Ethical? Interactive map of gun permit holders

Neither do I. A few years back, I took my kids to see Toy Story 3 in the theater, and a little brouhaha broke out because there was a guy who had a clearly visible case strapped to his hip, with a gun in it. He and the theater manager got into it in front of a theater full of people (with the majority of them children), because this guy thought his CCW permit overruled the theater's "No weapons" policy, which was spelled out in a large sign at the entrance.

Finally, the manager just told him he didn't care he stayed for the movie or left, but the gun couldn't be in the building, or the police would be called. The guy finally says real loud, "Well, you'll all be sorry I don't have this when the shit goes down!" and took his gun to leave in his vehicle.

It's much more frightening to me to know that people like that are carrying and think they live in the wild west where they need to have guns on them at all times to protect their interests.

 

How can you tell if you're right? (Curious, not arguing.)

Guns are commonplace where I live. My office is in a church; my supervisor, the senior pastor, has multiple guns and carries regularly. The only time I've ever taken target practice was at a dinner party with the three pastors. One of the .22s, belonging to my supervisor's 20-something daughter, was pink. Best shot? His wife.

And Peggy, the church secretary, was tickled pink her husband got her a new semiautomatic for Christmas.

 

That wouldn't bother me one bit, but I've always been in favor of stricter punishments for DUI.

Having to register as a sex offender is part of the punishment for that type of crime. The stigma is supposed to follow that person. His or her neighbors are supposed to know what he or she did. I'm not sure about the registries everywhere, but the ones I've seen include information regarding the crime, such as the actual charge and the age of the victim. That should be included in any list. Maybe links to the offender's information.

 

Meanwhile, the Journal News is seeking permit names in Putnam County, only the county clerk is defying the request under open records law with this gem:

"There is the rule of law, and there is right and wrong, and the Journal News is clearly wrong."

So, fuck the law if you disagree with it, right?

Oh, and in an ironic twist, the JN has hired armed guards for its Rockland office.

http://gannettblog.blogspot.com/2013/01/westchester-facing-threats-paper-hires.html?showComment=1357139058521#c317221063995553059

 

There's no reason in my mind to publish this other than to say "lookie what we can do."

These people didn't break the law, like sex offenders did.

I'd be far more interested in knowing who in my community had illegally obtained guns.

 

Exactly. Instead of doing the "look at me, we're attention whores!" story about legal gun owners, cross-check the list of gun owners with law enforcement officials to see if anyone is a felon or has illegally obtained one by falsifying the background check.

I'd love to see how you do this. People who carry concealed routinely, which is every day, know how to truly conceal so no one knows. That's the entire point. With the proper inside waistband or pocket holster and firearm, no one should know.

 

Maybe a dick move until you know how it feels to have public information about yourself broadcasted and disseminated you have no idea how invasive it is. Maybe these reporters will. And I hope it wasn't limited to reporters, but every employee. It's a dick move, but it may be deserved.

Example, a local paper, through the local FOIA, has received the names, occupations and salaries of every public employee in the county with plans to publish. So every cafeteria worker, teacher, admin aid, crossing guard, cop, lawyer, plumber, building inspector... will have their names and salaries published. Public record, certainly. But a dick move. Want to write a story about a bloated bureaucracy using salary information, great. What's the purpose in calling out by name every teacher, fireman and secretary except to prove that the paper, like a dog, can lick it's own balls.

gander, meet goose.

 

Though I don't see the need to run the list as the paper did, you must know this is 1) very-near impossible, 2) certainly never to see print if run past a lawyer as the chances of libel are really terrific.

 

Funny that the folks who shout constitutional rights when guns are involved aren't quite so generous of the constitutional rights when freedom of the press is involved.

 

You can defend someone's right to be an asshole without actually thinking they should be an asshole.

 

Well, yeah. But to me, printing a list of people who do perfectly legal things is not newsworthy. It isn't that it's not ethical, there's just no news value to it.

 

Please. Because a news reporter and a few editors made an ill-advised decision to publish publicly available (but non-newsworthy) information, that means every employee of the entire company should have his/her personal information published?

The food editor? The transportation reporter? What the hell did they do wrong — except happen to be employed by the same company?