Did “gun map” lead to burglary?

posted at 10:01 am on January 14, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The timing is certainly suspicious, to say the least. Just days after a local newspaper published an interactive map showing the location of people who have handgun permits in two New York counties, burglars broke into one of the houses revealed by the map.  Coincidence?  Not exactly — the burglars went straight for the gun safe:

A White Plains residence pinpointed on a controversial handgun permit database was burglarized Saturday, and the burglars’ target was the homeowner’s gun safe.

At least two burglars broke into a home on Davis Avenue at 9:30 p.m. Saturday but were unsuccessful in an attempt to open the safe, which contained legally owned weapons, according to a law enforcement source. One suspect was taken into custody, the source said.

The gun owner was not home when the burglary occurred, the source said. The victim, who is in his 70s, told Newsday on Sunday that he did not want to comment while the police investigation continues.

It’s no coincidence to state Senator Greg Ball, according to BuzzFeed, which posted Ball’s statement shortly after the story hit the airwaves:

In a statement, State Senator Greg Ball, a conservative Republican who represents many of those listed on the gun map and has called for legislation to make gun license information secret, said the local newspaper that published it should be held accountable.

“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs. If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens. Former convicts have already testified to the usefulness of the asinine Journal News ‘gun maps’ yet the reckless editors are evidently willing to roll the dice, gambling with the lives of innocent local homeowners.”

The investigation continues.  However, what is beyond dispute is that the Journal News has provided a map to every criminal that wants to find weapons but can’t do so legally, thanks to the restrictions already in place on gun sales.  If the newspaper — which has since hired armed guards for itself — wanted to make the area safer, they could hardly have come up with a worse strategy.

Also, this is a few weeks old, but it’s worth revisiting.  Just how well has the Obama administration enforced current gun laws?  Paul Bedard reports that weapons prosecutions have dropped over 40% from the Bush administration:

Despite his calls for greater gun control, including a new assault weapons ban that extends to handguns, President Obama’s administration has turned away from enforcing gun laws, cutting weapons prosecutions some 40 percent since a high of about 11,000 under former President Bush. …

Figures collected by Syracuse University’s TRAC project, the authority on prosecutions from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, shows that the administration has reduced the focus on gun crimes and instead steered prosecutors and investigators to drug crimes.

Gun prosecutions peaked at 10,937 under Bush in 2004. A current TRAC report shows that the Obama administration is prosecuting about 6,000 weapons cases.

According to an October 2011 TRAC report, “There also has been a shifting emphasis towards drug-related investigations. Since ATF-referred prosecutions peaked in FY 2005, the number of weapons prosecutions actually has fallen by 32 percent, a much higher rate than for ATF prosecutions overall. Making up the difference has been the growing number of drug cases, up by 26 percent during the same period.”

Also, the ATF seemed more focused on trying to ship weapons over the border into Mexico than in actually enforcing existing law.  That might have something to do with the falloff — or it just might be that gun-related crime has declined despite the increase in sales over that same period.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I do believe they are guilty of accessory to burglary.
Book ‘em, Dano.

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 12:21 PM

No, that’s not the premise. The premise is when you with no good intent make public hitherto private information on the contents of a home, and a criminal uses that information to rob that home, then you have some culpability in the crime.

Your “more likely” formulation is something in your mind which is a clever mathematical approach to general categories. If I told someone segasagez has $10,000 stored under his mattress, and that person breaks into your home and goes under the mattress to rob whatever’s under there, is a good summary to say they were “more likely” to rob your house because of what I told them? No, this isn’t a statistical situation. We have a direct cause and effect.

Paul-Cincy on January 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM

So you are saying that the map puts gun owners are more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

So you are saying that the map puts gun owners are more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Precisely.

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM

So you are saying that the map puts gun owners are more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Precisely.

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 12:25 PM

Fine. But that my original point. Initially, all the outrage was that the map put non-gun owners at more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob. Then this happened and everyone switched over.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

I know this is off topic, but the babe in the picture sure has a big chest

Just sayin

entagor on January 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

No. You should go easy on products containing Olean.

Christien on January 14, 2013 at 12:32 PM

Gotta love fools who never posts suddenly showing up to put us some knowledge.

It is to laugh.

