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

Gee – who could have EVER seen that coming? I know I am SHOCKED, I tell you, that this happened…..

LL

Lady Logician on January 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

I bet the whole neighborhood feels ~safer~ now. Thanks Journal News!

Jeddite on January 14, 2013 at 10:04 AM

The freedom of the press being used to demonize our second amendment and the people it protects.

Why wouldn’t the press understand that if they don’t protect the freedom of others theirs could come under the same kind of assault.

Speakup on January 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Ot: dear leader to hold press conference to campaign on debt ceiling

cmsinaz on January 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

Yes, it unquestionably did and this is only the first to be reported.

Accordingly, my neighbors and I will continue to refrain from supporting any Gannet properties or advertisers.

Local businesses- you want us to return? Cease your advertising.

That includes News 12, that you’ve prominently featured in this article.

By the way, a not to criminals. They identified handgun owners, not rifle and shotgun owners. So you may want to rethink the assumption that anyone on the map is not armed.

Marcus Traianus on January 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Well, well, well. Bring on the shysters attorneys.

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

This only proves that Registration always leads to Confiscation – either by the Feral Government or Private sector Criminals.

Galt2009 on January 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Here is a map location marking all of the intelligent politians and journalists.

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Ot: dear leader to hold press conference to campaign on debt ceiling

cmsinaz on January 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

What’s the over/under on a unilateral raise from the Oval Office?

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Ot: dear leader to hold press conference to campaign on debt ceiling

cmsinaz on January 14, 2013 at 10:06 AM

4 more years of this guy is enough to make me never eat again.

Talk about stomach churning.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Galt2009 on January 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

Now that’s a +1000 comment.

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Remember now: The paper did this as a ‘public service’.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

What’s the over/under on a unilateral raise from the Oval Office?

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

Suckers bet.

Actually that might be the best thing that happens for the Republicans. Not one GOP fingerprint would be on it and we would be on record screaming for cuts.

I just keep hoping Barry goes too far and his downfall will be fast and spectacular.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

4 more years of this guy is enough to make me never eat again.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

The Jugeared Jack ass Diet?

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Remember now: The paper did this as a ‘public service’.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

“Public service” my ass. Who do they think they’re kidding? Fortunately for them, the success of the true intent of their little stunt is not dependent on Joe and Jane Q. Public believing that it’s a public service. I hope someone sues that paper out of existence.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Remember now: The paper did this as a ‘public service pubic servicing’.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Fixed it.

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I just keep hoping Barry goes too far and his downfall will be fast and spectacular.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:09 AM

Do you care if America’s downfall is fast and spectacular? Because we can’t continue on like this as a nation. Obama’s success will be everyone else’s failure.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Round Two is coming:

The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

The Jugeared Jack ass Diet?

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:10 AM

You know – it would be 100% fool proof.

Of course then you’d have a bunch of people dying of starvation because they would never eat.

We can’t lose anymore conservatives!

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

Here is a map location marking all of the intelligent politians and journalists.

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 A

hah! You got me. I clicked.

hawkdriver on January 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Do you care if America’s downfall is fast and spectacular? Because we can’t continue on like this as a nation. Obama’s success will be everyone else’s failure.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I want Barry to go down in flames period.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Related to the topic at hand:

Former Pa. Gov.: The ‘Good Thing’ About Newtown Is That it Was ‘So Horrific,’ Gun Control Advocates Have Been ‘Galvanized’
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/11/msnbc-contributor-the-good-thing-about-newtown-is-that-it-was-so-horrific-gun-control-advocates-have-been-galvanized/

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell during a Friday broadcast of MSNBC’s “Now With Alex Wagner” explained why he thinks it’s a “good thing” that the shooting spree in Newtown, Conn., that left 26 people dead, including 20 children, was “so horrific.”

Rendell tells the truth for the rest of the Oppressive-Left.

It should be clearly evident that these Gun Grabbing Ghouls only see the children killed in these mass murders as mere political pawns for their socialist national agenda.

They are beyond disgusting.

Galt2009 on January 14, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Round Two is coming:

The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

If memory serves, Putnam County told the presstitute organs to go to Hell.

Steve Eggleston on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

I heard more than one Putnam County officials saying they will not comply. They sounded as firm about it as tea partiers are about taxes.

