Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the hoisting-with-your-own-petard dept.

Privacy 1435

inode_buddha writes "Not long ago we ran a story about how a NY newspaper published lists of gun owners. Now, it seems the same newspaper has hired armed guards in response to unspecified threats to the editor, amid 'large volumes of negative response.' From the article: 'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said. The guards are protecting the newspaper's staff and Rockland County offices in West Nyack, New York.'"

cancel ×

1435 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mommy... (5, Insightful)

Narcocide (102829) | about 2 years ago | (#42457635)

... is that what irony looks like?

Re:Mommy... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457695)

The irony of 2nd amendment proponents threatening 1st amendment practitioners? That's not irony, it's bullshit.

Re:Mommy... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457791)

You want to know what irony is? Irony is the NRA demanding to register and tag people with mental illnesses while refusing to allow guns to be registered or owners to be licensed. Gun owners are incredibly poor at introspection.

Let me summarize how the gun lobby responds to violence in the news:
1. Find a scapegoat (like the mentally ill who btw have no higher risk of violence than the general public)
2. Focus attention on scapegoat (register them, tag them, reopen the asylums, make everybody fear the 'crazies' and 'lunatics' with the motto "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun")
3. Continue to sell guns and ... PROFIT!
4. Invest in bodybags, police forensics materials manufacturers, and mortuaries.
5. While falsely claiming that mental illness is a grave violent threat, refuse to fund mental healthcare because: Hey! We're conservatives too! Sick people should just find a job with health insurance!

Re:Mommy... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457905)

How is "Gun owners are incredibly poor at introspection." modded "insightful"? Sounds overgeneralized and condescending to me...

Re:Mommy... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457973)

The comment contains more than that one statement. Try reading it again.

Re:Mommy... (5, Insightful)

Montezumaa (1674080) | about 2 years ago | (#42457947)

Government has no rights. It most certainly doesn't have any right to know what I own or possess, until said government obtains a warrant. That is why we have the Fourth Amendment. So, until some asshole obtains a warrant, you best believe I will never register my property, nor seek a license to exercise any of my rights.

Re:Mommy... (5, Insightful)

Montezumaa (1674080) | about 2 years ago | (#42457881)

There are no known threats. The FBI has laughed off the bullshit claims by the idiots that posted people's information. The newspaper is looking to demonize people exercising their rights. Fuck them.

The irony is that the newspaper, looking to demonize people exercising their rights, is looking to armed guards to protect them. The irony is extremely thick.

Assault Rifles (5, Insightful)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#42457935)

Disclaimer: I'm a card carrying NRA member, and I'm also a card carrying ACLU member.

Right now, no matter if one stressing the 1st amendment or the 2nd amendment, or both, it is already way too late.

The so-called "Freedom of Speech" is but a damn charade - for it's the so-called "freedom" allowed by tptb.

Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?

America is no longer the land of the free - although there are still a lot of very brave people living there.

Re:Assault Rifles (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42458007)

Same thing as the "Right to bear arms" --- you think with your pissy little semi-automatic assault rifles you can fight the army?

Hey, at least you still have semi-automatics, you should try living in a country which is about to criminalise anyone who doesn't register/license their fucking air weapons..

Re:Mommy... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457983)

First Amendment does not and should not protect my ability to publish your social security number, birth date, bank account numbers, and other such information which is personally identifying and very likely detrimental to you when published (because it can be used to clean you out).

It also should not protect your ability to publish whether or not I legally purchased a gun, since that is very likely to result in me being unjustly harassed by anti-gun nuts like you.

Re:Mommy... (5, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#42457985)

Indeed. The lesson learned here is "don't piss off people with guns" rather than anything noble about the constitution.

The cold hard facts that force of arms and intimidation decides things instead of merit.

Re:Mommy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457717)

It isn't irony, it's humanity. Now first responders will know which houses to avoid.

Re:Mommy... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457993)

And they would know a previously convicted felon that was not allowed to possess or be around firearms was armed how?

Re:Mommy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457761)

Only depends on whether the armed guards are trained. See, a trained person doing a job is accountable to someone. The nutjob with the concealed carry permit and the poisonous pen, not so much.

Re:Mommy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457765)

It is as ironic as Alanis Morisette's song Ironic's lyrics (as the song itself is ironic for the lyrics not being ironic).