Christien on January 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM

To flip the argument, if the gun is used to rob a bank, would you consider the manufacturer of the gun as an accessory to the bank robbery, particularly if the guy said that he wouldn’t have robbed the bank if he didn’t have a gun?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:18 PM

No I would not hold the manufacturer liable. I assume you already know that. My concern is that it seems whatever information the government collects on you can be accessed by a third party. I wonder what would happen if you were a private citizen and chose to stand on a corner and present the information on that map in the form of a flyer you could hand out to any passerby. Maybe you believe you are also doing a public service like the newspaper but I would be willing to guess you would more likely have a stop put to your efforts. It is not the government’s job to collect and make available personal information about any specific law abiding citizen to another citizen. I wish we had the same transparency regarding our elected officials.

DaveDief on January 14, 2013 at 12:43 PM

The Newspaper and it’s leadership and ownership should be held FINANCIALLY LIABLE for any damage caused by this information being revealed.

And while we’re at it…….How about seeing how the newspaper likes having information about IT’S PEOPLE released?

Progressive filth.

PappyD61 on January 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Having dealt with this area in the past, I’m missing something here, obviously.

ATF is not a word that’s impossible to pronounce. It’s an acronym. Alcohol-Tobacco-Firearms. I do not see Drugs in that list.

The administration is taking ATF personnel and shifting them to drug prosecutions? While ignoring Firearms matters?

Will this Obama in Wonderland fantasy presidency never end?

IndieDogg on January 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM

Initially, all the outrage was that the map put non-gun owners at more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob. Then this happened and everyone switched over.
segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Not correct, sorry. Refer to the interviews with former master criminals turned law enforcement consultants, including Frank Abagnale Jr. (the “catch me if you can legend”), who specifically noted the second potential use of the map to target houses with guns to steal the weapons. He even quotes the value of certain weapons on the street.

Obviously the newspaper didn’t consider this but, then, they apparently didn’t consider much, other than their personal agenda to strike a blow against guns for circulation.

IndieDogg on January 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

No I would not hold the manufacturer liable. I assume you already know that. My concern is that it seems whatever information the government collects on you can be accessed by a third party. I wonder what would happen if you were a private citizen and chose to stand on a corner and present the information on that map in the form of a flyer you could hand out to any passerby. Maybe you believe you are also doing a public service like the newspaper but I would be willing to guess you would more likely have a stop put to your efforts. It is not the government’s job to collect and make available personal information about any specific law abiding citizen to another citizen. I wish we had the same transparency regarding our elected officials.

DaveDief on January 14, 2013 at 12:43 PM

I have repeatedly said that the paper shouldn’t have produced the information, and I don’t defend their actions at all.

I don’t support people publishing the personal addresses of any private or public figure. It’s an invasion of privacy.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM

I know this is off topic, but the babe in the picture sure has a big chest

Just sayin

entagor on January 14, 2013 at 12:28 PM

=================

Now let’s take about some gun control.

JackM on January 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If it’s proven those guys hit the house for the guns, I hope the homeowner sues the newspaper for everything they’ve got.

GarandFan on January 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM

To get a concealed carry permit in Delaware you must, among other things, put an ad in the paper telling the world who you are, where you live, and that you are applying for a concealed carry permit.

This often results in burglaries where only guns are stolen.

So what is crazy and irresponsible on the part of the Journal News is govt policy here.

Akzed on January 14, 2013 at 1:40 PM

talk

JackM on January 14, 2013 at 1:41 PM

To get a concealed carry permit in Delaware you must, among other things, put an ad in the paper telling the world who you are, where you live, and that you are applying for a concealed carry permit.This often results in burglaries where only guns are stolen.

So what is crazy and irresponsible on the part of the Journal News is govt policy here.

=============================

That’s disgusting.

JackM on January 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Call my cynical but this is exactly what the newspaper wanted to happen. The guns of law-abiding citizens are no threat to anybody unless you make a shopping list for criminals and suddenly the guns of the law-abiding are a threat and so now we have to disarm everyone. Either that or the libs that run the paper are really that stupid.

Both are totally plausible.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

You misunderstood. The personal responsibility I was referring to was regarding the lawsuits. Suing the newspaper for producing the map absolves the thief of their responsibility. It’d be like suing a gun manufacturer for building the gun that was used in a crime.

Do you support suing gun manufacturers?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:57 AM

No, I didn’t “misunderstand”, you misstated, of course you think it’s someone else’s fault, no surprise their.

Suing the newspaper for producing the map absolves the thief of their responsibility.