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:12 AM

A FOIA request can be denied if releasing the information would be of demonstrable harm to the public peace. I hope after the debacle in Westchester, that Putnam County tells the Journal where to stick their FOIA request.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

If memory serves, Putnam County told the presstitute organs to go to Hell.

Steve Eggleston on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

The only sensible thing to have done after what happened where the information was released.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

I want Barry to go down in flames period.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

And please let him take Pelosi and Reid with him.

CoffeeLover on January 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

“Public service” my ass. Who do they think they’re kidding? Fortunately for them, the success of the true intent of their little stunt is not dependent on Joe and Jane Q. Public believing that it’s a public service. I hope someone sues that paper out of existence.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:11 AM

I hope the paper is sued to no end, too. But first I wouldn’t mind seeing a truckload of criminals shot down trying to rob a gun owner’s home, or a helpless neighbor’s and the gun owner next door comes to help.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

I want Barry to go down in flames period.

gophergirl on January 14, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Such emotion. Though I’m heavily inclined to agree, he’ll take us all down with him. Hyperinflation + rampant unemployment = Cloward-Pivenesque dream.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM

And please let him take Pelosi and Reid with him.

CoffeeLover on January 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM

From your lips to God’s ear.

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 10:19 AM

I hope the paper is sued to no end, too. But first I wouldn’t mind seeing a truckload of criminals shot down trying to rob a gun owner’s home, or a helpless neighbor’s and the gun owner next door comes to help.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:18 AM

But what if you’re not home when that invasion takes place? What if your guns get stolen? If it were up to me and I worked for Westchester county, I would have denied the FOIA request on the grounds of ill intent. But I guess that’s just me.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I hope he fails gg

cmsinaz on January 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM

….. the paper has announced it is working on a “MILF” map–u know, so that serial rapists have the same opportunity as burglars do….it’s all about fairness!

/

hillsoftx on January 14, 2013 at 10:22 AM

Sue The Journal News into the stone age. Any house on that list that is victimized needs to file a suit against the newspaper.

xmanvietnam on January 14, 2013 at 10:23 AM

But what if you’re not home when that invasion takes place? What if your guns get stolen? If it were up to me and I worked for Westchester county, I would have denied the FOIA request on the grounds of ill intent. But I guess that’s just me.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

I wouldn’t have given the information, either. But I’d let them see the addresses of everyone with a drug or drunk-driving conviction. For the children, and all.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:23 AM

A FOIA request can be denied if releasing the information would be of demonstrable harm to the public peace. I hope after the debacle in Westchester, that Putnam County tells the Journal where to stick their FOIA request.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Releasing bin Laden photos – demonstrable harm to the public peace.
Making targets out of millions of Americans – good to go.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Obviously, they’re going to need to do legislation which either rescinds gun registrations or which removes them from the public record. But in the meantime… these folks whose names were published need to be boycotting that paper until the doors are closed. And those who have experienced break-ins should sue.

Murf76 on January 14, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Why hasn’t somebody published the names and addresses of the newspaper’s editors yet?

fossten on January 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM

Why hasn’t somebody published the names and addresses of the newspaper’s editors yet?

fossten on January 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM

They have. The editors have since hired armed guards.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Why hasn’t somebody published the names and addresses of the newspaper’s editors yet?

fossten on January 14, 2013 at 10:26 AM

That’s already been done, including their phone numbers at home and work, and email addresses.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 10:27 AM

Inevitable.

Logus on January 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Here is a map location marking all of the intelligent politians and journalists.

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 10:08 AM

I have a similar map to that one. Its my map of where all the gun owning citizenry resides.

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 10:28 AM

Obviously, they’re going to need to do legislation which either rescinds gun registrations or which removes them from the public record. But in the meantime… these folks whose names were published need to be boycotting that paper until the doors are closed. And those who have experienced break-ins should sue.

Murf76 on January 14, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Boycotting? Hell! This is class action lawsuit material. The paper and the agencies that turned this over as part of a FOIA requests. Let the courts figure out if those gun-owners First and Second Amendment rights were violated by a worthless paper with an agenda. At this point the Pennysaver has more credibility.

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Gee – who could have EVER seen that coming? I know I am SHOCKED, I tell you, that this happened…..