Ironic would be if the newspaper staff all suddenly purchased guns to protect themselves. They hired a (presumably) qualified 3rd party to handle the threat.

These people are pushing for guns to be taken out of citizens hands, so the only firearms are in law enforcement (and similar) hands. So it is entirely consistent with their message.

(posting as AC because I have forgotten the email and password I used, and haven't felt the need to comment in months)

Re:Mommy... (0)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#42457875)

Looks more like confirmation that gun nuts are a danger to the community.

Publish the guards names (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457647)

I hope the paper dutifully publishes the names of the armed guards they hired.

Re:Publish the guards names (5, Funny)

wgoodman (1109297) | about 2 years ago | (#42457667)

There's a good chance they already did.

Re:Publish the guards names (0)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 2 years ago | (#42457677)

There's a good chance they already did.

I believe that they've only published two or three counties' permit holders. Who knows where their guards are from.

LK

Re:Publish the guards names (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about 2 years ago | (#42457701)

I hope the paper dutifully publishes the names of the armed guards they hired.

Jokes on you. They already did via the previously published list... Wait, I wonder if the joke's not actually on the Newspaper?
I can see the headline now...

Newspaper Employs Gun-Owners to Carry out Death Threats Against Its Editors to Avoids Severance Pay.

Good Guys With Guns? (5, Insightful)

phantomcircuit (938963) | about 2 years ago | (#42457653)

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457711)

Worse still, the bad guys without guns now know where to steal them.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (3, Insightful)

sribe (304414) | about 2 years ago | (#42457723)

Well, shit, here I am sitting with mod points and you're +5 before I ever even see the article ;-)

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (4, Insightful)

Swampash (1131503) | about 2 years ago | (#42457767)

Seems to me that the point has been proven: when irresponsible unstable people are allowed to own guns, bad shit happens.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457785)

When irresponsible unstable journalists are allowed to publicly release private citizens' information, bad shit happens.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (5, Informative)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42457869)

Said information is publicly available. If the second amendment protects gun owners, the first amendment protects this newspaper.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457889)

Nope, still not quite right.

How about:

When anyone makes public information easy to read and understand, someone puny feels threatened.

Yeah, that's better.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42458001)

When irresponsible unstable journalists are allowed to publicly release public records, bad shit happens.

There. FTFY

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457863)

More likely that it's just another publicity stunt.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 2 years ago | (#42457857)

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

Well, they may be saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns, who can only carry on duty, don't take their firearm home, etc. Just like most of the civilized world do.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (2, Insightful)

Squiddie (1942230) | about 2 years ago | (#42457879)

trained, licensed, regulated guys with guns

You mean like CCW permit holders?

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#42457921)

You do know that you have to have a license in order to carry concealed in almost every state in the Union, right?

from Honey Boom Boom (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457865)

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

http://econ-ecoff.blogspot.com/2012/12/arm-schools-honey-boom-boom.html [blogspot.com]

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (2)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#42457913)

So what they're saying is the only way they can stop bad guys with guns is good guys with guns. Gee where have I heard that recently....

And so what you're saying is that the gun owners who were mapped and are now making threats are "bad guys". A gun is what makes the difference between a blowhard you can ignore and a real threat of death.

Re:Good Guys With Guns? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42458003)

Good guys? Bad guys? How old are you, five?
The newspaper hired professionals, who are (supposedly) trained to not be complete retards with the guns they're responsible for. With that they're "saying" that to protect themselves from stupid people with guns they need people with guns. I doubt the newspaper ever argued people who work in security should be stripped of their guns, but they might have said random idiots shouldn't be given guns because they're irresponsible and will cause trouble for everyone. Captcha: soldiers.

Good thing they have all those guns (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457661)

Wouldn't want their employees to feel threatened by the angry gun-owning proletarians they chastise and demean on a daily basis.

So, basically, you should only get armed protection if you're a politician or a sleazeball newspaper editor. What a great strategy to disarm your opposition so you can oppress with no fear of retribution!

Re:Good thing they have all those guns (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#42457955)

What a great strategy to disarm your opposition so you can oppress with no fear of retribution!

Every journalist should be prepared to back up his stories by facing those he "oppresses" by writing (completely truthful) stories about them in a high noon shootout. How cowardly to try to escape "retribution" from upstanding gun owners by hiding behind armed guards.