Where did that thought come from…don’t answer, this is somewhat of a family type blog. If you think only one person is culpable for any one crime, good grief, you don’t think through your answers…pal, you can have more than one guilty party…oh, boy, can’t believe I am even answering these lame statements and questions…so lame.

And yes, I absolutely support suing gun manufactures, if they make a faulty weapon that misfires and knowingly marketed that weapon, they should be sued…also if they didn’t pay their vendors for legitimate supplies, and products, they should be sued…what a foolish question, no one is above the law or able to be knowingly be negligent.

Good grief, but it is worth posting this to show how shallow and stupid liberals are…what a waste of air and food.

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 1:52 PM

I hope the paper will be ruined and all there will lose their jobs, never to recover.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

segasagez, brains are for multi-tasking, not just for jumping into the fire.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2013 at 1:55 PM

I hope the paper will be ruined and all there will lose their jobs, never to recover.

Schadenfreude on January 14, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Yes. People have a right to piracy.

SparkPlug on January 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

privacy piracy.

SparkPlug on January 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

piracy privacy

SparkPlug on January 14, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I live in NYC; if anyone does the same as the Journal-News; my apartment will become a target.

patch on January 14, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Seen a copy of the Gawker lately?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/nyc-gun-owners-named-on-gawker-85920.html

Solaratov on January 14, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Hey as long as that idiot paper is trying to perform a public service – why not publish a map with listings of who has the most expensive jewlery, the best electronics, maybe a list of the evil people who have large amounts of cash in their homes instead of trusting a bank with their money. I’m sure there are lots of people who should have a right to that kind of information.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Hold on here a sec….

If gun prosecutions are down 40%, surely that means gun CRIME is down at least as much, right?

Well if gun crime is down that much, why are we talking about further restrictions on gun rights???

Oh….you mean they’re refusing to prosecute some gun crimes? Why would they do that, except to let the guilty off the hook to further terrorize the innocent?

Come on, it has to be one or the other here. Either gun crime is way down since obama took office, in which case he’s trying to fix a problem that he can already take credit for fixing….

Or he prefers criminals to be free to commit crimes.

So which is it?

runawayyyy on January 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

This doesn’t really make sense though. Take away the guns, and it’s just a map of all the houses.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Take away the guns…and there’s no reason for the fish-wrap to publish the map, is there?

Get a grip, lefty. The rag tried to screw over gun-owners; and it’s going to backfire on them big time. People are going to be robbed and some are going to be hurt…all because some leftist rag decided to “act stupidly“.

Solaratov on January 14, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Initially, all the outrage was that the map put non-gun owners at more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob. Then this happened and everyone switched over.
segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

Not correct, sorry. Refer to the interviews with former master criminals turned law enforcement consultants, including Frank Abagnale Jr. (the “catch me if you can legend”), who specifically noted the second potential use of the map to target houses with guns to steal the weapons. He even quotes the value of certain weapons on the street.

Obviously the newspaper didn’t consider this but, then, they apparently didn’t consider much, other than their personal agenda to strike a blow against guns for circulation.

IndieDogg on January 14, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Thanks IndieDogg, that’s how I remember it too…. a double whammy. Frank Abagnale said the newspapers put both groups at risk, the non-gunowners because they could be considered “safe houses” for criminals, and the lawful gun-owners because criminals would know where to go to pick up guns.

Immoral tools. I sincerely hope the editor is cued up getting his unemployement check soon.

itsspideyman on January 14, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Hey as long as that idiot paper is trying to perform a public service – why not publish a map with listings of who has the most expensive jewlery, the best electronics, maybe a list of the evil people who have large amounts of cash in their homes instead of trusting a bank with their money. I’m sure there are lots of people who should have a right to that kind of information.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Why not publish welfare recipients? They can be obtained using the FOIA as well.

itsspideyman on January 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Yes. People have a right to piracy.

SparkPlug on January 14, 2013 at 2:23 PM

You frequent the Pirate Bay, don’t you?

You naughty, naughty man.

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Remember, these are the sorts of people we are dealing with.

And they accuse us of being violent.