LL

Lady Logician on January 14, 2013 at 10:03 AM

Unusual for a burglar to go into a house with guns rather than all the ones that are now known not to have them. I am more curious as to how they found out to a degree of near absolute certainty that the home was unoccupied and they could come in and tackle a safe?

roy_batty on January 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM

If it were up to me and I worked for Westchester county, I would have denied the FOIA request on the grounds of ill intent. But I guess that’s just me.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Just wait til one of those outed gun owners with a protective order against an abusive ex-spouse is harmed now that the ex knows where they are living. Just wait til some law enforcement worker comes home to find his family slaughtered in retaliation.

This newspaper, IMO, didn’t think this through beyond the anti-gun bias. There will be consequences and if I were the paper I’d lawyer up now. If I were one of those outed, I’d file lawsuits now and demand that all e-mails related to this be preserved.

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Wouldn’t it be interesting if someone from the Journal news had connections to the WH?

JellyToast on January 14, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Gonna get themselves shot.

Bmore on January 14, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Unusual for a burglar to go into a house with guns rather than all the ones that are now known not to have them. I am more curious as to how they found out to a degree of near absolute certainty that the home was unoccupied and they could come in and tackle a safe?

roy_batty on January 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM

+1

It seems to me that people who don’t have guns should be upset about the disclosure more so than the gun owners. The not knowing who owns works better for the non gun owners.

CW on January 14, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Why did the burglars target the house when the owner was not home?

They knew that the permit was only for the premises and target practice. Tt was not a concealed carry permit.

I have the same type of permit. Weapon can only be kept on the premises or transported to the range.

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

JellyToast on January 14, 2013 at 10:37 AM

You think they don’t?

Cleombrotus on January 14, 2013 at 10:50 AM

It seems to me that people who don’t have guns should be upset about the disclosure more so than the gun owners. The not knowing who owns works better for the non gun owners.

CW on January 14, 2013 at 10:42 AM

I disagree.

Two distinct target lists can be created from the Journal’s irresponsible publishing.

1) Criminals who want to hit soft targets now know where to go.
2) Criminals who want a gun and can’t pass a background check now know where to go.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Unusual for a burglar to go into a house with guns rather than all the ones that are now known not to have them. I am more curious as to how they found out to a degree of near absolute certainty that the home was unoccupied and they could come in and tackle a safe?

roy_batty on January 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM

Stake out the house, when homeowner leaves = open season. Also, not everyone keeps their weapons in safes some just keep them in closets or (Yikes) under the mattress.

D-fusit on January 14, 2013 at 10:51 AM

If memory serves, Putnam County told the presstitute organs to go to Hell.

Steve Eggleston on January 14, 2013 at 10:16 AM

Putnam County’s a lot more Conservative than Westchester. More working class people than Westchester.

Cleombrotus on January 14, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I’m reminded of Capote’s “In Cold Blood” about the Clutter murders. Two losers got the idea into their stupid heads that the Clutters had a safe with a lot of money. They broke in and kept asking “where’s the safe”, killed the family. No safe, no money.

With this list of gun owners, they’re publishing a treasure map for criminals.

Paul-Cincy on January 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Putnam County’s a lot more Conservative than Westchester. More working class people than Westchester.

The further out from New York City, the less Liberal it is.

Cleombrotus on January 14, 2013 at 10:54 AM

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

…sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue sue!

KOOLAID2 on January 14, 2013 at 10:54 AM

I’m guessing this story hasn’t been reported in The Journal News?

I am more curious as to how they found out to a degree of near absolute certainty that the home was unoccupied and they could come in and tackle a safe?

roy_batty on January 14, 2013 at 10:34 AM

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

You have got to be kidding me!

I don’t support the newspaper publishing the map. It’s petty and done just for the attention.

That being said, a few ago, most everyone here was screaming that the gun maps would lead to break-ins on gunless homes, because now the criminals knew where the guns weren’t.

Now, you guys are pointing the EXACT OPPOSITE happening and saying “See!”.

And in addition to that, the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” crowd is openly talking about sueing the people the published the maps? Did the map rob those people house? Did the newspaper?