Re:Good thing they have all those guns (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42458009)

I am compiling a publicly-accessible list of all Slashdot members. Please provide your full legal name and address for entry into the records.

What's that? You don't want to? Well, what are you afraid of? Clearly if you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to be afraid of...

They are assholes (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457669)

While I'm in favor of banning guns, I'm not in favor of violating the privacy of thousands of people. What this paper did was, while still legal, incredibly unethical. It was a vindictive attack on gun owners to try to inspire fear in the public.

Re:They are assholes (2)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42457715)

Will they be allowed to publish lists of prescription patients for anti-depressant and personality-disorder medication?

This seems to be another common feature of Lanzas, Loughners and assorted other Klybold wannabes.

Re:They are assholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457915)

Only if it was already public information.

Re:They are assholes (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457969)

You are a fucking idiot. I don't say that lightly. There is no such thing as personality disorder medication. This is because you can only treat the traits of a personality disorder with medication, not the personality disorder itself. Things like depression, anxiety, and psychosis can be treated with medication. But that doesn't treat a personality disorder itself. A personality disorder is treated by changing the way a person thinks and responds to the world. This is because a personality disorder is primarily a malformed way a person learned to deal with stress in the world, partially due to biological reasons and partially due to environmental reasons. For example, a child who was repeatedly raped by a parent or guardian might learn than you can't trust the ones you love and that people that you love are secretly trying to hurt you. They might have incredible abandonment fears while still rejecting everyone around them due to fear. No medication can fix that. That is what a personality disorder is. Actual mental illness isn't the funny or nutcase stories you hear. It is incredibly painful and tragic. Finding out you have a personality disorder is no more fun than finding you have cancer.

So, lets take this one step further. Many people with mental illnesses have been victims of serious trauma, before or during their mental illness. Your desire to publish these lists will also include tons of child abuse, rape, and PTSD victims. You also punish people for trying to get help in their lives and reinforce the massive stigma associated with mental illness. If people had a list of those with mental illnesses, they would be able to refuse to rent to them or employ them. This already occurs, but you would take it to the next level. And because of that, people who think they have a mental illness would refuse to try to find treatment (which already occurs 2/3rds of the time).

Here's a secret: people with a mental illness are no more violent than the general population. You only think they are because you are stupid and haven't read the research. Stop attacking people with mental illness. It is bigotry and should be treated as such.

Re:They are assholes (4, Insightful)

Montezumaa (1674080) | about 2 years ago | (#42457859)

So you are in favor of violating an explicitly stated amendment(the Second Amendment explicitly protects citizens' rights to arms equal to our military, considering the portions "A well regulated militia..."(the word regulated meaning equally or well equipped, as used during the inception and passing of the Second Amendment) and "...the right of the people..."(while "The People" and "the people" both refer to the citizenry, from whence the authority of the various government is derived from, "The People" is termed to discuss the wider authority(our governments); "the people" directly refer to the citizenry). The whole "...shall not be infringed." part would cause any bans to be severe violations of the Second Amendment) to the US Constitution, for a protection that isn't explicitly stated but decided through case law? While both protections are important, and I support both, I fail to see how anyone, of any intelligence, would advocate violating the highest and most important document in the United States.

There were close to 100 million firearm owners in the United States that have not used their firearms to commit any crimes, nor knowingly commit any crimes, of any kind, either recently, nor at any time in the past. So, considering the odds, legal firearm owners are the most law abiding citizens that exists. Those are the people that should have arms, considering the reason our rights were protected(The Second Amendment protected an already existing right; that Amendment didn't create any new right.).

If they didnt attack US citizens rights to bear... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457671)

Then maybe they wouldnt have to hire people to carry the weapons they so decry.

Or ... perhaps if the average IQ of weapons owners didnt match the gauge they are shooting, they could learn like the civilized world that assault rifles; high capacity magazines and death cannons have no place along side our innocent; and by innocent I mean the 6-12 year olds in our primary schools.

Re:If they didnt attack US citizens rights to bear (1, Interesting)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 2 years ago | (#42457705)

Or ... perhaps if the average IQ of weapons owners didnt match the gauge they are shooting

Yeah. Like Joe Biden. Yes, he's a gun owner. Stupid ass that HE is.