Dunedainn on January 14, 2013 at 3:10 PM

Why not publish welfare recipients? They can be obtained using the FOIA as well.

itsspideyman on January 14, 2013 at 3:08 PM

Hey – good idea. I like that. Let’s see a list/map of everyone collecting welfare and/or food stamps – so we all know who the moochers are in our neighborhoods.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 3:15 PM

This doesn’t really make sense though. Take away the guns, and it’s just a map of all the houses.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

While they’re at it, why not make sure and announce publicly to everyone on an airliner who the armed Air Marshall for that flight is.
Seems to me if you’re willing to justify what this paper did, that should be just as reasonable for the same reasons. Wouldn’t that be a similar public safety concern to know who on that flight has a gun?

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 3:18 PM

runawayyyy on January 14, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Hey hey hey – no fair using facts and logic on liberals……

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 3:20 PM

You can say that one group of houses are more likely to be robbed, or the other group of houses are more likely to be robbed, but you can’t say that both group of houses are more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on January 14, 2013 at 3:30 PM

And while we’re at it…….How about seeing how the newspaper likes having information about IT’S PEOPLE released?

Progressive filth.

PappyD61 on January 14, 2013 at 1:01 PM

Already been done.

Names, addresses, telephone numbers, email, fax, etc., for editor, staff and all reporters of the rag. Even pictures of the interior of the editor’s house to show what swag a looter can find.

In addition to hiring armed guards for their offices, they have armed guards at their homes.

One would think they’d feel safer if they simply posted a “Gun Free Zone” sign out front. That would stop any trouble, wouldn’t it?

Solaratov on January 14, 2013 at 3:43 PM

You can say that one group of houses are more likely to be robbed, or the other group of houses are more likely to be robbed, but you can’t say that both group of houses are more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM

You’re an idiot.
Solaratov on January 14, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Libs like segasagez can’t understand how some burglars who are afraid of being shot would now be able to target the gun free zones to get the jewelry, cash, electronics and such they like to go after; and other burglars who specifically want guns, and probably already have some for their own use, might be willing to target the homes WITH guns – likely after casing the place to know when the resident is not there. The map gives all of the thieves a good guideline for where to go or not go depending on what they want and what level of risk they are willing to take.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Fine. But that my original point. Initially, all the outrage was that the map put non-gun owners at more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob. Then this happened and everyone switched over.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The fact is it puts both groups at risk. Regardless of what is or isn’t inside the home, when criminals have inside information, they’re better criminals. To think that all criminals would target the guns or that they would all avoid the guns is silly. There’s more than one kind of bad guy.

Ronnie on January 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM

What did Mark Levin think about this latest crap out of Obama’s pie hole on guns, immigration, and the debt limit?

http://www.marklevinshow.com

APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 14, 2013 at 4:09 PM

The fact is it puts both groups at risk. Regardless of what is or isn’t inside the home, when criminals have inside information, they’re better criminals. To think that all criminals would target the guns or that they would all avoid the guns is silly. There’s more than one kind of bad guy.

Ronnie on January 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Ya – really – how about if we were to publish another map showing which houses and businesses have alarm systems – as a public safety service of course – since armed security people are likely to respond to alarms at those houses?

Segasagez couldn’t think that would endanger any of the houses or businesses NOT on that list could he?

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM

This doesn’t really make sense though. Take away the guns, and it’s just a map of all the houses.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

What color is the sky on your world?

Is it pretty?

98ZJUSMC on January 14, 2013 at 4:28 PM

Where did that thought come from…don’t answer, this is somewhat of a family type blog. If you think only one person is culpable for any one crime, good grief, you don’t think through your answers…pal, you can have more than one guilty party…oh, boy, can’t believe I am even answering these lame statements and questions…so lame.

And yes, I absolutely support suing gun manufactures, if they make a faulty weapon that misfires and knowingly marketed that weapon, they should be sued…also if they didn’t pay their vendors for legitimate supplies, and products, they should be sued…what a foolish question, no one is above the law or able to be knowingly be negligent.

Good grief, but it is worth posting this to show how shallow and stupid liberals are…what a waste of air and food.

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Who’s talking about faulty weapons?

Suing the newspaper for a criminal using a map that they produced is like suing a gun manufacturer for a criminal using a gun they produced.

Would you sue the gun manufacturer if a criminal used the manufacturers gun to commit a crime? It’s a simple question.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 4:59 PM

Fine. But that my original point. Initially, all the outrage was that the map put non-gun owners at more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob. Then this happened and everyone switched over.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

The fact is it puts both groups at risk. Regardless of what is or isn’t inside the home, when criminals have inside information, they’re better criminals. To think that all criminals would target the guns or that they would all avoid the guns is silly. There’s more than one kind of bad guy.

