Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards
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.'"
... is that what irony looks like?
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....
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!
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.
"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?
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.
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
'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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
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?
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.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
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.
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.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Gun control advocates love to indicate the 'logic' that less guns correlates to less homicides. But Logic, also requires that negation hold true. More guns = more homicides... right? However when gun sales have surged in the last 10 years, increasing nearly 40% in the last 10 years, homicides, especially gun related homicides, are down. Funny how "a clear correlation between guns and homicides" breaks down when applying basic statistics. .0003% of guns used in homicides... clearly a problem with guns, if and only if you lust after leaving people defenseless and powerless. Of course if less gun = less homicides then more guns = more homicides which... well isn't true.
Wait it isn't linear... wait there are more regressors... wait there are more excuses and attempts to over-fit a model... Did you know that the price of gasoline correlates to the number of homicides committed between the hours of 9 PM CST and 11:41 PM CST. Of course the question is how strong the correlation is. Good lore you would be surprised what you can make correlate to something.
The USA doesn't have a gun problem, it has a gang violence problem. You take out gang related homicides and guess what, were are nearly identical to Canada, England, France, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Germany, and the rest of the top 30 peaceful nations per 100,000. The problem is inner city poverty, broken homes, and poor childhood development which is the American cocktail for gangs.
Keep your head in the sand and keep ignoring the gang violence problem. Yeah ban the last line of defense citizens have against those lawless gangs...
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
That's right kids, they are just following the gutless NRA nanny state suggestion - the one where the government is supposed to protect children by hiring a lot of armed guards.
Doing the right thing and helping to control military quality guns requires more courage than the NRA has. Asking for the government to get a lot bigger and protect all the children in a nanny state solution is a cowardly way to avoid responsibility.
And the tolerant left shows itself once again. One of the reasons the USA is a great country is because we allow close minded people like you to have a voice. Gun owners who have legally obtained their firearms are far less likely to break the law.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Why would the state require registration of guns?
There is a difference between something being "public information" but requiring specific action to discover and a 3rd party collecting that information and publicly publishing it.
I think that the newspaper did that in an attempt to intimidate those people and anyone thinking of getting a similar permit.
Which is where the "irony" part comes in.
Now the newspaper people are the ones intimidated.
Now the newspaper people have turned to OTHER armed people (not the government or police force) for protection from the people they attempted to intimidate in the first place.
It's still stupid on both sides.
the gun owners demonstrate why they should not own guns. They lose their cool and react in hate and threats. People who are that uncontrolled can't be trusted to operate a firearm under stress or for the right reason. They should have their guns taken away until the grow up. The paper published what was on public record, so the gun owners try to intimidate the press - threaten death and violence- for publishing something they didn't like. but is readily available. W T F
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
If you think for an instant that this list will not be carefully inspected by criminals seeking to minimize occupational hazards, you have another thing coming. Thanks to Sandy Hook, homeowners without guns will not likely be able to purchase guns for some time (many stores are sold out due to sudden demand). Therefore, this list will remain accurate for some time to come.
From a security standpoint, this list is really terrible, and is almost worse for non-gun-owners than for gun-owners, at least in terms of immediate personal security.
It is always about so many of the citizens being pissed enough to be willing to die in protests or go to jail in such large numbers that the Government is no longer sure of the support of large sections of its police, army, administration etc.
Doing that with assault rifles or unarmed like Gandhi is no different. An individual in both cases has to be willing to die, even if the overall fatalities as a group may be less or more.
How many US Citizens with assault rifles have ever protested against the TSA ? Can you even imagine them doing so ? Its probably better to protest unarmed against Governments. As a rule, the Government can't back down from an armed conflict till it has expended all its resources. Its quicker and cleaner, relatively, for hordes of people to protest, go to jail, get hurt, few even killed to make a sufficient impact.
In the end it is only about Numbers. Off course,
It makes it a lot easier to collect them once they're banned. Gives you a sort of checklist.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."