Today’s conservative movement is so unprincipled. It’s personal responsibility until it isn’t.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Incidentally, doesn’t the map help criminals another way…by showing houses where there are no guns (at least none registered)? Isn’t that good information for a crook who wants to reduce his risk when breaking into a house? So have the gun free houses now become easier targets?

Blaise on January 14, 2013 at 11:01 AM

By the way, a not to criminals. They identified handgun owners, not rifle and shotgun owners. So you may want to rethink the assumption that anyone on the map is not armed.

Marcus Traianus on January 14, 2013 at 10:07 AM

It sounds like they waited for the house to be empty. That’s what I would do. Watch and wait. The problem with the map is that it points out know high value stuff to be stolen.

It is fine that it was public information but I would think that if the criminal said he used the map then the paper or editor could be considered an accomplice. I think that the public service excuse just will not fly and that they would be hard pressed to claim that there was no malicious intent. To shame the people or have them ostracized is malicious intent.

Dr. Frank Enstine on January 14, 2013 at 11:03 AM

All this is telling those on that map: be constantly armed.

Carry both your normal CCW and a BUG. Keep a knife handy, too, while you’re at it.

What’s amazing is that criminals think that going after those that are armed is a ‘good idea’. Yeah, casing a place makes a difference… but if you’re doing it for ‘free guns’ then there is a chance you may end up without a ‘free life’ or any life at all. Johnny the Gimp with the $150 retreads is a lot safer bet than that. If criminals are this stupid, then there will be a winnowing, and the blood is on the hands of those publishing the names and addresses.

ajacksonian on January 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Each homeowner of a house burglarized in Westchester and Rockland counties should sue The Journal News and the Gannett Co., as well as all of the management of each, individually: the homeowners who where named as gun owners by the newspaper for pointing their houses out as houses with guns available to be stolen; the homeowners who were left unnamed for pointing out their houses as without home defense weapons available.
Perhaps a friendly rival newspaper could publish the proper legal documents with fill-in-the-blanks to initiate suit against everyone involved in this idiotic decision to publish gun owners’ addresses.
I would image the cost of responding by Gannett Co., The Journal News, their executives and managers might teach them that their action has consequences. Who knows? Some folks might recoup some damages from them.

virtualjohn on January 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM

You have got to be kidding me!

I don’t support the newspaper publishing the map. It’s petty and done just for the attention.

It’s petty all right, but it’s done to shame gun owners for exercising an enumerated constitutional right. If only it were done “just for the attention,” I don’t think the outrage would be quite as prnounced.

That being said, a few ago, most everyone here was screaming that the gun maps would lead to break-ins on gunless homes, because now the criminals knew where the guns weren’t.

Selective context there, pal. Everyone I knew who pointed out that gun-free homes would be endangered also expressed concern that legally held guns would be stolen.

Now, you guys are pointing the EXACT OPPOSITE happening and saying “See!”.

And in addition to that, the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” crowd is openly talking about sueing the people the published the maps? Did the map rob those people house? Did the newspaper?

Today’s conservative movement is so unprincipled. It’s personal responsibility until it isn’t.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

The newspaper took an action that resulted in demonstrable harm. Nothing unprincipled about that…is there?

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM

This newspaper, IMO, didn’t think this through beyond the anti-gun bias. There will be consequences and if I were the paper I’d lawyer up now. If I were one of those outed, I’d file lawsuits now and demand that all e-mails related to this be preserved.

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Many years ago, I worked for a time at a paper owned by Gannett. I hated their corporate attitudes and culture — very callous with the treatment of some personnel, especially someone they wanted to get rid of. When the corporate honchos would come for an on-site visit, they thought to a person that they were the big cheeses in Washington and all their properties outside of it were backwaters and those of us who worked for them were hopeless rubes, no matter what our training or previous experience.

Their legal staff is likely as stupidly liberal as their editors and they are probably spinning in their chairs overtime to find a way to justify their printing of this map. I hope some really sharp attorney who is retained in a class-action lawsuit against them takes every opportunity to decimate them, and by that, I mean their entire operation be destroyed.

PatriotGal2257 on January 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Today’s conservative movement is so unprincipled. It’s personal responsibility until it isn’t.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Not sure the principle you’re basing your post on. The list provided information helpful to criminals in many contexts, and a lot of people suggested criminals might use it to go after non-gun households. So when they (possibly) used it to go after guns instead, and the newspaper is criticized, that is “unprincipled”?

