the probable locations of valuable personal property to would be burglars, unnecessarily disclosing personal information that might cause the occupants social problems, etc.
It depends on whether those licences are public records, and what NY law says about government providing that kind of personal information, but the intent to shame or bring public pressure on those folks is pretty obvious. A wrongful disclosure suit would at least cause the newspaper and its anti-gun bigot some negative publicity, and perhaps send a message to other anti-gun vigilantes that their actions were not without consequences.
Given that the home addresses and phone numbers of Dwight Worley (“reporter”), Janet Hasson (publisher), and Gracia Martore (CEO) have already been published on several blogs, and that those blogs have been linked to by many more — including PJM’s own Instapundit — they may been regretting their decisions. As the Commander of the Leftful Hussein al-Ubama says, “Punch back twice as hard”.
He also said if they bring a knife, bring a gun. Ironic, huh?
It’s the Chicago way.
This is the second time this newspaper has published the names of gunowners so apparently the repercussion from the first incident wasn’t all that severe.
The question I have is, why isn’t publishing the names and addresses of law-abiding gunowners an invasion of their privacy? It negates the purpose of a conceal-carry permit.
I just had an idea. This is a great opportunity for those people to get their guns off the grid. If your address was posted, file a false police report indicating your gun was stolen. Use the insurance money to buy a cheap replacement, so when they inevitably starting sending sheriff’s deputies around the country to confiscate your arms, you can just hand them your cheapo.
You have just advocated the commission of at least two crimes, either of which, upon conviction, would probably carry with it lifetime forfeiture of Second Amendment rights. I’m not certain this is a viable alternative to publication of personal information. Unfortunately, I don’t have a better one, as any effort to change that state’s freedom of information laws to require redaction of personal information to third parties would likely be defeated by a liberal legislature. Class action might work, but who would take it on: the ACLU? When pigs fly.
Oh, well.
Perfect example of the reason the government should not require an American to have to get permission, i.e., a “permit” to have a gun.
It is not their business and neither should it be anyone else’s.
Now that’s a suggestion I can get behind.
This has been routine in Virginia for some years now. We have several papers that have taken it upon themselves to publish the names and addresses of all concealed-carry permit holders. They seem to do it about once a year or so.
No map, just a list, but the principle is the same.
“The newspaper, in a written statement, defended the decision to run the names.
“The massacre in Newtown remains top-of-mind for many of our readers,” the statement said. “In the past week, conversation on our opinion pages and on our website, LoHud.com, has been keenly focused on gun control.”
And if one of the gunowners is a women who was hiding from a dangerous ex-husband?
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/25/new-york-newspaper-faces-backlash-after-publishing-map-gun-permit-holders/?cmpid=NL_FNTopHeadlines#ixzz2GAgpKPFv
The link from Larry J is the best ever. This gives new meaning to the phrase “hoisted on your own pitard.” I would suggest ther people on the list be called by readers to tell them how much they appreciated the list of gun licensees. Thanks Larry J for making my day.
The expression is “hoist on your own pitard”, not “hoisted”.
The expression is “hoist with his own petard”
The damn fool newsies have every right to publish the names of gun owners of obtained from a public source.
Having the right to do something, however, doesn’t make it advisable, useful, or smart. IMHO these editors are top candidates for assholes of the year.
You are so right.
It was once standard practice to publish detailed information of births in the newspaper. That stopped around the time that Joyce Lynch and hubbie decided to use the information to murder a newborn’s parents on Christmas Eve 1987 – not being the first crime of this nature, it nevertheless increased awareness of the dangerous exposure.
I find it fascinating that newspapers will publish the most irrelevant, potentially life-threatening personal details about people whose agendas oppose their own, yet those same publications will deliberately withhold vital information of national impact (the economy, Fast & Furious, Benghazi, Obama’s hidden history, etc.) so as to prevent negative effects on people whose agendas they advocate, and use the same lame excuses to justify their double standards.
Where did you two get the idea that newspapers have a right to publish personal information?
Yes, they can legally do it.
That does NOT mean they have a RIGHT to do so.
Don’t call yourself a “conservative” if you don’t even know what a RIGHT is.
