Newspaper That Published Addresses of Gun Licence Holders Now... Hires Armed Security Due to Fears of Criminal Response

I believe Andy covered this, but in case you missed it Taranto's writing about it now.

The story began with an alarming anecdote: An old man "approached a female neighbor on the street and shot her in the back of the head" last May. "What was equally shocking for some was the revelation that the mentally disturbed 77-year-old man had amassed a cache of weapons--including two unregistered handguns and a large amount of ammunition--without any neighbors knowing."

By way of explaining its rationale for providing the permit data, the paper quoted John Thompson, who directs something called Project SNUG at the Yonkers YMCA: "I would love to know if someone next to me had guns. It makes me safer to know so I can deal with that. I might not choose to live there."

The Journal News never got around to explaining how the commission of a violent crime with an unregistered gun could justify stigmatizing and invading the privacy of citizens--including many retired policemen, according to the report--who have complied with the law and obtained permits for their firearms. And if the public has a "right to know" when the fellow who lives next door has a gun permit, why doesn't the same right apply to those who live and work near the Journal News's offices?

This column does not begrudge the Journal News for exercising its Second Amendment right to armed self-defense. But doing so after attacking law-abiding citizens for doing exactly the same thing is the most stunning display of media hypocrisy we've seen since the "civility" frenzy of early 2011.

Those at the paper said they felt alarmed by the responses they were getting, which they considered threatening -- though none of them were actually threats.

But that's the whole point: What the paper did to lawful citizens was throw the spotlight of Internet Fame on to a group of people who'd done nothing to warrant it. The reason those people themselves did not like the Sudden Internet Spotlight is simple: Who knows what wackadoos will come crawling out of the wordwork to wreak some violence against you?

The paper didn't mind doing this to these people -- in fact, I think they intended it. They intended the lawful gun-license holders to feel intimidated, to feel as if their safety was compromised. That's how stalkers impose their wills on their targets-- the target is always aware that malicious intent lurks around them and may strike at any time.

And now the paper whines because that selfsame loss of the feeling of security, that same feeling that now a dozens of emotionally unstable people might commit random violence in order to vindicate some political point, is now felt by they themselves.

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Wasn't this the precise feeling of oppressive fear they intended their victims to have?

And isn't it something that to get a sense of security back they've hired guards armed with handguns to protect themselves.

Another example of the New Aristocracy asserting -- just as the old aristocracy did -- that only the noble class should be permitted the weaponry of the noble class.

I actually expect this to be an increasingly common tactic in our cowardly new world, this attempt to make people afraid by ginning up the possibly-violent interests of thousands of angry strangers. Just for kicks. Just because you can. Just for the hit-whoring. And just for the feeling losers derive from "fighting back" against their imagined oppressors via any means necessary.

posted by Ace at 06:47 PM

| Access Comments