LK

Re:If they didnt attack US citizens rights to bear (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457727)

Because clearly, it's the magazine's fault that 20 children were murdered by a depraved psycho. Limiting magazines to 10 rounds will fix everything, because dropping one clip and loading another takes so much time!

Congratulations, you've just proven to the whole internet that you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Re:If they didnt attack US citizens rights to bear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457819)

Fix everything? No, but it will lead to the few seconds more between a certain number of shots. That does have a demonstrated impact.

There's a reason why the military adopted such magazines (along with a host of other improvements) because it DID improve the results they wanted. Which is fine, the military has to be controlled by numerous other means, in order to justify allowing it such great capacity to unleash massive devastation. The same regimentation isn't applied to private citizens, so what justification do you have to expose us to a greater risk? Do you really expect any legitimate need for you to have a high-capacity magazine to use to defend your life or property, or those of others?

Why does every solution have to fix every single potential problem for you people with no fucking clue what you're talking about? Can't we just get some fucking improvement, without having to produce miracles?

This is especially telling when the gun advocates say that they can save some lives, and protect some property, but that we have to accept that there will be some accidents and some crimes. What a double-standard!

Publicity stunt or genuine concern? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457673)

They essentially threw the first punch... unwisely, I'm thinking. Still, this smacks of publicity stunt rather than any actual fear. Besides, all they've done is hire initial targets if somebody comes gunning for them. What a mess. Welcome to the USA.

Liberals face reality. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457681)

It's about time the liberal media faced reality. Maybe now they'll stop with their irrational anti-gun stupidity.

Re:Liberals face reality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457821)

Still waiting for a liberal media... You only think it's liberal because it's such a poor representation of conservative talking points.

Re:Liberals face reality. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457989)

Huh, By definition, the opposite of conservative is liberal. Your statement shows your stupidity. .

Would that not be protected information? (2, Interesting)

s.petry (762400) | about 2 years ago | (#42457689)

Personally, I would be upset with both the Newspaper and the State. The only reason the State knows legally that you have a gun is by registering, which is frankly unconstitutional in itself. The State acted irresponsibly with the information releasing it to a Public source. I hope they get sued.

The Newspaper on the other hand should know better. Publishing this was strictly for propaganda purposes to further the current massive push to disarm Americans. I won't tell you if I own guns or how many, but will say this. Any American not concerned with the push for gun bans should be extremely alarmed. Read some fucking history books and notice what happens when tyrants in control have nothing to fear from the peasants. Yeah, it always works out so well, which is why the article is in the US Constitution.

Sue them both, and boycott the Newspaper to put them out of business! I'm sick of propaganda agencies supported by the Government. And bet your ass they got a check from the Government for running that article.

Re:Would that not be protected information? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457713)

By state law, it is public information. http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/local-government-refuses-give-local-newspaper-data-its-gun-owner-map/60498/

Actually, there's a county trying to stop the release of the information with which I have a bigger problem. Fix the law if it's bad, but I don't expect county officials to violate state law on their own discretion.

Re:Would that not be protected information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457755)

Care for some tinfoil to go with your registration info that you also have for your car?

Re:Would that not be protected information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457779)

A couple years ago a Florida newspaper did the same thing with concealed weapons permit holders. They did it the week before a law passed making that list non-public information. Looks like it happened in 2006, so when I saw this NY thing it wasn't the first time something like this happened and they knew it was going to have a major negative reaction just like it did in Florida. Not sure why they are even slightly suprised with the reactions, its exactly what they were hoping for. I might even bet there were no threats and they just hired guards to continue the "story".
The news outlets now work for the government, they no longer work for the people.

Florida [thehighroad.org] - Sorry, I don't feel like looking for a better source, its an old news story.

Re:Would that not be protected information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457783)

No no no no, the right to own guns is only about hunting. That is why they keep banning weapons more effective against humans than animals. Its only there so we can hunt. Forget the militia verbiage, etc. Nothing to see there. It has nothing to do with a well armed populace being able to retake power should that be necessary. Nothing at all. Revolutions are awesome, except in the US, where we only needed one, and thats it. We are perfect, and always will be. Only terrorists use weapons against other humans!

Re:Would that not be protected information? (3, Informative)

UnanimousCoward (9841) | about 2 years ago | (#42457787)

Why is this comment modded up?!? It is public information, so, yeah, it can be published by a "Public source..." If you want to debate the fact that it's public information, that's one thing, but you're not.