No one knows what a criminal will do with information. Prison inmates threaten guard’s families often, we knew that. They can use it to target law enforcement or other members of the legal system who own guns. An estranged husband can use it to stalk his ex-wife. A criminal could burgle a house knowing it has no guns. Or he could target houses that have guns, as that’s a valuable, commodity item. I’m missing the “unprincipled” part.

How is the homeowner responsible for the newspaper publishing his address?

Paul-Cincy on January 14, 2013 at 11:09 AM

I hope some really sharp attorney who is retained in a class-action lawsuit against them takes every opportunity to decimate them, and by that, I mean their entire operation be destroyed.

PatriotGal2257 on January 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM

In addition, I’d like seeing the families of any criminal harmed or killed also joining any such suits, because the paper facilitated the crime.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Selective context there, pal. Everyone I knew who pointed out that gun-free homes would be endangered also expressed concern that legally held guns would be stolen.

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM

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

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Under that logic, you guys will have a hard time blaming the NRA for creating a ‘culture of violence’ or ginning up fear that the government will ban guns.

You’ll also have a hard time blaming the religious right for abortion clinic bombings.

You can’t argue that one side ‘created conditions in which’ something bad can happen, and assign blame to that side, then completely wash your hands and scream ‘personal responsibility!’ when the other side does the same thing.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Wrong. A burglar would be less likely to do a hot burglary (while the owners are home) on a home known to have a gun. But if a burglar wants to steal a gun (because he can’t pass a background check to buy one, or because guns are valuable to sell), they now have a map as to who has premises gun permits–guns they must leave at home when they leave the house.

juliesa on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

The newspaper took an action that resulted in demonstrable harm. Nothing unprincipled about that…is there?

gryphon202 on January 14, 2013 at 11:06 AM

How is it different from Google Maps though?

If you’re arguing that it created demonstrable harm because it provided thieves with the addresses of unprotected homes, you can’t also argue that it created demonstrable harm because it provided thieves with the addresses of protected homes.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:15 AM

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

Gryphon isn’t “taking away the guns” in his analysis. He’s saying homes with guns would be targeted for the guns, and homes without guns would be targeted because the owner won’t be defending himself with a handgun.

Paul-Cincy on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I hope some really sharp attorney who is retained in a class-action lawsuit against them takes every opportunity to decimate them, and by that, I mean their entire operation be destroyed.

PatriotGal2257 on January 14, 2013 at 11:08 AM

But surely you wouldn’t want to dump USAToday? Think of all the airports that would be affected.

/

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Take away the guns, and it’s just a map of all the houses.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

No. It’s not. Take away the guns and it’s names and addresses.

Prosecutors, judges, police et al. whether active or retired all have legitimate cause to have concerns for their safety. So do battered spouses for that matter.

In one stroke, the Journal has identified and located thousands of people who are – in the criminal world – targets of opportunity.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM

And how many more homes were targeted because they were gun free?

pat on January 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM

How is it different from Google Maps though?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Google Maps doesn’t attach names to addresses. See my above post.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM

That being said, a few ago, most everyone here was screaming that the gun maps would lead to break-ins on gunless homes, because now the criminals knew where the guns weren’t.

Now, you guys are pointing the EXACT OPPOSITE happening and saying “See!”.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Sometimes stupidity of posters fare exceed anything I could imagine…pal, both can and will happen…they know where the guns are to steal, and know who can’t defend themselves.

You don’t get that?? And BTW, it’s not the “exact opposite”, it’s the exact scenario drawn out, it’s a parallel problem, the criminals know information that can harm the public.

“guns don’t kill people, people kill people”

True, and you think it’s fine giving criminals a map to where to find those guns to kill people…pal, once again, every law abiding gun “tot’n” citizens do not want guns in the hand of criminals…you don’t seem to find that a problem.

No one could ever understand a liberal mind, except for another liberal…imagine celebrating the fact that criminals now know where to find guns to rob and kill… unbelievable..

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

LOL! And hotels.

PatriotGal2257 on January 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Oh, he/she/it gets it alright. The posts are simply to get attention. Do not feed the trolls.

