Local Tv,,,,,thanks

[h4444]

AAARRRGGGHHH,,,,,

Local idiots decided to run a story about our state's permit to carry laws.....

To top off the story, they start listing somewhat prominent individuals (Dr.'s, lawyers, polititians,,,etc) that have permits to carry.

Sure, it is public information, but don't these idiots realize, they just told every thug tuned into the news who they can rob for their next gun?!?!?!?!?!

I just hope some other yahoo doesn't decide to follow suit and start listing all permit holders. I live in somewhat a crappy part of town and I don't want any extra attention drawn to our home by the type of people that was just love to get that kind of information, but knows better than to walk into a police station or courthouse to get it.

H4444

[SiG Lady]

When is the media going to "get it", for pete's sake......?......

Can you (they) say discretion...? Obviously not.

[tightloop]

to almost quote Hillary,

It is a vast Left Wing Conspiracy...

[Zak Smith]

The local paper here has made a point of publishing the list of people with a carry permit in this county, for years.

Here's what I wrote in response the last time they did it (and it was published):

http://www.demigod.org/~zak/documents/real...-2-20-2000/html

Sent to the editor Feb. 22, 2000

Published Feb. 28, 2000

Bad Idea

Publishing a list of Larimer County concealed handgun permit holders was not only an invasion of privacy, but also irresponsible, undermining the benefit of concealed-carry permits, and putting both permit holders and the rest of the population at increased risk. Here's why:

One of the main advantages concealed carry permits is that the entire population enjoys a reduced violent crime rate if only a minute fraction, even 1/2%, of the population carries.

This communal benefit is only possible because a criminal does not know who is armed and who is not. Unfortunately, with a published list, this anonymity is removed, and an enterprising criminal now has a de-facto list of those not armed, namely, those not on the list.

Mr. Greiling alluded to another issue: increased danger to permit holders whose names were published. Of course, we understand that a criminal would be foolish to single one of us out for a personal, violent attack, however, many permit holders own more than one gun, and since guns aren't cheap ($400 to $700 is common), these permit holders are probably financially successful. Now your list becomes a veritable directory for criminals: If you wait until we're not home, you can steal firearms and other valuables from us. Why don't you just publish a map to my house?

In an apparent effort to stereotype permit holders, you mention that only 10% are women. If I were a woman, I would now be scared: any potential rapist now knows that there is a much lower chance that I am armed.

The recurrent theme of your articles, and Cherie Trine's quotes, is one of fear, that you "would want to know if a neighbor or co-worker is armed." I honestly don't know if you keep bringing this up out of a genuine misunderstanding or in an effort to portray a negative image of permit holders, and gun owners in general.

This fear is not grounded in reality. To obtain a concealed-carry permit, a person must pass both Colorado (CBI) and Federal (FBI) background checks, have no history of substance or alcohol abuse, no history of domestic violence, no history of mental problems, and no criminal record.

In short, just about the worst thing a person can do and still obtain a concealed-carry permit is drive too fast on the way to work! Concealed-carry permit holders are upstanding, law-abiding, level-headed members of the community.

Federal civil rights legislation forbids discrimination based upon race, creed, color, sex, age, religion, national or ethnic origin, physical or mental disability, and status as a Vietnam-era veteran. Since "gun owner" or "concealed-carry permit holder" is not one of these protected classes, you have opened the door for an employer to fire an employee because she has a carry permit.

Of course, whether or not you are allowed to carry at work is a term of employment -- a carry permit does not allow you to carry on company or private property if the owners don't want you to.

There is obviously more to the debate than "my right to know if my neighbor is armed" vs. "my right to privacy." It is imperative to understand that publishing the concealed-carry permit list can decrease the safety of our community, and endanger its individual members.

Another article, also published on February 20th, was titled, "No penalty for carrying gun on CSU campus." The whole idea of "gun-free" zones is ludicrous. The only effect such laws have is to disarm those legally carrying, and advertise to criminals: "If you want un-armed victims, come here." If a criminal is planning to rob, rape, or kill, he isn't going to care whether or not it's a gun-free zone!

The police have no duty to protect any individual citizen, it's been ruled over and over again in court cases. If a rapist or killer is attacking you, he isn't going to wait for you to dial "911". Each person is ultimately responsible for her own safety. Why are you promoting an anti-self-defense view?

-z

[kimel]

I may disagree with a LOT of the laws here in Washington State but at least they are smart enough to protect the privacy of permit holders.

Sometimes the freedom of speech and "right to know" gets carried a bit far. Something makes me think that the so-called "investigative reporters" that feel they need to publish this info might sing a different tune if they had permits. Of course, I am sure many of them do but they neglect to divulge that info.

[EricW]

The local paper here has made a point of publishing the list of people with a carry permit in this county, for years.

Gee, it just makes you want to start a website listing the name and address of every local media a-hole, their phone number, their driver's license number, momma's and granny's maiden names, their social security number, checking account number, where they work, when they leave in the morning, what time they get back, expensive items they might have lying around the house, the name of their dog....

Oh, and did I forget the webcam pointed at their house, so the local bad guys don't even have to do driveby's before ransacking their place?

Completely legal and completely wrong, but why let that get in the way?

[h4444]

To top it off,,,,what really tweaks my melon is mentioning the names had nothing to do with the rest of the story and they singled out what is essentially small business owners and politicians......essentially people who's livelihoods could be damaged by this.

They mentioned Dr's, Lawyers, and etc. These are people that make their living based on integrity (OK,,OK,,,,insert lawyer joke), and trust of their patients/customers.

Yeah Dr's and Lawyers make good money, but in many instances they are small businesses (relative to corporate America) unto themselves.

Sure lets sue the gun industry for because Jo A-hole kills someone and can't be held liable for his own actions,,,,,,but lets let the media get away with pulling this kind of crap that can impact people's livelihoods when they are breaking NO LAWS.

In my state the permit holder information is public record,,,,unless that is changed, the closest thing to being journalistically responsible would have been to mention where to find the information.

That wouldn't have bothered me as much because just how many criminals are going to march into the courthouse seeking this sort of information,,,,,,,,they seem to have an aversion to courthouses and such.

H4444