Re:Would that not be protected information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457795)

"which is frankly unconstitutional in itself" Not likely. Your state, should they want to exercise that well-regulated militia you are a member of, will need to know where to find you.

Re:Would that not be protected information? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457811)

Any American not concerned with the push for gun bans should be extremely alarmed. Read some fucking history books and notice what happens when tyrants in control have nothing to fear from the peasants.

I'm sorry but as an outsider, America is a joke. I know there are smart, sane and sovereign ideas that are important. But the numbers don't lie, people with guns in America are the problem. Do I expect a ban to change anything soon? NO. The culture for the most part is completely lost and obsessive with rights they've never practiced. Now, America flexes as a culture to whatever the flavor of the month is. That flavor seems controlled by the very-very rich politicians that run the senate.

I can only say that from the point of view of having lived in California for 6 months as a Canadian. I grew up with guns, but they are real hunting rifles, not full-automatic in any design. Our personal permits are a lot stricter as well.

Re:Would that not be protected information? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457885)

Read some fucking history books and notice what happens when tyrants in control have nothing to fear from the peasants. Yeah, it always works out so well, which is why the article is in the US Constitution.

I don't think it works like this. *Your* guns and arsenal completely sucks as compared to what your army has, to be honest. The best protection you have is probably that the US Army isn't manned by one specific interest group only, but by "the people". And also that the nation and government cannot make much money without willing workers. Yea, most of you will perform jack shit even when trying to be forced at gunpoint, you're that stubborn.

Also, observe that most of Europe and other places aren't heavily armed in private and still free, the last time I checked.

That said, I personally am with the crowd that believes guns aren't the root cause and the only means for killing, I'd blame poverty and social inequality and the fairness of laws and the general future outlook of people, not guns, and would really try to address those first and foremost.

Even so, if I was the one responsible for public security, would I simply let almost anyone own assault rifles and machine guns? No. It'd be an immoral thing, I'd really rather directly accept that I probably get multiple dead rather than a few wounded (guns vs knife or such), in the usual outbreaks of anger and violence...

Re:Would that not be protected information? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457895)

I love the fact that they don't get how this works both ways. Now bad guys know where they can safely fuck around and where they don't. Guess where they are going to go.

Compare and Contrast Arguments (4, Insightful)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#42457693)

"If everybody just didn't have any guns, crime wouldn't be nearly as bad... except us, we need them!"

"If everybody just used public transportation, these roads wouldn't be nearly as crowded. Except me, of course. I need my car!"

Striking similarity, eh?

Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (3, Insightful)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | about 2 years ago | (#42457777)

Would the person you're quoting happen to be made of straw?

Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (2)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 years ago | (#42457815)

"Shut up the WBC or prevent them from picketing, as we don't want to hurt the families of soldiers. But don't take my rights away, I need my free speech."

"Make terrorist and predators online names associated with their real person to protect the children. But don't take away my privacy, I need my privacy."

Yep, strikingly. Though, it sounds different when dealing with rights instead of material property. That is, gun rights vs the physical guns. And when you pose it as "owners should willingly give up for the greater good", vs what is being discussed as "government should take away".

Phrase your car analogy as "right to buy a car" without taxes making them unaffordable or restricting you to only driving Toyota Prius', and the gun owner argument doesn't seem so hypocritical.

Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#42457937)

It is still hypocritical. So, going by your Prius example, regardless of what I need in a vehicle, it's okay for the government to force me to use a Prius? If I need to move a refrigerator, I better buy a shitload of tie-downs and hope the roof of my Prius holds up? If I need to move a few dozen 2x4s and some plywood, I should just pop open the back hatch and drive with some giant wood between my legs? I can't drive a pickup truck that's much more suited to the things I need to do, because the government says I can't... yeah, that holds up great. That sounds totally practical.

While we're at it, why don't we have the government reduce our lives down to the most basic utilitarian values? Everybody wears grey tunics - no more designer clothes. Everybody goes to the same schools. Nobody can spend a little more for a better education. Everybody eats a crude, tasteless paste that contains essential nutrients. No more fancy meals for those well-to-do fatcats! It will be a utilitarian paradise where nobody is left out because everybody is the same - and we shall call it, Fairville!