Ronnie on January 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM

At least you’re making a rational point. Other’s seem to be incapable of that.

The counter is that this location was robbed while the homeowners weren’t home, so the fact that a gun was(or wasn’t) in the home is immaterial to the map making the house more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM

The fact is it puts both groups at risk. Regardless of what is or isn’t inside the home, when criminals have inside information, they’re better criminals. To think that all criminals would target the guns or that they would all avoid the guns is silly. There’s more than one kind of bad guy.

Ronnie on January 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Ya – really – how about if we were to publish another map showing which houses and businesses have alarm systems – as a public safety service of course – since armed security people are likely to respond to alarms at those houses?

Segasagez couldn’t think that would endanger any of the houses or businesses NOT on that list could he?

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM

You’re making my point and i don’t even think you recognize it.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM

You’re making my point and i don’t even think you recognize it.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 5:06 PM

That you’re a complete idiot? I don’t need to make that point – it’s painfully obvious to everyone here.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 5:12 PM

The counter is that this location was robbed while the homeowners weren’t home, so the fact that a gun was(or wasn’t) in the home is immaterial to the map making the house more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM

What you keep missing is that in this case the criminals were in fact looking for guns. So 1) they targeted a house shown as a gun location, then 2) they likely cased the place ahead of time to figure out when the homeowner would be gone so they didn’t risk getting shot when they went in to get the guns. The gun map was VERY material to helping the criminals choose a target.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 5:16 PM

Well, if you know the addresses of your marks, then you just find a comfy spot and sit and watch until they go out.

GWB on January 14, 2013 at 10:55 AM

In my own neighborhood and I’d bet most of yours, anyone doing that would be noted.

roy_batty on January 14, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Call my cynical but this is exactly what the newspaper wanted to happen. The guns of law-abiding citizens are no threat to anybody unless you make a shopping list for criminals and suddenly the guns of the law-abiding are a threat and so now we have to disarm everyone. Either that or the libs that run the paper are really that stupid.

Both are totally plausible.

alchemist19 on January 14, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Yep. I have a Cynical Compass just like yours and came to the same conclusion. They know exactly what they’re doing. But they’re also counting on none of us getting wise to it.

PatriotGal2257 on January 14, 2013 at 5:35 PM

At least you’re making a rational point.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Sorry. Can’t return the compliment. Your theory that an increase in one type of crime must mean a decrease in another type of crime is silly.

Ronnie on January 14, 2013 at 5:47 PM

These “journolists” should never enjoy life ever again.

tom daschle concerned on January 14, 2013 at 6:01 PM

You will see an increase in home burglaries in Westchester County now. You can take that to the ever-loving bank.

The mistake SegaSagez and other libs are making is in believing that two occurrences are mutually exclusive when they are not. If a criminal wants a gun, he knows where to find them. If a criminal wants to avoid houses with guns, he knows where to find them too. A reasonable assumption is that crime will increase all-around since there is presumably more than one cat burglar in Westchester County, and one motive on one’s part does not preclude an entirely different motive on the part of another.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 6:06 PM

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!

Mean Streak MEdia: (Urkel Voice) Did we dooo thhaaaaaaaaat ?

cableguy615 on January 14, 2013 at 7:14 PM

MSM (Urkel Voice) Did we doooo thaaaaaaaatt?

cableguy615 on January 14, 2013 at 7:15 PM

The counter is that this location was robbed while the homeowners weren’t home, so the fact that a gun was(or wasn’t) in the home is immaterial to the map making the house more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 5:05 PM

Actually, the absence of the homeowner is EXACTLY the reason the presence of the gun IS material.

If you are a criminal who is targeting a house for the purposes of acquiring a gun, are you going to do it when there is someone there to take it and use it against you, or when they are gone and you have a free shot at it?

The INVERSE of your statement is the more accurate one: it is the absence of the GUN that makes the presence of the HOMEOWNER immaterial, because the burglar knows that even if someone is in the house, they won’t be shooting at him. Moreover, if they bring a gun TO the crime with them, they know they will be assured of superior firepower in the case of a conflict.

The Schaef on January 14, 2013 at 7:47 PM

No surprise. Criminals love guns registered in someone else’s name.

legalimmigrant on January 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

Lorien must be off tonight. In his stead, let me just note that the first newsreader has lovely … is not unattractive.

