Back to Home Page

Gun-bashing NY newspaper wants to be protected by… guns

by In the news Thursday, January 3. 2013

by NW Spotlight

The Journal News, a newspaper for the counties just north of New York City, recently created an online map exposing the names and addresses of people legally licensed to own handguns in those counties. New York State requires a license to even have a handgun in your home – Oregon has no such requirement. According to another local paper, “The [Journal News] editors have said they believe knowing where guns are is in the public’s interest. The newspaper has also taken a strident editorial position in favor of strict gun control.”

The editor of the Journal News became alarmed by the amount of “negative correspondence” (phone calls and emails) they received regarding their having posted people’s private information on the Internet, and the editor filed reports with local police.

According to a review of the police reports by competitor newspaper the Rockland County Times, the police “did not find the communications in question actually threatening,” they “did not constitute an offense” and did not contain an actual threat.

Regardless of the police findings, the Journal News hired armed security guards, in response to apparent safety concerns.

So when the Journal News “feels” threatened, they want to be protected by guns. Huh. Well probably that’s what the crime victims, law enforcement and other law-abiding New Yorkers felt too – and they probably wanted their privacy protected as well.

It’s possible that some good will come from the newspaper’s abuse of people’s private information. Private information that New Yorkers are required to give the government in order to be able to legally protect themselves and their families.

Republican state Sen. Greg Ball has introduced legislation to protect the privacy of gun owner’s information, and to “prevent future acts of idiocy,” as his state senate web site says.

Privacy legislation similar to Oregon’s HB 4045 which passed last year – that protects the privacy of Oregon concealed handgun license holders.

Until New York gets legislation passed that protects the privacy of law-abiding gun owners, there are still some government officials taking a stand to protect their privacy. County officials in Putnam County, one of the three counties the newspaper went after, are refusing to turn over people’s private information.

MaryEllen Odell, Putnam County’s executive manager, explained in the LA Times “We have women right now that have orders of protection that have permits that are now absolutely terrified. You have law enforcement officials [on the list] who are on the job who are worried about their families’ safety. There’s a lot of collateral damage here from one newspaper’s knee-jerk reaction from trying to capitalize” on the Connecticut shooting.

Posted by at 07:30 | Posted in 2nd Amendment, Media, Privacy | 20 Comments | Email This Post | Print This Post
Back to Home Page
  • DavidAppell

    Piers Morgan, The Journal News…. why are gun owners so opposed to the 1st Amendment? Isn’t it ironic….

    • LibsDeserveDeath

      I’m sure if YOUR name had been published, you would feel very differently. But a putz like you never considers any other viewpoint.

      • DavidAppell

        Not at all. If my name is part of the public records, I assume and expect others will have access to it.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          So you are down with publishing names of rape and child abuse victims?

          This is absolute vintage Appell.

          Not an iota of actual thought, and an argument a three year old could rebut with a moments reflection.

          It’s kind of sad actually.

          The answer is no, you do not publish the names of gun owners. The reason is it clearly endangers non gun owners, who gave no approval, tacitly or otherwise, for their house to be identified as the unarmed one in the neighborhood.

          Would this ever occur to you David?

          nope – Because you are in capable of critical thinking. Once something is outside the liberal boilerplate box, you cannot think for yourself on the issue.

          A first amendment right does not give one permission to endanger others with ones speech. That is exactly what the newspaper has done here.

          • valley person

            “The reason is it clearly endangers non gun owners, who gave no approval,
            tacitly or otherwise, for their house to be identified as the unarmed
            one in the neighborhood.”

            This is the sort of weir fantasy you gun owners have. You really believe you are defending your home, when in fact you are more likely to end up with one of your family members killed by your own weapon(s). Look at the incidence of family member on family member homicide, accidents and suicides for God’s sake.

          • DavidAppell

            “‘Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,’ said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. ‘There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.’”
            - NY Times 1/5/13
            http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?hp&_r=0

  • Bob Clark

    Old Hillsboro High School as late as the 60s had a gun shooting range on campus, and my wife received public schooling on the use of a rifle and shooting it. Rather than coddling our children, as now days, we should be re-introducing them to the actual vagaries life historically has tested a people with. When we coddle as much as we do now our children and others, we actually make them more fragile and exposed to the inevitable local and global adversities that come along from time to time.

    Gun training and martial arts, maybe with a strong dose of their historical proper place in society, should be taught in school. Possibly the best of the best should be given responsibility of protecting their fellow students at large. Perhaps also give students some liberty to devise their own protective procedures, as a learning experience.

    • DavidAppell

      Yes, by all means, let’s let some teenagers strap guns to their belts and carry them in class — we all know how mature teenagers are. And spending some quality time planning for their own defense could substitute for those other wastes of time like math, history, science, and writing. Save money on cops, too.