Nice try with the strawman, but as you can see, I'm capable of it, too. I don't advocate silencing the WBC despite the fact that I find their message tasteless and hateful, and see them only as a vile attempt to troll for lawsuits. But don't let facts get in the way of your ridiculous strawman.

Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#42457883)

Tax guns and ammunition to pay for school security etc. Conservatives get their guns, progressives get their union jobs and tax money.

Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (1)

Revotron (1115029) | about 2 years ago | (#42457959)

I would fully support this.

Re:Compare and Contrast Arguments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457965)

Usually, the argument isn't that crime wouldn't be as bad, it's that the CONSEQUENCES of that crime wouldn't be as bad - as in, fewer deaths.

gander, meet goose (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457699)

So, will the newspaper be posting the home addresses of their armed guards? Or the ir posts while on duty?

Publicity Stunt Part 2 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457707)

After a no-name newspaper gets national attention they decide that it would be a good idea to continue the story that got them the attention in the first place. If there were actually credible threats, then the police would be doing this.

Irony.. (3, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42457725)

Irony at its finest. It always baffles me that those in favor of banning guns are the very ones that use them. Of course its perfectly alright to have people with guns protecting them, yet it is entirely unacceptable for others to use them to protect themselves and their family.

Re:Irony.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457829)

I honestly don't know a person with guns who wants to ban them. I want to ban them and I dont have guns.

However, it isn't ironic. They feel their hand is forced, which it is to a certain extent. When my neighbor has a gun, it means the people robbing houses in the neighborhood may feel they need to carry guns too, or they may acquire one when they rob my neighbor, putting me at greater risk.

The dynamics of gun possession and safety are far more complex than either side will admit.

Re:Irony.. (2)

Lord Kano (13027) | about 2 years ago | (#42457953)

I honestly don't know a person with guns who wants to ban them.

I know people like that. They have a "Well, I just own a revolver or a hunting rifle/shotgun, but I want to ban YOUR guns. You know, those semi-automatics" mindset.

When my neighbor has a gun, it means the people robbing houses in the neighborhood may feel they need to carry guns too, or they may acquire one when they rob my neighbor, putting me at greater risk.

Your neighbor should put this sign [blogster.com] in his front yard.

LK

Re:Irony.. (1, Insightful)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#42457831)

Irony at its finest. It always baffles me that those in favor of banning guns are the very ones that use them. Of course its perfectly alright to have people with guns protecting them, yet it is entirely unacceptable for others to use them to protect themselves and their family.

On the other hand they have clearly shown that gun owners are all not the rational people they keep telling everyone that they are. But given that Bell curves apply to even gun owners, I have never assumed that they were all rational anyway.

Re:Irony.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457845)

I don't believe they ever said they were in favor of banning guns.

Re:Irony.. (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#42457847)

Or for angry gun owners to make threats to said newspaper.

I was going to point out that you missed the deeper, sadder irony, but then read your sig and decided that would likely be a waste of time.

Re:Irony.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457961)

Every person who I know that uses a firearm in a professional capacity (police, military, gunsmiths) is serious about restrictions on their use and availability. They know just how stupid a person can be with guns, because they understand the dangers.

Much like electricians with electricity, firemen with fire, and chemists with chemicals. Or doctors with medicine.

I'm sure there are some exceptions, but it's been my experience that the people I most want to have such power are the ones who recognize its perils, even while being willing to use it.

The ones who are adamantly gung-ho for guns everywhere tend to be the type that I wouldn't want a gun. They don't even recognize their fanatical zealotry, they just seem to be determined to keep their guns regardless, and have shut themselves off to any discussion by creating a false image that anybody who wants to control the use of firearms is somehow mindlessly calling for their banning. They've convinced themselves of their persecution.

I'm sure there are some of those people around, but does that mean that everybody must be treated that way? I'd like to give the pro-gun side a chance, and respect their concerns, but if they have decided to dismiss mine, as it seems they have to a large degree, what am I to do? And don't bother coming back to me with the all-too-predictable response that it is the anti-gun brigade who stereotypes, which might seem true to you, but it's the opposite that seems true to me.

If you want, just agree to agree that both sides do it. Then we'll get past worrying about that problem, by recognizing it as a false one.

Fair enough?