What part of my post gave you the idea that I was advocating publication of personal information? Around the time that Adam Walsh was kidnapped, I started getting the willies when I saw birth announcements in the paper. My other examples of media bias in withholding of news stories of vital national interest do not require dissemination of personal data. Do not call yourself literate if you have trouble discerning accurate information from text.
In 2009, a liberal rag from Tennessee called the Commercial Appeal pulled the same crap and published the names and addresses of 200,000 Tennessee citizens who are legal gun owners. A blogger, ‘Linoge’ at The Walls of the City, turned the tables on the @$$holes and proceeded to publish the names, home addresses and phone numbers of the newspaper staff. Story here: http://tinyurl.com/cwd2mxz
Hilarity ensued when the paper complained about their privacy being invaded. Liberals hate the shoe being forced onto the other foot.
The roots of mdern liberalism: freedom from personal respsonibilty or setting an example– rules for thee and not for me, peon!
JAWA has a map showing all the sex offenders in the region. Of course liberals say that is just so wrong to show child molesters and rapist and where they live.
next step is showing the addresses of those who voted against Obama or are listed as republicans. They show veterans homes so folks can go vandalize their homes ie; LCpl Cris Van Etten on Christmas when they arrive home from hospital stays.
Showing addresses just in case some maniac leftist might want to harass, rob, vandalize or murder the owners.
What happens when you show names and addresses of abortion doctors and nurses?
Since these leftist extremists consider it “fair game” to bring unwarranted attention to American citizens whose only “crime” was to follow the laws of the land (LEGALLY purchased a firearm, get training on how to handle the weapon, and have never committed a crime – this information listed in case these leftist extremists don’t understand what following the laws of the land entails) why don’t we have and interactive map of all criminals, specially the “gang bangers”. A known criminal is far more likely to commit a crime than someone who has legally purchased a firearm and has no criminal record. Obviously, just as happened with this cretin in Connecticut, there will be aberrations, but I would love to see the statistics on who is more likely to commit a crime; law abiding citizens or known criminals with emphasis on “gang bangers”.
I hope nothing but misery befalls these miscreants that published this “to do” list for criminals.
One can only hope that the publishing of these names and addresses means that the bad guys will leave them alone. They’ll know what to expect if they try to break into these houses.
The idiot who published this list should be pistol-whipped … er, am I allowed to use this hyperbolic image to make a point? We all know that I don’t mean this literally but figuratively, though with all the thought- and word-police around, what I just wrote might be a little risky.
And so that what I said won’t be misconstrued, a disclaimer: I don’t mean literally what I just wrote, but used this image to make it clear that the idiot who irresponsibly published this list should be made to feel uncomfortable and perhaps suffer some kind of consequence for her mean-spirited stupidity.
This paper has set itself up for a vast number of lawsuits. Gun owners who become victims of crime can sue because they were named. Criminals injured by gun owners or police in commission of these crimes can sue on the grounds that the paper gave them the idea. Also, non-gun owners who become crime victims can sue on the grounds that the paper told criminals who was unarmed and thus easier targets.
None of these suits have to win it is merely the number of them coming that will run the paper ragged. This is simply using the anti-gunners’ tactics of suing gun makers and sellers against them. If the people making and selling guns “can” be held accountable for crime, then so can those who publish target lists.
1. This isn’t the first time.
2. Lawsuits have not gone anywhere.
3. It won’t be the last time.
I tend to doubt any lawsuit will go anywhere–even if someone steals a gun from one of the named, kills someone, then admits he wouldn’t have committed the crime had he not had information about where to get a weapon.
As others have said, what the paper did was legal. The consequences of that foolish act may cause pain and suffering, but I can’t for the life of me see a judge coming down on the newspaper for exercising colossal bad judgment.
No, the only thing that can penetrate those thick heads is to make THEM household names for abusing the public’s trust. I hope their inboxes overflow and their telephones never stop ringing.
I know nothing will come of it, but that’s not saying they still shouldn’t be sued for said harm and damages all the same.
However, I wonder how hard the courts would come down on someone who, say, used the FOIA to collect and publish names of people with HIV/AIDS, Herpes, TB and so on? I’m willing to bet even the politicians would jump all over that with laws exempting these things from FOIA requests, if they don’t already exist.