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM

you can’t also argue that it created demonstrable harm because it provided thieves with the addresses of protected homes.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Further stupidity…

Who says owning a gun is the same as “protecting” a house? The man was a responsible gun owner, had his guns locked in a safe and he was not home…which makes it “unprotected”, but a target…

You don’t think through your responses do you?

I would bet the majority of gun owners don’t use them for “protection”…and hard to “protect” a home when you are not home…duhhhhh!!!!!

Keep posting, you are F’in brilliant…

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Got it…but stupid is stupid, and it’s amazing to me…don’t be too sure he/she get’s it. I don’t think they are that bright.

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 11:23 AM

platypus on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I also think back to a graphic design conference I attended many years ago about designing informational graphics. In an example of how not to design, the professor who gave the presentation dramatically threw copies of USAToday across the room.

PatriotGal2257 on January 14, 2013 at 11:24 AM

Boy, if they were having trouble selling subscriptions a few weeks ago, imagine what their subscription dept is like NOW!

Delivery boy: “Mr. Jennings, the Journal is having a special….”

Mr. Jennings: “Get off my Lawn.”

Bulletchaser on January 14, 2013 at 11:25 AM

No one could ever understand a liberal mind, except for another liberal…imagine celebrating the fact that criminals now know where to find guns to rob and kill… unbelievable..

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Liberals don’t grasp finer, more-expansive concepts. If I know my neighbor doesn’t trust banks and so keeps a lot of money in his mattress, then I shoot off my mouth giving his name and address, did I not facilitate any harm that comes to him by a criminal type who overheard me?

Maybe if we type slower, liberals will understand what we’re discussing.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Maybe if we type slower, liberals will understand what we’re discussing.

Liam on January 14, 2013 at 11:26 AM

They already understand our position. The problem isn’t comprehension.

The problem is that liberals are actively attempting to remove the ability of the people to oppose tyranny.

I can’t imagine why.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Now, you guys are pointing the EXACT OPPOSITE happening and saying “See!”.

And in addition to that, the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” crowd is openly talking about sueing the people the published the maps? Did the map rob those people house? Did the newspaper?

Today’s conservative movement is so unprincipled. It’s personal responsibility until it isn’t.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Where did you get your logic? Oh, no, wait, I know, from the emotions that you let rule your head. Otherwise you would be able to see this from a rational point of view but because you and your like LOVE to avoid being rational you can only see what a great feeling you could get by trying to “prove” everyone (or at least the “conservative movement) wrong.

The newspaper did NO ONE in this situation a service by producing names and addresses and I will tell you why, they just ruined all of those people’s anonymity. When you pull info off of Google or out of a phone book it is a name and an address, period. There is nothing else. That newspaper took away the anonymity of the individuals AND their neighbors even though their neighbor’s addresses weren’t printed – because they revealed more info than just a name and an address. They reveiled information that is valuable to a certain type of people. In this case criminals and there was ONLY one reaction that would come from this group of people and it wasn’t going to be good FOR ANYONE.

So do your little happy dance all you want. Because it would be only people like you that wouldn’t be able to see how this newspaper did NO ONE any favors execpt the criminals. I’m sorry who did you say was unprincipled?

TturnP on January 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Just wait til one of those outed gun owners with a protective order against an abusive ex-spouse is harmed now that the ex knows where they are living. Just wait til some law enforcement worker comes home to find his family slaughtered in retaliation.

This newspaper, IMO, didn’t think this through beyond the anti-gun bias. There will be consequences and if I were the paper I’d lawyer up now. If I were one of those outed, I’d file lawsuits now and demand that all e-mails related to this be preserved.

Happy Nomad on January 14, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Seriously! If I were a Law Student fresh out of Law school instead of the dried up old coger that I am, I would rent a van and go house to house getting signatures on protection orders and lawsuits and restraining orders. Bury them in paper. It would take YEARS to unravel and break the newspaper financially.

Bulletchaser on January 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Intended consequences.

listens2glenn on January 14, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Gryphon isn’t “taking away the guns” in his analysis. He’s saying homes with guns would be targeted for the guns, and homes without guns would be targeted because the owner won’t be defending himself with a handgun.

Paul-Cincy on January 14, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I understand what you’re saying. However, the premise is that the map is making a house more likely to be targeted.

