Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

4 Bumps

Should this paper be held liable for any home invasions/rapes/murders at the addresses they didn't publish?

Idiot New York newspaper publishes names and addresses of all registered gun owners in its coverage area.

I'm sure the New York criminals thank them for spelling out exactly which homes they can break into without fear of being shot now.

Answer Question
 
NotPanicking

Asked by NotPanicking at 8:12 PM on Dec. 24, 2012 in Politics & Current Events

Level 50 (417,823 Credits)
Answers (17)
  • I'd actually be far more worried about a crook trying to come in and steal my gun. If I had one.

    I also suspect the heavier your security, the more likely you have something needing it... I think the folks ON the list have more to worry about.

    But it was a stupid story anyway.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 8:21 PM on Dec. 24, 2012

  • I think the folks ON the list have more to worry about.

    I think it will be more a question of motivation and type of criminal. The homes on the list might be more likely to be targeted by someone looking to steal the guns, but those are the type who will go out of their way to make sure nobody's home (considering it's New York and how strict the licensing is, a huge percentage of people on that list are current or retired law enforcement). On the other hand, sexual predators or drug addicts who don't care if they have to hurt someone to get what they want are going to target the houses not on the list, and they're the more dangerous of the two. Being robbed is traumatic, but being attacked leaves both physical and mental scars, if they survive at all.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 8:27 PM on Dec. 24, 2012

  • It would certainly appear to follow the exact mind of the criminal mindset. Assuming any home doesn't have a gun, registered or not, would be foolish. ;)
    Mrs_Prissy

    Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 8:28 PM on Dec. 24, 2012

  • That was a ridiculously stupid thing for them to do. And it really pisses me off that their reasoning is "people are interested in knowing where the guns are in their neighborhood." Well, I'm interested in knowing how big my neighbors TVs are too - that doesn't mean I have any right to know that!

    With that said, no, I don't think they can/should be held liable. I write romantic suspense - I write murders, kidnappings, etc. That would be like saying that if someone decides to make the plot from one of my books real, I should be liable. It's not my fault that some crazy person decided to go out there and bring my book to life. I can't know that's going to happen. Granted, I think common sense says that publishing the gun owners names and addresses does open up the possibility that something bad will result, they still can't be responsible for someone else's stupidity. Hell, they clearly aren't responsible for their own!
    wendythewriter

    Answer by wendythewriter at 8:44 PM on Dec. 24, 2012

  • I should say that I didn't mean to appear smug. I misread the question I think, because I couldn't imagine anyone taking it as the gospel truth that just because a house wasn't listed, the occupants are not armed.

    But, as you say, drug addicts and predators aren't following the same mindset as most. I'm not sure what I think about the paper publishing the information. I need to think about it a bit
    Mrs_Prissy

    Answer by Mrs_Prissy at 8:46 PM on Dec. 24, 2012

  • But, as you say, drug addicts and predators aren't following the same mindset as most.

    Plus, there are more context clues than someone simply not being on the list. Not being listed, plus having an Obama bumper sticker, or visible signs of a lot of small kids (like multiple car seats in the car). It's not quite as stupid as the church in Colorado that was handing out "gun free home" signs to its local community, but in a game of odds, the risk just went up for everyone not listed, whether they have a gun or not.
    NotPanicking

    Comment by NotPanicking (original poster) at 8:58 PM on Dec. 24, 2012

  • What the hell is wrong with our reporters these last few years? They print LIES. They edit stuff in such a way that it is completely different from the original story. They take sides depending on which the wind is blowing. Yes, the newspaper could get the info they wanted by using the Freedom of Information Act, but they did not ask for permission to print out the names of those gun owners. I mean it would be like if you were caught on TV, they would have to ask permission to use your face or whatever. While the possibilty of the gun owners getting hurt or what not is prewtty low, but they may be the target of some of the anti-gun nuts yelling at them, pointing to them and yelling they are gun nuts and if someone did break into any of these houses and had the opportunity to steal a few guns, breaking into a safe (pretty easy if you know what you are doing), and then killing someone, people would turn
    cont.....
    Michigan-Mom74

    Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 1:38 AM on Dec. 25, 2012

  • ...and say if you didn't have the gun anyway, the person who was shot and killed would still be alive. Of course blaming the newspaper cause they gave out their address make to much sense and the death would never have happened. But its always easier blaming the innocent ones. That fucking reporter need his head examined while his head is being slammed against the concrete.
    Michigan-Mom74

    Answer by Michigan-Mom74 at 1:46 AM on Dec. 25, 2012

  • Why on earth would the newspaper publish that information?
    Ballad

    Answer by Ballad at 1:53 AM on Dec. 25, 2012

  • ". Yes, the newspaper could get the info they wanted by using the Freedom of Information Act, but they did not ask for permission to print out the names of those gun owners. I mean it would be like if you were caught on TV, they would have to ask permission to use your face or whatever."

    Actually, no permission is needed at all for images of adults. Not for news stories. For CHILDREN, it's customary to get permission from the parents or to shoot in a way the kids cannot be identified. But even that isn't a legal requirement, it's an ethical one. And yes, some of us do have ethics.

    Nor is permission needed for FOIA info.
    gdiamante

    Answer by gdiamante at 2:01 AM on Dec. 25, 2012

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.