Actually it’s worse than what you all think — those hatemongers have just taught the criminals gangs how to used the freedom of information act to plan their crime sprees efficiently.
This is not a one-off incident, especially in recent weeks. To mix metaphors, they’re celebrating, sharping their long knives…and waiting for just the right time of day…or night.
They’ve all but completed their long march through our institutions. They think they’ve won. All that’s left is to round up dissidents and other undesirables…in order to encourage the rest.
This sort of behavior is nothing to laugh about or dismiss.
Essentially they are trying to publicly lynch these people who they outed. Figuratively at this point. However, I have no doubt these marxist scum would do so in true deed if they could.
Looks like it is backfiring and only time will tell just whom will be dancing the Tyburn Jig in the end.
It does seem the liberal left is following a plan/timeline similar to that of Germany in the 1930`s. I predict they might have a rougher go of it than the national socialist party did because the opposition knows what they are trying to do.
Perhaps a read or re-read of John Ross’ Unintended Consequences is in order.
Whether some activist group(s) like it or not, publishing ‘public information’ for any pupose is statutorily protected by the consitutions First Amendment. Both the First and Second Amendments, do not allow for common sense.
That is the point I think. It is not public information. Just because the government has the knowledge does not make any given record a public one. Take school grades for instance.
At least he’s a consistent fascist though. He hates both the 1st and the 2nd Amendments.
There is that.
Based on my short comment, can you please elaborate on how you come to the conclusion of me, that you stated?
Can you please provide support for your claim? As far as I know, those things held as ‘classified’ are protected and those things not held classified are not protected. For example, ones health records are classified and as you stated, portions of educational records, etc., which can, by exception, be opened for certain matters of law enforcement ‘need’ supported by a court order. Also, keep in mind that everybody with a telephone has their name and address published in a public telephone directory and even the two forms of unlisted are now easily made public knowledge. and readily available for sale.
Why may dear, would you not start us off with your proof it is or should be public knowledge, as you claim.
Now, maybe by lay it is public knowledge in that state. This does not mean it should be. I am reminded of that website…”Nuremberg something” which listed abortion murderers providers. Was it not shut down?
I don’t want to offend the intellect of PJM’s responders and writers. They have repeatedly informed and or inferred to me they are of the intellectual elite and thusly, I should not have to preface with statutory law pertaining to what is classified and protected versus what is public and not protected. I’m not of the intellectual elite, so sometimes I must inquire of some for their great knowledge.
“listed abortion murderers providers. Was it not shut down?”
Probably it was. As far as I know, even what may be public information cannot be ‘used’ for the purposes of perpetuating criminal acts, or threat of criminal acts, etc. On the other hand all medical information is classified and protected under statutory law with the exception of certain law enforcemnet need supported by a court order. If I recall, laws were enacted requiring the anti-abortion people to stay some determined distance away from publically known abortion clinics.
How much are you paid to post your snarky drivel, or are you in it just because you fancy yourself in the vanguard of the elite? I’ll wager on the latter case, as narcissism and Utopian megalomania trump cash any day of the week for your ilk.
I recall a newspaper, that many years ago, published the public record portion of wills, letting readers know what local people had inherited, no matter how meager. Awfully petty behavior on the part of poorly paid, bitter reporters.
I suspect that this will not catch on. Suburban newspapers have too many headaches. I worked at newspapers for years. Right now, suburban newspapers are in a fix: they are liberal, and their readers generally are not; they trumpet diversity but diversity does not read newspapers.
In short, the readership for traditional newspapers is shrinking fast; older and middle aged whites are either dying or they have turned to other media. A stunt like this pi*ses on the readership; of course, that is the goal of the editorial staff, but it is suicide in the eyes of the sales side.
We dumped our subscription to our local “rag” because we got tired of the liberal bias.
I foresee entire newspapers being founded for the sole purpose of publishing personal information on people who they believe hold ‘wrong’ opinions. Once everybody’s name, address, phone number, license plate, etc. is on one or another form of blacklist, across the ideological spectrum, maybe we can all then give it a rest….
“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.”
Frank Lloyd Wright
We don’t have a 1st or 2cd in this country, however the weaponds are in the hands of those who want to do me harm. I;m standing by and watching the world fall apart in every sector of society.