Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Your Rights Online

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards 1435

Posted by samzenpus
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Newspaper That Published Gun-Owners List Hires Armed Guards

Comments Filter:
  • Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Narcocide (102829) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:00PM (#42457635) Homepage

    ... is that what irony looks like?

    • Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:27AM (#42458937)
      It's a simple arms race. There's nothing ironic or hypocritical about favoring mutual disarmament while not be willing to disarm unilaterally.
      • Re:Mommy... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Rogerborg (306625) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @06:12AM (#42460237) Homepage

        There's nothing ironic or hypocritical about favoring mutual disarmament while not be willing to disarm unilaterally

        Says you. I'm having trouble thinking of anything more hypocritical than declaring that other people shouldn't enjoy the right to defend themselves with guns, while defending yourself with guns.

        Maybe you could suggest something - I'm at a loss.

  • by phantomcircuit (938963) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:02PM (#42457653) Homepage
    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....
    • by sribe (304414) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:13PM (#42457723)

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

    • by Swampash (1131503) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:19PM (#42457767)

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

    • by Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) <whineymacfanboy@gmail.com> on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:29PM (#42457857) Homepage Journal

      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.

      • by MBGMorden (803437) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:02AM (#42458201)

        One of the local gun stores also offers training to both security firms and concealed carry holders (well, potential ones). They joke that most of the holes in their ceilings are from the security guards that come in for training. The "training" that most security firms are willing to pay for is to send the guys to the range and have them fire off a few dozen rounds from a revolver and then be sent back. Many security guards have never fired a gun before that and unless they're a gun owner outside of their job, many never will again.

        Now take the gun enthusiasts. Most people I know that are really into guns visit the range at least monthly. I personally do at least 2 practice sessions per month, 3 USPSA pistol matches, and 1 Steel Challenge match. Generally that's 800-1000 rounds per month. I've been through concealed weapons training, hunter's education, and NROI Range Officer training. I know a ton of people in the hobby who practice and train to similar degrees.

        Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?

        • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:33AM (#42458511)

          Do you honestly think because they wear a roughly law-enforcement-esque uniform that a security guard is magically more capable of handling a weapon?

          No. I agree. But there are many many law enforcement (and -esque) groups that do have at least cursory gun handling standards and require time on the range.

          Now take the gun enthusiasts...blah blah blah

          Ok, now take that minority of well trained enthusiasts and set them aside.

          Now take the majority remaineder all the people with guns who don't do any of that. At all. Ever.

          What about them?

          I can't really follow what your argument is, it seems to be trying to argue that random civilians can handle weapons better than law-enforcement-esque types and sure that's true for some handful of carefully screened and cherry picked group of civilians.

          So what exactly?

    • by 1u3hr (530656)

      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.

      • by jittles (1613415)

        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.

        No one said that it is the gun owners on the list who have made these threats. Hell, they could be non-gun owners from Seattle for all we know. For all we know they are also doing this to further garner media attention by claiming the reaction was more threatening than it was. Either way, there are plenty of responsible and irresponsible gun owners, and not everyone of those gun owners may be law abiding in the first place.

      • by torkus (1133985) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @12:05AM (#42458231)

        ...A gun is what makes the difference between a blowhard you can ignore and a real threat of death.

        Yes. Exactly this. If you read the constitution and the words of our forefathers about it one of the fundamental reasons behind gun ownership being a right in the USA is to allow citizens to FORCE the government to listen. It's to ensure the citizens have a voice and a means to ensure that voice is not only heard, but acted on.

    • by torkus (1133985) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:55PM (#42458137)

      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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:04PM (#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!
  • They are assholes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:05PM (#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.

    • 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.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:41PM (#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.

    • by Montezumaa (1674080) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:29PM (#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.).

  • by Revotron (1115029) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:08PM (#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?
    • by RandomUsername99 (574692) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:20PM (#42457777)

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

    • "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 th
  • Irony.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:13PM (#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.
  • by ebonum (830686) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:17PM (#42457757)

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

  • Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

    by strikethree (811449) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:19PM (#42457769) Journal

    '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.

  • by log0n (18224) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:22PM (#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?

    • by jittles (1613415) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:53PM (#42458111)

      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?

      As I said in a comment above, we have no idea who (if anyone) made these threats. The way that they published the information before makes me think they are attention whores. We all know attention whores do what they can to get more attention. But lets assume they were threatened. We still do not know who the people threatening them are, whether they own guns, whether they even live in the same time zone as the newspaper, etc. There are plenty of crazy people out there who would get a kick out of making such threats. I would agree making such threats would not qualify one as a responsible gun owner, however.

  • Sigh (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kenp2002 (545495) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:52PM (#42458099) Homepage Journal

    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...

  • by dbIII (701233) on Wednesday January 02, 2013 @11:56PM (#42458143)
    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.
  • by LF11 (18760) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @01:18AM (#42458869) Homepage
    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.

Little known fact about Middle Earth: The Hobbits had a very sophisticated computer network! It was a Tolkien Ring...

Working...