Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards

Posted by samzenpus on from the hoisting-with-your-own-petard dept.

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.'"

26 of 1,435 comments (clear)

  1. Mommy... by Narcocide · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... is that what irony looks like?

    1. Re:Mommy... by Montezumaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Mommy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    3. Re:Mommy... by Montezumaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Mommy... by shentino · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    5. Re:Mommy... by atriusofbricia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What a twat. The archetype of what's wrong with America.

      The archetype of what's wrong with America is someone who doesn't roll over and give up their rights on demand by some government bureaucrat? There is exactly nothing wrong in what the previous poster said. Government has no rights and they absolutely have no right to know what I, or anyone else, do or do not own.

      Who is the twat I would say?

      --
      I was raised on the command line, bitch

      "Nemo me impune lacesset"

    6. Re:Mommy... by dark_requiem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You seem to be confused between the drastically different concepts of "what government does" and "what government has a right to do". By your "logic", the government has the right to do anything the government says it has the right to do. Believe that's called "tyranny".

    7. Re:Mommy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Who said anything about mass shootings? Only you. Mass shootings kill about as many people in this country as terrorism. They are that rare. So attacking people with mental illnesses makes about as much sense as profiling Muslims.

      The real gun violence that kills significant amounts of people is due to the War on Drugs, high value property thefts, and domestic violence. All of these are due to easy access to guns and have no relation to mental illness. They are cultural.

      I would have hoped that people on Slashdot would be smart enough to realize that if it has been studied and established that the rate of violence by people with mental illnesses or Muslims is no higher than that of the general public, then they shouldn't be ostracized and attacked. Most people are too stupid to realize this, but I would hope those of us here are smart enough to get past the scary news hyperbole and focus on the actual problem. If you want to save lives then you need to minimize the stigma on mental illness, not increase it. And you need to focus on the poor, disenfranchised, but mentally healthy youths who are being gunned down in our streets every day. From their point of view, gun violence is entirely logical. It is how they survive in a society that doesn't give a shit about them.

    8. Re:Mommy... by penix1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But not having to register property that I legally purchased strikes me as an important part, in particular, of gun ownership.

      So you would apply that to your land? It is registered in the form of a deed. How about your car? It is registered as well as has a license and in most, if not all states an insurance requirement.

      Personally, I believe we need to treat guns the same as we treat automobiles. Require that the owner is trained and licensed to use them. Make sure they are insured for when they are used on a person that that person or their survivors can get something more than they currently are getting (nothing). Identify each guns ballistic characteristics at the time of manufacture and tie it to the last registered owner for easier identification of the responsible party. In short, take it from a right to a responsibility with real world consequences when that responsibility is violated.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    9. Re:Mommy... by Loki_1929 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I assume you are not from the U.S. so perhaps a quick US Civics lesson is in order.

      When you're done with him, could you please provide said lesson to the US Congress, the President, and the US Supreme Court?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    10. Re:Mommy... by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Human beings have rights. Governments have powers that they exercise. When the exercise of the latter interferes with the former, that is the simple definition of tyranny.

      Precisely.

      This is the radical concept on which the US was founded that sets it apart from every other government on the planet. In fact, the only government built on this principle in 5,000 years.

      That is why I blow-off those who say things like "Well, $FOREIGNCOUNTRY/REGION runs things this way, why doesn't the US?". Because the US is based on concepts and principles unique to the US. If there wasn't such a difference in basic principles, there wouldn't have been an American Revolutionary War.

      If the US goes down, the last bastion of, and only real positive force for, individual freedom in the entire world in 5,000 years of human history will be gone. There will be no place left to flee to. Hell, it's already gotten so bad that now people in the US are looking around vainly trying to find someplace to escape the ever-more-tyrannical US government.

      Why is it becoming ever-more tyrannical? Because people have fallen to the notion that the US can be governed successfully based on the principles of other nations' and regions' governments, instead of the principles laid out in the US Constitution and the writings of it's authors. The further the US has strayed, the worse things have gotten, and the worse they will get if this course is not halted and reversed.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    11. Re:Mommy... by NicBenjamin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People have rights. People delegate *powers* to the state. The state does not have rights. Con Law 101, or maybe Con Law 1.

      How in blazes did your ignorance get modded +5 informative? Oh.... I guess the mods need to take Con Law 1, too.

      It's very interesting how different definitions of political words get used.

      "Right" is a particularly tricky one. Despite American Jingoists insistance that the mid-18th century Enlightenment definition is the only possible one, and that anyone using it any other way should shot, it has multiple meanings.

      An older definition is that a 'right' is specific to an individual or group of individuals. Medieval rebellions in defense of "rights" were not demanding everyone have the exact same rights, they were demanding the King respect the right of different groups of people to be treated differently. It's a perfectly valid use of the term, but it's also the exact opposite of the pseudo-intelectual definition you just gave. It's even perfectly valid in some American legal contexts. For example, you don't have the right to practice medicine in Ohio unless you get the approval of a group of people who do have that right. The right to sell Star Wars DVDs do not belong to everyone in the entire world equally, they belong to the one guy who has the Copyright.

      Since this is all very confusing, with right on one hand meaning something literally anyone can do and on the other hand meaning something only one person (or a handful of people) can do, in common usage "Right" just means legal ability to do something. I have the right to sue your ass because there isn't a Court Order that says otherwise. The Government has the right to tax your ass because you can't get a court order telling them to stop. I have the right to call your ass stupid because the First Amendment says so, not because some 18th Century French Baron thought it was only natural and a generation of thinkers every American reveres agreed.