Or should I be forced to accept their demands because they have guns? I can't say that I want gun owners to be properly educated, to be made to store their guns properly, and to be held responsible for their choices? Like for example, the people who seem to think this list is somehow telling criminals where to steal some firearms...but why should somebody have unsecured firearms in the first place? Shouldn't you be prepared to have your unoccupied house be robbed in general, or is relying on security through obscurity anathema in the computer world, but acceptable when it comes to dangerous weapons?

Believe it or not, some of us do have some idea what we're talking about. And if you think we're wrong, offer a better suggestion, instead of the typical "anti-gun people don't know anything" which you can already find on this page. That sort of thing is why the discussion tends to fail to progress, and that will have consequences.

Re:Irony.. (1)

1u3hr (530656) | about 2 years ago | (#42457997)

It always baffles me that those in favor of banning guns are the very ones that use them.

Where did the newspaper advocate banning guns? All they did was publish a list of owners.

public records (2)

ebonum (830686) | about 2 years ago | (#42457757)

Why on earth would the state make the list of registered gun owners public?

Better question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457827)

Why would the state make a list of the homes that are not defended by firearms public?

2nd amendment (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about 2 years ago | (#42457759)

Woo hoo. I am sure that this is what the founders thought of when they wrote and voted on the second amendment.

You have the right to own weapons with the ability to kill dozens(tens of dozens) of people in a matter of seconds, and if that ability is exposed to your neighbors you should threaten to use those weapons against people who pose you no threat to make them quite.

First amendment (5, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | about 2 years ago | (#42457817)

The founding fathers did not in any way think of the internet, therefore we shouldn't have a right to free expression on the internet. The founding fathers didn't have a clue about Mormonism, therefore Mormons shouldn't have a right to practice their religion. Etc.

It is a misconception that the second amendment was written to allow for hunting or even just private home defense. Instead the second amendment was written to allow private citizens to own the same weapons that the government had access to, therefore assuring that if the republic would turn to tyranny the citizens could stage an armed revolt and change the government.

Re:First amendment (1)

codepigeon (1202896) | about 2 years ago | (#42457917)

Ok. So the second amendment was written to assure that we had the ability to fight the government in the event that they overstepped their bounds.

The government now has nuclear weapons, tanks, automatic grenade launchers.

Should citizens be allowed the same weapons that the government has access to? (therefore assuring we could actually revolt)

Re:First amendment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457945)

There is a misconception that you can just put whatever shit into the Founding Fathers mouths and have it accepted as truth. Guys were progressives, much more progressive than the people of the time let them be. If they were around today they would ask why health care having advanced to a stage where it is both effective and plentiful, isn't as available as books in libraries.

--

Private property is legalized coercion enforced with tax dollars, no more, no less.

Re:First amendment (5, Insightful)

joebagodonuts (561066) | about 2 years ago | (#42457981)

Not quite. The Amedment doesn't grant a right - it prohibits the Government from infringing on a right we already posess. Much discussion on this matter sems to be from the unspoken point of view that we get rights from our government, like a gift. Our constitution was written to restrict the power of the federal government.

Irony (5, Insightful)

strikethree (811449) | about 2 years ago | (#42457769)

'The editor, Caryn McBride, told police the newspaper hired a private security company whose "employees are armed and will be on site during business hours," the report said.

So the newspaper is against guns and publishes a list of gun owners... and then hires a bunch of folks armed with, yes, guns. When push comes to shove, the reality is clear. Guns are effective as a defense measure. Criminals do not care about laws so outlawing guns will not take the guns from the criminals. This mean that all gun laws are for the explicit purpose of making law abiding citizens defenseless against criminals.

Guns can be used to make committing crimes easier and to make defense against crimes easier. Seems like a null proposition and that all guns should be abolished. Right? Well, not quite so fast there. Guns equalize the situation. Without a gun, crimes and defense against crimes depends purely on physical characteristics of the aggressor and the intended victim. A large and fit criminal can pretty much do whatever they want. Everyone else gets to suffer. Guns change this equation. Anyone who can shoot can defend themselves against aggression as long as they can aim and pull a trigger. This rebalances the equation in favor of having guns around for self defense.

I do not even personally own a gun (kids in the house and such) and yet I feel safer knowing that people around me could be carrying guns. Criminals always perform their crimes when the police are not present.

