The Journal News Removes It’s New York Gun Owner Database

121225091351-lohud-gunowners-map-story-top

Well this is interesting…

(CNN) — A New York newspaper removed an interactive map from its website following a public outcry over the revealing of names and addresses of handgun permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties, the publisher said Friday.

The newspaper last month defended the online information culled from public records, but The Journal News publisher Janet Hasson on Friday said the map had served its purpose.

The database was published in the wake of the elementary school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20 children and six adults were killed. The gunman, 20, had earlier killed his mother in their home; he killed himself after the school rampage.

“Today The Journal News has removed the permit data from lohud.com,” Hasson said in a public letter on the website.

Lest you think that Hasson had somehow “seen the light,” the letter from the editor published on their site is proof that she’s still a pompous ass who isn’t in the least bit sorry about her actions.

Shortlink:

Posted by on January 19, 2013.
Filed under Gun control, Media.
Doug Johnson is a news junkie and long time blog reader, turned author.

You can leave a response or trackback to this entry
  • herddog505

    “Served its purpose”? What purpose did it serve other than to thorougly p*ss off a lot of people and expose this Hasson as a malicious b*tch?

    • jim_m

      There were at least two purposes:

      1) to demonize gun owners and target them for disapprobation (and as it turns out to make them targets of criminals)

      2) to gain notoriety for the editor and publisher of the paper.

      It succeeded in both of those missions.

      • ackwired

        Help me out here. I never did understand the uproar over this action. How did the newspaper target the permit holders for disapprobation?

        • jim_m

          Really?

          The paper publishes the names and addresses of gun permit holders like they were sex offenders in a registry and says that “people have the right to know” who the gun owners are. You cannot see how that is demonizing the gun owners? One of the early points was that they would not want their children playing in the home of a gun owner.

          The paper treated gun owners like criminals. Now that the homes of gun owners are being targeted by criminals who are seeking the guns inside, the paper has taken down the map. The paper actually abetted criminality. The paper enabled more guns to go on the illegal market.

          It’s sad that you see nothing wrong with this.

          • ackwired

            Are you saying that the paper compared gun owners to sex offenders, that they demonized them, that they said they would not want children playing in these homes, or is that just your inference? I don’t know the answer. This is an honest question. I can not discern from your post.

          • retired.military

            Yes Ackwired. That is basically what they said.
            I believe it was
            a. You want to know if your children are going into a house that has a gun in it.
            and
            b. “It;s not like we posted names and addresses of sex offenders:”

          • jim_m

            They did not explicitly do so, but the comparison is not original from me. Many others have made the same connection. That you don’t is more a function of your ideological disposition than a lack of connection.

          • ackwired

            Since I reject ideologies, it is most likely a number of people automatically parroting the NRA’s interpretation.

          • jim_m

            They did not explicitly do so, but the comparison is not original from me. Many others have made the same connection. That you don’t is more a function of your ideological disposition than a lack of connection.

        • Vagabond661

          Would it be targeting if they posted a map of the people who had abortions? or Speeding tickets? Or DUIs?

          • jim_m

            If someone had posted a map of the abortionists in NY the FBI would have been raiding their offices within the hour.

            But ackwired sees nothing wrong with doing the same for other people who have not broken the law.

          • ackwired

            Newspapers publish the names and addresses of people who have not broken the law all of the time.

          • jim_m

            These people did not break the law. So what is your point?

          • ackwired

            You said it was sad that I could see nothing wrong with newspapers publishing the names a addresses of people who had not broken the law. They do it all of the time.. I am unaware of any journalistic standard that only lawbreakers names and addresses be published.

          • jim_m

            The media do not publish their names AND addresses. They publish names and home towns, or neighborhood in the city, but not addresses.

            As I said before the act was done to shame gun owners. The paper has not denied that. The act was to single gun owners out as a criminal threat to society. The paper has not denied that. I believe it was the editor of the paper that said that she would want to know if someone had a gun in their home because she would not want her children playing in such a place, implying that there is something illegal in owning a gun and something criminally wrong with someone who would own one.

            I take it from your defense of the paper that you agree that gun owners are all criminals and threats to society. I take it by your defense of the paper that gun owners all deserve to be singled out as threats to society and that they deserve to be targeted for burglary.

          • ackwired

            There you go again, Jim. Just making stuff up. What defense of the paper are you talking about? I have not said a single thing that could be construed as a defense of the paper.

          • jim_m

            You are arguing against all criticisms of the paper. It is essentially a defense of its actions.

          • ackwired

            No…read my posts and pay attention. Don’t just jump to conclusion. I was simply asking questions.

          • retired.military

            Ackwired

            I havent read a newspaper in a while. Please explain or show me a case where they are printing names and addresses of folks who havent broken the law and whom didnt want the address to be posted. Other than maybe fires I cant think of one.

          • ackwired

            I think you make a point. It happens with victims of shootings and breakins. But certainly not all of the time.

          • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

            Especially in the want ads. But if you were a criminal looking for a gun – would you randomly break into houses, or would you rather have a list that shows where the guns are?

          • ackwired

            I would just go to a gun show or google “guns for sale”. It is very easy to obtain guns around here. But I see your point, and I can see how it could be a cause for concern for those people.

          • Vagabond661

            Interesting thought. Why doesn’t the nespaper print the names and addresses of people who own a BMV? Or a Ford Expedition? How about printing the name and addresses of those who gave money to the Obama campaign?

        • Vagabond661

          Would it be targeting if they posted a map of the people who had abortions? or Speeding tickets? Or DUIs?

  • 914

    How considerate of them.

  • Paul Hooson

    This was a major invasion of the privacy of these persons, and could actually set them up for home burglaries to steal gun collections and compromise their family safety. This was wholly unacceptable.

    • LiberalNightmare

      I believe there have been two such thefts already

    • retired.military

      Damn. Paul. I actually agree with you for once. You are slipping.

      • Conservachef

        Not only that, but he got his point across in less than 1,000 words…

        • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

          Wish I could give him two upticks – one for the comment, the second for the brevity of it.

  • jim_m

    Meanwhile in Massachusetts dems are making another attempt to make gun ownership impossible and unaffordable.

    It won’t end until they confiscate every gun from every law abiding citizen. That’s the goal whether they admit it or not.

  • LiberalNightmare

    Humph.
    Buncha wusses.