Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, Kelly Day, CEO of Blip?
The woman who heads up the largest independently owned video network tells how she's bringing TV into the digital age. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Journal News pulls controversial map

Journal News pulls controversial map

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–25 out of 76 messages

Author	Message

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 11:35:10 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Says it's in response to New York's new gun control law but there is wide speculation that the real reason is a fear of being sued in the wake of the break-ins and burglaries that have occurred at residences identified in the map. http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GUN_PERMIT_DATABASE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-18-18-48-16 http://politicker.com/2013/01/journal-news-takes-down-controversial-map-of-gun-owners/ You may remember that the publisher of the Journal News, Janet Hasson, felt it necessary to hire armed guards after her paper began receiving vehement complaints for its wholly unwarranted intrusion into the privacy of firearms owners in two New York counties. Even though the map has been taken down, Hasson said it had been viewed more than 1.2 million times and several burglaries have occurred at homes identified in the map. A couple old bromides seem more than appropriate at this juncture: One cannot unring a bell, and If one scatters pillow feathers into the wind from a bell tower, one can never retrieve all the feathers. If criminal activities continue...or especially if they escalate...one would hope that Hasson will be held personally liable.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/19/2013 12:09:25 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Another old bromide springs to mind: "but there is wide speculation" does not constitute the truth.

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 12:38:41 PM \| show profile \| flag this post *Leave it to dipsht** to concentrate on a MINOR point of the story and hope it will obfuscate the rest...that which is the main point. The Journal News has now tacitly admitted it erred in posting the map. And it has now pulled it. But it can never undo the harm it caused...and the further break-ins, burglaries and other criminal acts that might result.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/19/2013 12:57:24 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Not speaking to you on this topic any further. Calling me a dipshit was not called for.

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 1:25:57 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You've called me worse ...dipsh*t. Sissy dishes it out but can't take it?

Village Gal	Posted - 1/19/2013 2:02:00 PM \| show profile \| flag this post agree it was rash to publish this but I don't understand why people would break into homes of gun owners. one more thing...calling a straight man a sissy is a homophobic slur... surely there are other words in cruiser's roster of insults

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 2:16:21 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "I don't understand why people would break into homes of gun owners" Are you serious??? You REALLY don't know??? TO STEAL THE GUNS. That's what criminals do. Did you really think they buy their guns from the local FFL shops? In one of the incidents prompted by the Journal News' map the crooks took an entire gun safe that contained firearms...a bonanza they could not have enjoyed had the idiot, Janet Hasson, not disclosed the locations of all the guns in those two counties. You are really naive...or worse.

Village Gal	Posted - 1/19/2013 2:23:03 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Based upon the NRA concept that having a gun at home is a form of protection, I was thinking that thieves would steer clear of homes with guns for fear of being shot.

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 2:35:02 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You REALLY are naive... or worse.

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 2:46:38 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Thieves (at least the smart ones) break into houses in which they know or reasonably suspect firearms can be found at principally at two times of the day: 1) At night when the home is unoccupied (vacation, etc.), and 2) Any other time when the home is unoccupied but neighbors are not being observant. Under such conditions there is little danger of being shot and the bounty awaits. This is one of the principal reasons the Journal News' idiotic map was so disturbing. We DO NOT need more stolen firearms in the hands of crooks.

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/19/2013 3:29:56 PM \| show profile \| flag this post What's ironic, in a disgusting sort of a way Even if someone steals a small arsenal from your home--Federal law does NOT, require individual gun owners to report lost or stolen guns. Oops. In fact only Seven states (Connecticut, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island) and the District of Columbia currently require the reporting of lost and stolen guns to law enforcement. Every time another state tries it (like here in PA), the NRA goes into full war mode. Gun stores ARE supposed to report stolen guns, but the ATF isn't allowed to inspect dealers for inventory discrepancies more than once a year. And in reality, they inspect them once every 17 years. 17 years! I'm assuming that's because the ATF doesn't have enough agents, and not that the ATF agents are cicadas. (as Jon Stewart put it). In 2007, after inspecting just 9.3% of federal firearms licensees nationwide, ATF reported that more than 30,000 guns in the dealers' inventories had been lost or stolen. Oops. But so what?? "According to today's New York Times (12/27/12), the Bureau is prohibited from creating a federal registry of gun transactions in the first place. And so it goes. Not that would help much anyway.

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 3:37:00 PM \| show profile \| flag this post And please telll me, oh Great Sage, exactly what reporting guns stolen from LAWFUL possessors would do. That would be something like closing the barn door after the horses had escaped. It would also be something like the Obama administration's Operation Fast & Furious.

orthicon	Posted - 1/19/2013 3:46:08 PM \| show profile \| flag this post allo cruiztwit is trying to do.. again.. is to bait people.. into engaging him and his bullshit all over.. don't respond to him, and he'll either go away or his head will explode.. no particular loss either way..