Jaibones on January 14, 2013 at 10:28 PM

does anyone read the law, the ‘freedom of information law’ exempts PII information, names address from disclosure.

RonK on January 14, 2013 at 10:47 PM

Irresponsible journalism is not new and one of the worst cases was back in WW II when the Chicago Tribune Newspaper published to the world that America had broken the secret Japanese code. I wonder how many deaths were caused by that. I still remember grandma saying, “Loose lips sinks ships”.

mixplix on January 15, 2013 at 6:18 AM

You can say that one group of houses are more likely to be robbed, or the other group of houses are more likely to be robbed, but you can’t say that both group of houses are more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM

You’re an idiot. Solaratov on January 14, 2013 at 3:30 PM

He really is. There should be an IQ test for commenting here I think.

Segasagez, next time you get a break in one of your all day video murder sprees, think about this. A criminal would like nothing better than to be able to safety enter “any” residence to try and steal the occupants stuff. If a newspaper publishes a list of who owns a gun and who doesn’t, it doesn’t make one safer or one more vulnerable. It makes them all more vulnerable for the area in which it was reported. If a criminal is specifically looking to steal guns, they have had their work done for them by the Journal and know exactly where to look. If their intent is to hit homes where the risk is less due to the occupants being unarmed, the Journal has done their work for them.

And another thing. From the outside of this conversation looking in, you look even more ridiculous when your points are so juvenile but question the intelligence of the older com enters here. You might just want to do a bit more reading here before you jump in both feet swinging your stupid stick.

smoothsailing on January 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Would you sue the gun manufacturer if a criminal used the manufacturers gun to commit a crime? It’s a simple question.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 4:59 PM

A simple question that isn’t relevant…try this.

Would I sue a gun manufacturer that releases information about who they sold the gun to? Yes.

Would I sue a hospital that releases information about how ill someone is? Yes.

Would I sue a bank that released how much money someone has in savings? Yes.

Would I sue a Dr. for telling us who is on anti-depressant drugs? Yes.

Would I sue an agency for telling us who is a pedophile? No

Discernment, in these cases, the laws are there, and common sense to protect the people…not put them in harm’s way or “mark them” as a target.

Would one sue a paper that listed where young girls, under the age of 12 resided and the times their parents are not home, or the ones who walk home from school, maybe a map??? You wouldn’t…

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 9:13 AM

The security is beefed up at Johnny’U’s. You can bet that.

johnnyU on January 15, 2013 at 9:28 AM

People, in this country, have a right to remain anonymous if they choose to be. Not everyone wants to be “identified” labeled, categorized…most want to live their life without any notoriety, in fact, look at your everyone’s moniker on this site and most every site, it is not their name.
The fact is, most of us want to move through life without being a target…that means buying a gun, keeping it safe, and no one needs to know, absolutely no reason to know how many TV’s your neighbor owns, what is debts are, his mortgage is, or if he owns a firearm…it’s just none of your business.
Especially when the facts are hammers cause more deaths, autos cause more deaths, bathtubs cause more deaths…remove the criminal element, gangster element, get down to “middle America” and you find a very bland, and small number of people who are killed by guns, can you say the same about automobiles?
The problem with government is that they don’t leave the people alone, they don’t trust the people, ironically, who voted for them.

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 9:31 AM

I would ask what brand of gun safe he used. It obviously worked. Glad the safe won. The cowards wont dare break in while he’s home. They’d have been toast.

johnnyU on January 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I would ask what brand of gun safe he used. It obviously worked. Glad the safe won. The cowards wont dare break in while he’s home. They’d have been toast.

johnnyU on January 15, 2013 at 9:41 AM

Not if he is like 90% of gun owners, they have them for other reasons than “protection”, I would bet most are kept in a safe, and couldn’t be used in an “event”…a truth that is never reported by the media. Most weapons are, quite frankly, inert…

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Not if he is like 90% of gun owners, they have them for other reasons than “protection”, I would bet most are kept in a safe, and couldn’t be used in an “event”…a truth that is never reported by the media. Most weapons are, quite frankly, inert…

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM

This is one reason I’m not all that enthusiastic about our chances if things really go south. You have millions of gun owners with collections they mostly never used, somewhere that they would not be easy to get to in a hurry. The era of hanging your rifle on pegs over the door is very much gone.

