Sandusky Register publishes names of CCP holders

[Carl N. Brown]

another reason not to publish the lists

Toby Hoover of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence
testified against HB9. She wants media to continue to print names
and has urged employers to discriminate against people who have
training and obtained a license from the state to carry a gun by
not hiring them.

Antis hate guns and gun owners with a bigotry that defies words.
(well words that would be approved by Art's Granmaw)

 

[30 cal slob]

the full list appears to be up again with names and ages.

http://sanduskyregister.com/for_the_record/

 

[kbarrett]

Then the two scenarios cross each other out and there is no point in bitching about the safety violations of publishing such lists.

That's rocket science.

Negative.

Providing an information service for burglars is not something that decreases public danger.

CCW holders will be targeted by aggressive burglars .. who will go in with full knowledge that the target is armed, and will probably try to shoot first. This greatly increases the danger for CCW holders.

Non-CCW holders will be targeted by burglars who want un-armed victims ... as is happening in the UK.

By making this info available, both CCW holders and non-CCW holders are now at greater risk.

Before the info was published, burglars got random victims. After the list was published, burglars can now choose what kind of victim they want, and plan their crime accordingly.

Result: more unarmed victims attacked by burglars who seek such ... and more CCW holders targeted by ultra-violent burglars who are willing to deliberately target an armed household.

 

[Deanimator]

Result: more unarmed victims attacked by burglars who seek such ... and more CCW holders targeted by ultra-violent burglars who are willing to deliberately target an armed household.

Not even burglars necessarily. This may entice criminals into ambushing people for their guns OUTSIDE their houses.

If that happens, and somebody can prove it, I guarantee you that the Sandusky Register will cease to exist as a business entity. If Westerhold doesn't believe me, he can look up what happened to Soldier of Fortune when they ran an ad for a "mercenary" who ended up doing a contract killing. I'll bet that SOF was both more highly capitalized, AND better ensured than the penny ante Register.

 

[Jeff]

CCW holders will be targeted by aggressive burglars .. who will go in with full knowledge that the target is armed, and will probably try to shoot first. This greatly increases the danger for CCW holders.

Oh, please.

And if the public lists did not exist, then these "aggressive" burglars would go after...? Very large men? Men with scary tattoos? Former marines? Black belts?

I get it. It's like the expert gunman who attracts a series of young punks who challenge him with their own expert gunplay. That's Hollywood westerns. That ain't real life.

 

[wjustinen]

Jeff, your location being Vermont

should have given me the first clue about your attitude on this subject. Perhaps, like altogether too many firearms owners, you don't consider things to be a problem when they don't affect you.

Here in Canada many long-gun owners saw no problem with more restrictions and prohibitions being introduced in relation to handguns and - horrors - automatic weapons. They thought they were imune.

Concern over publicity is like "needing" a firearm for personal defence. The concern is legitimate if the CCW holder is concerned, just as the need is legitimate if the individual believes he needs the firearm.

 

[IndianaBoy]

Jeff,

How is it possible that you don't see the distinct possibility that a person wishing to steal a firearm would see this list as a veritable shopping list?

Disregarding your arguments that having a CCW makes us safer regardless of whether or not some twit decides to inform the public about something which most people would like to keep private......


I have more guns than I can carry. I am not at home 24/7. Guns are in my home. A list of gun owners which includes my address is a very good indicator to a felon who wants and can't buy a gun, that my home is a good place to look.


Why is this hard to understand? :banghead:

Add to this that my girlfriend is sometimes here when I am not: Are you honestly asserting that my information being published would not in any way expose her to danger?

 

[Jeff]

A list of gun owners which includes my address is a very good indicator to a felon who wants and can't buy a gun, that my home is a good place to look.

Not really. The list says nothing about guns in the home, just people who carry.

Why is this hard to understand?

I'm not having trouble comprehending anything.

Are you honestly asserting that my information being published would not in any way expose her to danger?

Look, 1 in every 3 homes has at least one firearm in it. Everyone knows this. Burglars know many homes have guns.

If you go hunting, you better not let anyone see that deer rifle. After all, "people" will see you have a rifle, and it will make your home and its occupants less safe. Don't let anyone see you walking into a gun store. Chances are, you own guns yourself, and you become an instant target.

What kind of reasoning is this?

And do you think violent offenders/burglars actually read the paper?

Gimme a break.

I don't like the idea of the newspaper printing the list. And I know it was done behind a sleazy agenda.

But it smacks of dishonesty/irrationality to holler "we're less safe" because your name is in the paper and people who read the paper might rob you..... because your name is in the paper and you own a gun.

That's basically what you are all saying.

 

[telomerase]

And do you think violent offenders/burglars actually read the paper?

I know for a fact they place some of the classified ads

Bottom line is that the only solution is the Vermont solution... no lists and no restrictions.

 

[Doggy Daddy]

Jeff
If you go hunting, you better not let anyone see that deer rifle. After all, "people" will see you have a rifle, and it will make your home and its occupants less safe. Don't let anyone see you walking into a gun store. Chances are, you own guns yourself, and you become an instant target.

Putting aside your sarcasm for a moment, I guess you missed the recent threads here about gun owners being robbed of their guns as they left the range. Not much of a stretch to realize the potential of burglary because of publicized lists.

What kind of reasoning is this?

The logical, well-thought out kind. You'll learn to recognize it if you pay attention.

 

[FieroCDSP]

I checked that latest link to the lists and they're not there now. I'm honestly not impressed with the paper's site. None of the story titles make me want to read them. If someone sued them out of business, they'd probably be doing them a favor in cost cutting for their worthless dribble. I really didn't care for the crime reports, which I normally don't miss, in more reputable papers.