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/19/2013 4:02:15 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You're right orth; As long as his head explodes with a lawful gun it will be a proper "Second Amendment Remedy"

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 4:32:34 PM \| show profile \| flag this post *What you call my "bullsht"** is factual, documented and unassailable...and that chaps your hide. So much so that you become dark and murderous. Don't you realize that's EXACTLY the kind of crap you radical leftists have been railing against?

mpdodgson	Posted - 1/19/2013 5:31:42 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Done with you on this one You're just trolling. Enjoy.

cruiser	Posted - 1/19/2013 6:19:45 PM \| show profile \| flag this post You're done because you're getting your ass kicked.

stopbs--	Posted - 1/20/2013 12:07:07 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Should the Journal News have published the list? I have tossed this around a lot. At the time, the permit info was public record in New York State and the paper had the legal right to publish it. What I question is their news judgement. If they were an objective newspaper, what would the news-value possibly be? I can understand gathering the permit data and reporting that "According to our research, out of X number of homes in our area, X number have firearms." That, at least, gives you an idea of how area residents feel about the issue. But, publishing the personal permit data raised questions about the paper's objectivity. Just a dumb move, IMO.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/20/2013 3:11:15 AM \| show profile \| flag this post * That, at least, gives you an idea of how area residents feel about the issue. * Which issue? The paper didn't print the many possible reasons for owning and not owning a gun. The map didn't give me any idea of how area residents feel about any of those possibilities.

Village Gal	Posted - 1/20/2013 10:26:54 AM \| show profile \| flag this post So call me naive about the gun theft issue. I just don't think like a criminal.

cruiser	Posted - 1/20/2013 10:30:47 AM \| show profile \| flag this post All that map did was give burglars the locations of firearms they could steal...and attempt to intimidate or ostracize those who own firearms or have carry permits. It was probably the most ignorant action I've ever seen from a newspaper...and I've read a lot of different newspapers.

stopbs--	Posted - 1/20/2013 11:58:30 AM \| show profile \| flag this post You did't get my point, grateful. The map did not make a cogent point about gun ownership. If they had simply given statistics in context, without the personal information, it would have at least given the community an idea of how many families exercise their right to own guns out of the number of families in the community. I could justify that kind of information journalistically.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/20/2013 12:21:37 PM \| show profile \| flag this post VG, guns are supposed to be locked up tight anyway. It's part of being a responsible gun owner. In debating a public right to know where gun owners live, an incident occurred last month in the town closest to me. A guy got mad at his wife and set the house on fire with her inside it. When firefighters arrived, someone told them there were firearms and ammunition in the burning house -- which there were, plus a room-size stockpile of blow-'em-ups. Firefighters couldn't immediately enter the house to put out the fire in regard for their own safety, and the neighboring houses had to be evacuated. The neighbors told the weekly paper they were shocked that their lives and property had been in danger with that guy living there. Would it have made a difference if the neighbors knew? Renters might not have rented in that area. Buyers might not have bought. We're extremely sensitive to fire danger; you can't even buy an outdoor fire pit here, for example, and if you light a charcoal barbecue in the summer, someone will call the fire department to put it out. Would the neighbors have pressured him? Would he have thought about what he didn't bother thinking about without pressure, or would he only have gotten mad at the neighbors? Where is the boundary between his right to build an arsenal and their right to safety? Here in a wildfire zone, I'd definitely appreciate knowing where the doomsday stockpilers and armed-to-the-teeth misanthropes live, as I similarly appreciate knowing which are the meth houses and where the registered sex offenders live. However, knowing is only a snapshot in time, as you can't choose your neighbors except on the day you buy your house.

Grateful Deadline	Posted - 1/20/2013 12:33:55 PM \| show profile \| flag this post * You did't get my point, grateful. The map did not make a cogent point about gun ownership. If they had simply given statistics in context, without the personal information, it would have at least given the community an idea of how many families exercise their right to own guns out of the number of families in the community. I could justify that kind of information journalistically. BS, the paper did exactly what you've now defined as the issue to you: It showed who has guns, i.e. who has "exercise(d) their right to own guns." Anyone could zoom in on the map to see the surrounding dwellings on it, too. Did you not do that? Or is the problem, as you see it, that the paper didn't break out "families" in which gun owners live, as opposed to showing only gun owners? I'm still not clear about the point you're trying to make or what it has to do with publishing what was, at the time, public record.

cruiser	Posted - 1/20/2013 1:06:08 PM \| show profile \| flag this post Every "journalist" on here is hiding behind FOIA, First Amendment, etc. NOT A SINGLE ONE is going anywhere near personal privacy, newsworthiness, intelligent and responsible reporting, low-brow pandering, etc.