  2. Good Guys With Guns? by phantomcircuit · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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....

    1. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by torkus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The larger problem is determining who is the good guy and who is the bad guy often enough.

      Sure, someone shooting children is most likely the bad guy.

      Sure, the FIRST guy running through the mall with a guy is most likely the bad guy...what about the second one that's behind him? Savior or coconspirator?

      Sure, the guy in the uniform is probably a good guy, but there are plenty of examples when that's not the case - be it fake uniforms or unscrupulous security/police.

      You know...now that I think about it there's only one single person I can be sure is the good guy. Me. Therefore I should be armed at all times in all places. Then i'm 100% sure a good guy is armed to protect my interests. You all should do the same. It worked in the recent mall shooting even though the media declined to focus on it as it doesn't suit their "neutral" agenda.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    2. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by Intropy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It was the newspaper's right to publish the data they published. It was still a bad thing to do. The first amendment would also protect their right to publish lists of suspected communists or records of purchases of prophylactics and pregnancy tests. The first amendment protects their rights to publish that information. It doesn't make it not a violation of privacy and all around dick move. The second issue, of course, is the existence of the list to begin with. They got the list from the government, which compiled it through fairly straightforward violations of the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments.

    3. Re:Good Guys With Guns? by kwiqsilver · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except for the a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners than compared to good people, therefore if you want to correlate bad persons its easier to check the gun registry.

      That might be the most retarded thing I've read on /.

      While a higher percentage of bad people are gun owners, you won't find them on the CCW lists or filling out 4473s at the local gun shop. They illegally buy illegal guns illegally imported from Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

      The projection bias, bravado, paranoia, necessity that sometimes leads to gun ownership, is a pretty strong indication that the person is bad or crazy.

      And how many case studies did you perform before pulling this conclusion out of your ass?
      The fact that so many bad guys have guns, and they're so easy for bad guys to buy, despite all of the laws against it (I'm confounded as to why these criminals keep violating the gun laws), would prompt a rational person to look for a form of protection. Therefore I conclude that the number of guns a person owns is directly proportional to his sanity.

      I cannot count the number of times I have seen John Wayne or 'gangasta' wannabes flash their weapon, as if they are somehow the just and righteous parties (mass killers are included), but end up just being either dumb, ignorant, or mentally ill.

      I can't count the number of times a unicorn has bought me lunch, and probably for the same reason.
      I'd wager I know a few more legal gun owners than you do, and we as a group do not flash our guns. We are normal middle-class people who know that the cops can't be everywhere and that there are evil, crazy, or otherwise dangerous people in the world.

      Without guns there are no bad people with guns, and no need for good people with guns, or bad people who think they are good people with guns.

      So when a 250lb. man without a gun rapes a 110lb. woman without a gun, that's okay to you? That's sounds like a situation where a good guy with a gun would be really damn useful. Incidentally, a woman who carries a firearm is 310 times more likely to successfully fend off a rapist than a woman who does not.
      And that's according to FBI crime data.

      People who want to ban guns in America fit into one of the following categories: would-be tyrants, rapists, murderers, muggers, or the useful idiots who allow the previous groups to be successful.

  3. Irony by strikethree · · Score: 5, Insightful

    '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
  4. First amendment by Darkness404 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:First amendment by joebagodonuts · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Give a woman two glasses of wine and some pad thai, and they'll agree to just about anything." the Sports Guy
  5. Assault Rifles by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 !
    1. Re:Assault Rifles by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      If -- and it's a big if, total hypothetical here, but if -- a dictatorship took power in the U.S. and an armed resistance composed of armed citizens opposed it, the experience of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, as well as the example of resistance groups in Nazi-occupied areas during WWII suggests that a resistance force armed with rifles (even ones not capable of fully automatic fire) could put up significant resistance, yes. Hell, look at how much trouble the Branch Davidians gave the feds, and they were a bunch of frickin' nutcases.

      More importantly, though, armed citizens can protect themselves not only against criminals but against corrupt governments on the state and local level. Armed groups played a key role in winning civil rights for African-Americans during the 1960s, both by standing up directly against racist cops and by defending black citizens against violence when the police would not respond.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    2. Re:Assault Rifles by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most western countries that have descended into dictatorship have done it with the support of some of their citizens. I believe the usual ratio is approximately 1/3rd for, 1/3rd against and 1/3rd indifferent.

      Hitler was elected.

      Sorry for the Godwin, but this is appropriate.

      Tyranny is often the tyranny of the majority. Turkey massacred Armenians. Germans massacred, Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and other despised minorities. The Chinese and Soviets slaughtered millions of their political opponents.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
  6. Slight difference. by khasim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They have no right to the privacy of their handgun permit, which, by state law, is public information, which they knew when they applied for said permit.

    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.

  7. in this matter by doginthewoods · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  8. What about the non-gun-owners? by LF11 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is outrageous. What about all the NON-gun-owning homes? This newspaper just posted THIS HOME IS A GUN-FREE ZONE signs on all non-gun-owners' houses.

    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.

  9. Its never about the level of Firepower.. by ami.one · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Governments being overthrown by the citizens is never ever about the level of firepower.

    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,