Ex-burglars weigh in on posting gun owners names online

[gulfwarsubvet]

Excellent.
One ex-burglar, who stole an estimated 60-70 million in the 60s and 70s, calls the newspapers decision "exceptionally stupid".
Two explain exactly how having a list like this is gold.
They said the newspaper did a great service to their old buddies.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/0...wouldve-made-job-easier-safer/?intcmp=related

 

[Privateer]

That kind of sums up that side of the problem (theft of firearms and potential for armed response to burglary). How does this not occure to the idiots at that paper after applying a modicum of critical thinking. Oh wait ...........

 

[Joseph87']

That whole story was awfully stupid. This is just one reason why ..

 

[2nd=Good+Substantial]

These burglars, as have other crimminals, admitted the fear of encountering an armed homeowner has a deterring affect. The paper's actions endanger people across the board.

1) The named gun owner may be targeted as others have mentioned. I'd hate to have that encounter or lose my property if I wasn't home.

2) The unnamed and presumably unarmed home may be targeted. Prior to the map, they enjoyed the free benefit of deterence because they "might" be armed. I wouldn't wish a burglary on anyone but if the homeowner happens to be strident anti 2A they might get a taste of their unarmed utopia.

3) Stolen guns will wind up in crimminal hands. I'm not real concerned if gang bangers want to eliminate each other but I wouldn't want innocent bystanders to be injured or killed.

It's great these idiots feel they can pick the ammendment they like (i.e. First) to further their agenda against one they don't appreciate.

Incidentally, I thought it was great that Fox News pointed out the irony of the paper hiring armed guards.

 

[FrankOceanXray]

It's a win win for the reporter scum.

Guns get stolen. Gun owners get hassled. Guns show up at crime scenes and they say ah-ha, another reason we should not have guns. Guns recovered as evidence, guns are destroyed. Guns are written about how they killed babies.

It fuels their fire. They are ignorant but not stupid.

 

[K31]

Yeah, these same heroes just hired armed guards to protect them. "Ok for me but not for thee" All these hypocrites are the same.

 

[Hol3shot]

So why weren't those same guns and valuables secured in safes?

We have to take responsibility as gun owners at some point. If you don't have an alarm, a safe, homeowners rider, or some other protection plan to mitigate theft, then that is on you.

Just my personal opinion.

More of a devil's advocate position. But I know from my ex's old Father in law, that he told me what they look for, and it isn't hard to protect yourself if you put in some forethought.

It still doesn't make it RIGHT, but the reality is, the easier you make it for them, the easier a target you are.

 

[K31]

So why weren't those same guns and valuables secured in safes?

We have to take responsibility as gun owners at some point. If you don't have an alarm, a safe, homeowners rider, or some other protection plan to mitigate theft, then that is on you.

Just my personal opinion.

Sorry, but this is like the newspaper publishing the names of young attractive women who live alone and saying they should all have burglar alarms and safe rooms.

Plus it ignores the main point of the article, that it put non-gunowners at risk as well as gunowners.

Most residential safes won't deter a burglar like the one quoted in the article. There have been many threads on this before. That's not to say that you shouldn't have what protection you can afford.

A firearm that is locked away all the time and is intended for home defense is also of little value. Some people may lock them in easily accessible "safes" that are usually even less secure than full size residential safes.

There are people who can afford neither but still want or need protection.

The newspaper claims it published these names and addresses because it want to "stimulate" discussion on the issue. The real reason in my opinion is they thought they could shame and punish people for exercising their rights and they are contemptible and hypocrites. No amount of blaming the victim is going to change that.

 

[2nd=Good+Substantial]

... The newspaper claims it published these names and addresses because it want to "stimulate" discussion on the issue. The real real in my opinion is they thought they could shame and punish people for exercising their rights and they are contemptible and hypocrites. No amount of blaming the victim is going to change that.

Agreed!

 

[Soda]

The first homeowner on that map, whether they have guns or not, should sue the crap out of that paper and the paper's parent company for making them a target.

 

[MaxVO2]

I wonder how many "ex" burglars reading these lists of handgun owners will come out of retirement to make some extra cash breaking into unarmed residences?

I agree that the first person burglarized could have a case against the paper if they chose to pursue it. Getting a conviction would probably be difficult due to freedom of the press, etc.. but it would be interesting to see how the case would work out.

 

[CATMdude]

They might have a decent chance in civil court if:
1. Burglar is caught.
2. Burglar confesses.
3. Burglar indicates in confession that he used the article as intel.

Or:
1. Burglar is caught.
2. Burglar has list in possession.

 

[Blaster229]

Posted on Facebook.

 

[jkray]

I wonder how many "ex" burglars reading these lists of handgun owners will come out of retirement to make some extra cash breaking into unarmed residences?

I agree that the first person burglarized could have a case against the paper if they chose to pursue it. Getting a conviction would probably be difficult due to freedom of the press, etc.. but it would be interesting to see how the case would work out.

Im not sure about the bolded. Don't we all say that your rights to free speach end where they impact/negativley affect my life, liberty and my property?