In favor of banning guns ? Think about THIS : (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457771)

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

So if you are a victim of crime, just be ready to lie down
and take your victim status like a big boy or girl, because since
you don't have a gun you won't have any other choice.

Guns Are Bad... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457773)

...until I need to be protected. Then they're good again, but only for me. No one else should have guns, except when I say so.

Obviously there is an irony to all of this.. (4, Insightful)

log0n (18224) | about 2 years ago | (#42457799)

But think about this a step further. Presumably, the people who are doing all of the threatening (clearly highly intimidating threats otherwise guards wouldn't be called in) are supposed to be the 'good guys' gun carriers, not the bad guy criminals who aren't supposed to have guns in the first place. This whole thing says a lot about the perceived power a gun holder has over someone without. Good guy or bad, own a gun and you start to feel power enough to turn into a thug.

And aren't the thugs what the good guy gun owners want to defend against?

Superior Firepower (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457805)

Looks like they learned what Reagan meant by peace through superior firepower, or whoever said that.

Good thing they're for the 1st Amendment! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457809)

Its a good thing the gun owners are all for the 1st Amendment, because in the works of the 2nd Amendment advocates: "There can be no 1st Amendment without the 2nd Amendment.". Otherwise they would be using their 2nd Amendment rights to subvert the first. Oh Wait.

Messin' with the wrong crowd (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about 2 years ago | (#42457833)

Pissing off gun owners is just asking for a Darwin Award ;-)

Re:Messin' with the wrong crowd (1)

thedarb (181754) | about 2 years ago | (#42457931)

Like... +1...

The difference (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457861)

What people seem to be missing is that there is a difference between having guards, who are trained, licensed, certified, bonded, etc, who carry guns only while on a job vs who-knows-which random, semi-literate, entirely untrained, barely certified yahoo packing guns who knows where. The "back ground" checks for random citizens buying guns are a joke. This is why we have one tragedy after another with schools, offices, etc becoming shooting ranges. And before you try to claim that putting guns in the schools will solve the problem, please note that Columbine *had* armed guards.

The problem with letting random citizens own guns is that most people are too careless, too random, too emotional to be predictable and safe. Guns make it far to easy for one person to kill lots and lots of other people in the heat of a moment. In addition, armed guards are of limited use when someone has decided to target a facility. The attacker can choose the time and place of the attack and prepare for the response. The people being attacked don't know when or if an attack is going to come and there is no way to be prepared at all times. That is why the armed guard at Columbine was unable to prevent the attackers at the school.

Bottom line, guns kill 30,000+ people every year. Banning guns will not completely eliminate their presence, but it will severely curtail it. And with fewer guns there will be fewer deaths. Trying to claim that more guns is the answer is kind of like trying to put out a fire by pouring more gasoline on it. Trying to claim that we should allow guns because we cannot completely eliminate them is specious reasoning.

Also note that many of the people who advocate guns like to claim that this is their way of ensuring that they can fight back against the government. So these people are harboring fantasies of hiding in the bushes fighting their own government! Hardly what I could call a patriotic attitude...

Only people who have a job that requires guns should have guns. And people who apply for those jobs need to be run through very through, and ongoing, vetting to ensure that they will use them in a responsible manner.

Re:The difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457897)

Forgot to mention - the armed guard at Virgina Tech was not only unable to prevent the shootings, but was killed. The armed members of the military were not able to prevent the shootings at Fort Hood either.

Employees, Friends and Family (1)

Dan East (318230) | about 2 years ago | (#42457893)

Certainly some of the employees of the newspaper, their relatives, and friends own registered firearms. I wonder if the paper removed any of those people from the list before they published it?

Re:Employees, Friends and Family (2)

thedarb (181754) | about 2 years ago | (#42457923)

The author of the article actually removed himself from the list. So yes.

update the map (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457909)

well, at least the newspaper can now update their map and add one more location where people with guns can be found.

On the list? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42457939)

Would these armed guards have been on the paper's list? If so, how did that make THEM feel? I'd say the paper is bringing the fox in to the hen house.

Home addresses of these naughty reporters: (1)

thedarb (181754) | about 2 years ago | (#42457971)

Guards at work, good idea. But what about all their home addresses that have been uncovered in response?

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/26/keep-up-the-heat-and-look-whos-got-the-home-address-of-cyndee-royle-editor-of-the-journal-news/ [wordpress.com]

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?