You can’t argue that all the houses are more likely to be targeted based on diametric data about them. 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

So do your little happy dance all you want. Because it would be only people like you that wouldn’t be able to see how this newspaper did NO ONE any favors execpt the criminals. I’m sorry who did you say was unprincipled?

TturnP on January 14, 2013 at 11:40 AM

Happy Dance? I said it was petty to produce the map, and I didn’t support it. I haven’t defended the map at all.

What I’ve been pointing out is the hypocrisy that has been put forth. The argument against the map previously was that it identified where the guns weren’t, making those houses more likely to be robbed. Now, its that the map makes those houses where the guns are, making it more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Further stupidity…

Who says owning a gun is the same as “protecting” a house? The man was a responsible gun owner, had his guns locked in a safe and he was not home…which makes it “unprotected”, but a target…

You don’t think through your responses do you?

I would bet the majority of gun owners don’t use them for “protection”…and hard to “protect” a home when you are not home…duhhhhh!!!!!

Keep posting, you are F’in brilliant…

right2bright on January 14, 2013 at 11:21 AM

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

Did I miss an open registration, or is this just a sleeper troll who registered long ago and only started harassing posters now? My hunch is the latter.

Christien on January 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Under that logic, you guys will have a hard time blaming the NRA for creating a ‘culture of violence’ or ginning up fear that the government will ban guns.

You’ll also have a hard time blaming the religious right for abortion clinic bombings.

You can’t argue that one side ‘created conditions in which’ something bad can happen, and assign blame to that side, then completely wash your hands and scream ‘personal responsibility!’ when the other side does the same thing.

Washington Nearsider on January 14, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I completely agree. I do feel that their is some shared responsibility in all those situations. Maybe not the first. I don’t think that the NRA has created a culture of violence.

But that being said, you can’t say that the newspaper has created conditions for more robbery and then absolve all the others that you mentioned, can you?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

Did I miss an open registration, or is this just a sleeper troll who registered long ago and only started harassing posters now? My hunch is the latter.

Christien on January 14, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Need a tissue?

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:00 PM

I’m waiting for the ‘perfectly sane’ argument from the gun grabbers to justify this: “Well, well, if those gun nuts hadn’t had guns, none of this would have happened in the first place!”

ghostwalker1 on January 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM

What I’ve been pointing out is the hypocrisy that has been put forth. The argument against the map previously was that it identified where the guns weren’t, making those houses more likely to be robbed. Now, its that the map makes those houses where the guns are, making it more likely to be robbed.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Moron. This is a new tactic by the left, used most notably in the support of Prop 8 in California. It simply backfired again. In California people merely had homosexuals demonstrating on their lawns, not they are faced with burglary and robbery. The Left does not care, because their desire is to induce shame. Voting rights, Gun Rights, whatever is the Stalinist flavor of the day.

Bulletchaser on January 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM

And in addition to that, the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” crowd is openly talking about sueing the people the published the maps? Did the map rob those people house? Did the newspaper?

Today’s conservative movement is so unprincipled. It’s personal responsibility until it isn’t.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I am not sure what your point is. I think most here would say the robbers are responsible for the crime, not the map. If the arrested suspect says he was aware of the owner having a gun because of the map published in the newspaper would you consider the publisher who gave the go ahead to put the map in print accessory to a crime?

DaveDief on January 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I am not sure what your point is. I think most here would say the robbers are responsible for the crime, not the map. If the arrested suspect says he was aware of the owner having a gun because of the map published in the newspaper would you consider the publisher who gave the go ahead to put the map in print accessory to a crime?

DaveDief on January 14, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I disagree. I think most here are saying that without the map, the robbery wouldn’t have taken place. That’s the distinction.

Honestly, even if the thief explicitly stated that he knew where the gun was because of the map, I wouldn’t consider the publisher as an accessory to the crime.

I feel like the publisher has a moral obligation to not put forth that information because it’s useless and do to its uselessness, does more harm than good. I don’t think that it’s criminal though.

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

and dodue to its uselessness does more harm than good

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I understand what you’re saying. However, the premise is that the map is making a house more likely to be targeted.

segasagez on January 14, 2013 at 11:53 AM

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

Comment pages: 1 2