 

[Silver Bullet]

There are two aspects.

1) Not knowing who and who doesn’t have a firearm has a deterring effect on the bad guys. Once the bad guys know who does and who doesn’t, the ones afraid of getting shot will attack those who don’t, those who seek firearms will attack when the owner is away.

Note that this is in no way inconsistent with the idea that owning guns makes you safer: Part of that safety aspect is not knowing who does and does not have a firearm. If you need an example to understand the point, consider the reason air marshalls don’t wear uniforms on planes.

2) The bad guys can wait until the owner is away from his house and then break in. If his family is home, they could be killed. This in no way refutes the notion that having a gun makes you safer. If the owner is armed, he is safer. Again, if you need an example to get this, this is identical to police being safer because they’re armed. OTOH, if their home addresses were published, their families might be less safe.

You also have to try and discern the difference between “less safe than not having a gun” and “less than safe than they were before”. If the family members know how to use a gun, making them a target by publishing their addresses makes the families “less safe than they were before” their addresses were published, not “less safe than if they had no gun at all.”

 

[Silver Bullet]

Linda,
Fantastic job !

 

[Linda]

Thank you Silver Bullet!

On a side note, I am really hoping this thread does not deteriorate, as we at Buckeye Firearms are far from done with all of this. I am hoping this thread will stay in tack so that as things come up, (Hmmm...maybe as soon as Monday) I can post them in an existing thread. So guys........come on now, please!

 

[Deanimator]

Look, 1 in every 3 homes has at least one firearm in it. Everyone knows this. Burglars know many homes have guns.

Now they have a list of homes that are 99% likely to have AT LEAST one gun.

Stalkers and the like now know whom they have to AMBUSH, as opposed to confronting them face to face.

There's no justification for what that imbecile Westerhold did, and no amount of trying to justify it will ever succeed.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Linda,

If I lived in central Ohio, I would be using you for my real estate agent.

Thanks again for all you're doing.

 

[Linda]

Here's the latest of what Buckeye Firearms has been doing with this situation:
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3836.html

On Thursday, June 28 we faxed the Sandusky Register a two page copy of our article entitled "What is the harm in publishing lists of concealed handgun license holders?", requesting a price quote for a one flat page, two sided insert ad for their full circulation of 27,000. Our fax went ignored, so I called them on Thursday, July 5 for a quote. I was left a voicemail of the price. I once again faxed the article, since they obviously were clueless as to "what" it was we wanted to run. I received a fax back stating "the ad director chooses not to run this insert at this time."



OK! We thought that might be their answer!

We are considering to do something else in the near future with this, but we need to raise some donations to support this project.

 

[Linda]

Here's the latest occurance on this issue:

http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/article3852.html

After contacting several of the Sheriff's Depts. involved, we have learned that they gave the Sandusky Register accurate information, BUT the newspaper published wrong information (gee, call that a surprise). They published several people being over 150 years old, some younger than 18, and other various errors. Yet, the Sandusky Register has continued to not correct their mistakes.

 

[Master Blaster]

Here is a thought.

Most businesses require a license to operate, either a state, county or municipal license sometimes all three. The license must be promenantly displayed in their offices, and they expire on a yearly basis usually and have to be renewed.

I would find out who issues the business license that the paper holds, and have a bunch of folks write in complaints about the paper's irresponsible, and harassing business practices. That could cause the licensing authority to hold a review hearing or even revoke their business license.

 

[Prince Yamato]

While the information is public domain, their method of publishing it is used to make lawful CCW holders look like criminals. Isn't that called defamation of character in a court of law? You know the same court of law that all the CCW holder could use to sue the Register until it was bankrupt?

 

[strat81]

Linda, are there any other substantial, competing newspapers in the same area the Sandusky Register serves? (I.e., in NY we had the Daily News, the NY Post, the NY Times, etc) Would it be possible to place your ad in a competing paper? Also, I understand the names spanned multiple counties... what about a paper in another county? Just thinking out loud...

 

[Silver Bullet]

Would it be possible to place your ad in a competing paper?

I like that idea. Maybe they'd publish it for free !

 

[Deanimator]

Would it be possible to place your ad in a competing paper?

You've obviously never been to Sandusky. I've been on military firing ranges with more area.

I can't think of any other newspaper that covers their area which either has any coverage or isn't anti-gun.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The real issue is a gun owner's right to privacy in a world
that contains some really whacko gun haters.

In the San Francisco Channel 2 news commentary on the
eviction of New Orleans resident Patricia Konie from her
home by California state troopers:
Dennis: "Ken, they are obviously going to use physical
force to remove someone who does not want to go. The obvious
question now is, would they use deadly force?"
Ken: "Well, I don't think so, Dennis. I mean, here you
had a woman with a gun, she's eldery, she doesn't appear to
be a threat, but a gun is a gun. And the officers certainly
had the option, you would think, in using deadly force.

Deadly force was certainly an option in out-of-state troopers
evicting an elderly woman from her own home: a gun is a gun, Dennis.
This is the kind of anti-gun bias that infects our news media.
God save us from our self-appointed saviors.

 

[Linda]

We've thought about the other area papers. We're still weighing our options. Port Clinton has one and I forget what the other newspaper is up there. Both would be small papers. Sandusky is not a huge city. Is a sizable town stuck mid way between Toledo and Cleveland. My guess is, that being in the same business, the other papers would reject us as well, but that's just a guess on my part.