MelonCollie on January 15, 2013 at 12:40 PM

I would bet most are kept in a safe, and couldn’t be used in an “event”…a truth that is never reported by the media. Most weapons are, quite frankly, inert…

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 10:44 AM

You would think the math would be obvious.

280 million guns
10,000 gun deaths a year.

Even if we’re ridiculous enough to assume that each death was caused by one unique gun, that means the safety of firearms in the United States is total, to three decimal places (it’s literally like 3.57 e-5).

Now take out death by cop.

Now take out suicides (a THIRD).

Now take out multiple homicides, and/or the same gun used in separate crimes.

Now take out gang and drug-related violence.

Just how dangerous are guns, secured in private homes, now?

The Schaef on January 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Just how dangerous are guns, secured in private homes, now?

The Schaef on January 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Very dangerous, as long as they print maps as to where they are…I would bet someone intent on stealing a gun, would have no hesitation is using a gun to steal it.

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM

Hey as long as that idiot paper is trying to perform a public service – why not publish a map with listings of who has the most expensive jewlery, the best electronics, maybe a list of the evil people who have large amounts of cash in their homes instead of trusting a bank with their money. I’m sure there are lots of people who should have a right to that kind of information.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM

They came close…

http://www.lohud.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2013301130071

The published the names AND ADDRESSES of the area’s highest taxpayers.

No, I’m not kidding… really, I’m not.

Just in case you wanted to steal a gun off the first list to commit a burglary, but didn’t know who to rob; they published a 2nd list to make certain you had a wealthy target.

The only thing not listed is what percentage kickback they expect for their planning assistance in your criminal enterprise… I’m thinking 15% would be fair; but you might have to negotiate.

gekkobear on January 15, 2013 at 1:47 PM

===============================================

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/power-tools/4286772

And yes, the long-blade chainsaw is my preferred 2nd amendment tool.

=======================================================

huntingmoose on January 15, 2013 at 2:56 PM

Fine. But that my original point. Initially, all the outrage was that the map put non-gun owners at more risk than they were at previously because criminals know what houses to rob. Then this happened and everyone switched over.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:27 PM

It hasn’t “switched over”. The two risks are not mutually exclusive, unless you are using the sort of kindergarten logic that says there is a single shared motivation for every criminal.

The idiots at this paper just made it easier for every crook who wants to steal a gun to find one, and also made things much safer for every crook who wants a TV set/jewelry/woman or child to rape.

Yes, believe it or not, some leftist jackasses are so skilled in their jackassery that they can screw up multiple things simultaneously.

RINO in Name Only on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Ronnie on January 14, 2013 at 4:04 PM

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 6:06 PM

smoothsailing on January 15, 2013 at 8:25 AM

RINO in Name Only on January 15, 2013 at 9:44 PM

Reading the other comments before posting and checking the time stamps to avoid posting in dead threads is for effete establishment RINO squishes.

RINO in Name Only on January 15, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Hey as long as that idiot paper is trying to perform a public service – why not publish a map with listings of who has the most expensive jewlery, the best electronics, maybe a list of the evil people who have large amounts of cash in their homes instead of trusting a bank with their money. I’m sure there are lots of people who should have a right to that kind of information.

dentarthurdent on January 14, 2013 at 2:36 PM

This is a reason why those of us in the ranching industry have resisted forced tagging of cattle with Federal identification electronic ear tags.
If everybody branded their cattle & had their brand registered in every state, then it has never been hard to track where an animal came from.
Enviro group wackos want their hands on our information.
There have been various attempts at publishing the names of ranchers & their information over the years.
The USDA has been trying to cajole us all into using special government ear tags to identify cattle based on their concerns about diseases.
We have been doing a great job in this country in eradicating & containing livestock diseases.
Ear tags fall out constantly. They are NOT reliable. A brand is reliable. It never goes away.
The information the USDA wants us to put on these radio tags is none of anyone’s business.

Badger40 on January 16, 2013 at 8:27 AM

Very dangerous, as long as they print maps as to where they are…I would bet someone intent on stealing a gun, would have no hesitation is using a gun to steal it.

right2bright on January 15, 2013 at 1:37 PM

On a case by case basis, probably, but in such a case it is the map that presents the danger. I think you missed the point of my breakdown, which was to show just how near to total the inertness of the American gun collection really is.

The Schaef on January 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2