  • dantheman

    A more useful map would have been one showing the location of citizens on psychotropic drugs. But that, of course, would be illegal.

  • valley person

    Like with so many things, co-called conservatives are going to find themselves on the wrong end of the public with respect to gun laws. The slaughter of 20 6 year olds is not going to be forgotten soon.

    More guns = more gun deaths.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    There is no reason for the newspaper to have done this other than to put both gun owners and non gun owners alike in jeopardy. It was a stunt where they didn’t give a rip about the consequences to others, only their own sensationalism.

    The one thing we have determined beyond question in this country is this:

    More guns = less deaths.

    This simply is undeniable. With rapidly escalating gun ownership, a slew of states passing shall issue CCL laws we have seen no increase in gun deaths and in fact have seen a decrease.

    Does correlation imply causation? Of course not, Only global warming looney’s argue this.

    What is demonstrable though is that the left was simply wrong on this issue when they predicted increased deaths with increased gun ownership.

    Will they ever admit this? Of course not. As I have demonstrated countless times on these pages, people on the left are incapable of admitting when they are wrong even when caught dead to rights, as they are on the gun issue.

    The moral is anyone making the proposition that an increasingly armed US citizenry equates to an increase in firearms deaths has demonstrated they are either totally uninformed or a complete idiot.

    • DavidAppell

      Any newspaper’s obligation is to print information they deem important, regardless of whether someone else thinks it is socially redeeming or not. This newspaper, bravely, did that. Good on them.

      There are many people, such as parents, who want to know this information.

      Claiming proof that more guns = less deaths is absurd — a complete dereliction of the intellect. Naturally, you-know-who claimed it.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        >Claiming proof that more guns = less deaths is absurd

        I don’t claim it. It is simply a fact. We have more guns now than we did ten years ago, 20 years ago, and we have less deaths.

        We have more people carrying firearms than we did 10 years ago, 20 years ago, and contrary to all the predictions of the left there have been fewer murders, not more.

        Indeed, every area in the country that has less firearms regulations has had fewer deaths with firearms than those with more restrictive rules and this has been so for decades.

        >Naturally, you-know-who claimed it.

        And you know who just proved it.

        Unfortunately David, the facts are not on your side with this one. That’s why you have nothing left but your dopey insults.

        And you can’t even do that well.

        • valley person

          No, it isn’t a fact. Every modern nation with fewer guns, meaning all of them, have fewer gun deaths than the US.

          And you are wrong about gun regulations. The highest proportional gun deaths are in the south, which also has the most lax gun regulations. In fact, those states that voted for McCain in 08 had a strong correlation with higher gun death rates.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/

          • DavidAppell

            Interesting link. Notice also the positive correlation between deaths and guns in high schools, and the strong negative correlation with an assault weapons ban.

    • DavidAppell

      Remember, Rupert is someone who doesn’t understand how burning 8+ lbs of gasoline can produce 19+ lbs of carbon dioxide. And instead of figuring it out, just asserts the science is wrong.

      We aren’t dealing with a lot of wattage here.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Um, no David – You are the one who claimed some time ago burning one gallon of gasoline released something like 28 pounds of CO2. The key here was use of the word release, which is awfully sloppy writing for any science writer, especially someone claiming to have a PhD.

        It was actually because of you making this same mistake two weeks running that I began to doubt very seriously you had a PhD, or any science degree whatever. I was the last person on this blog who defended your assertion of a PhD. However, since you kept making really basic errors like this I dropped my support of your claim, since it was my opinion nobody with a PhD in physics, especially one who was trying to be a writer, would continually make such basic mistakes.

        My personal favorite was when you royally screwed up and confused momentum with gasoline use and asserted gasoline use went as the square of a cars velocity. This was absolute insanity, but classic Appell.

        All that said, at least you get the language correct here. Burning the gasoline could be said to produce the CO2, it doesn’t release it. It combines to form it.

        Looks like my schooling you on this mistake twice in a row paid off. Who knows, I may make a scientist out of you yet!

        Nice try at changing the topic even though it backfired on ya. Guess you don’t know anything about the subject.

        • DavidAppell

          Uh, no Rupert, I know how much CO2 a gallon of gas produces, and your complaint was that the mass of CO2 was greater than the mass of gasoline.

          With science knowledge like yours, it’s no wonder you don’t understand what it means to have an advanced degree.

        • DavidAppell

          By the way, fuel economy does vary much like a parabola. I’ll let you figure out the equation of a parabola, with a hint: it involves a “2″.
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fuel_economy_vs_speed_1997.png

    • DavidAppell

      “‘Generally, if you live in a civilized society, more guns mean more death,’ said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. ‘There is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.’”
      - Elizabeth Rosenthal, “More Guns = More Killing,” NY Times 1/5/13
      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/sunday-review/more-guns-more-killing.html?hp&_r=0

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)