Washpost blog: "Your Neighbor's Gun" (Trejbal)

Status
Not open for further replies.

K-Romulus

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2003
Messages
1,146
Location
Somewhere in Monkey County, MD
Washpost blog: "Your Neighbor's Gun" (Trejbal story)

Rabid anti-gun-owner ("Total ban makes sense to me") and post columnist Marc Fisher has a blog on the Roanoke/Trejbal fiasco with VA CCW holders being outed.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/03/know_your_neighbors_who_has_a.html

Know Your Neighbors: Who Has A Gun Permit?

Roanoke Times editorial writer Christian Trejbal last week decided to celebrate Sunshine Week in Virginia by providing readers of his newspaper with the complete list of all their neighbors who hold permits to carry concealed weapons. Now there's a real public service; if your neighbor is prepared to shoot someone who attempts, say, to mug him, you'd certainly want to know about it.

Well, the ensuing howling was almost as big a riot as if Trejbal had tried to confiscate those guns himself. Readers went ballistic, so to speak. Folks threatened to cancel their subscriptions, demanded that the editorial writer be sacked, jumped up and down until the paper caved in entirely and stripped the database from its web site. (The paper fell back on the lame excuse that some of the names in its database should not have been there because those folks got their permits to carry as a result of having been victims of violent crimes; the reasoning is that such people have an extra special right and cause to carry concealed weapons and their names ought not be made public.)

Even that was not craven enough a response for the offended masses. Now there's a move to change Virginia law so that the public records showing who holds a permit to carry become un-public. So much for Sunshine Week.

Trejbal made no effort in his original piece to criticize the carrying concealed weapons law or permitting process. He simply did what any citizen can and should do--take existing public records and make them easily accessible. Just as newspapers like the Post have taken real estate records and put them on our web site so that readers don't have to troop down to the courthouse to check on the assessed value of the houses on their block, the Roanoke paper took an existing public database and made it readily available to the public. Nothing Trejbal did in any way changed the public nature of the list of gun permit holders; he simply removed an obstacle to easy checking of the list.

Trejbal knew from the start that some folks would not like their neighbors to know what they are carrying around with them. Maybe deep down, those people with carrying permits know that having that permit renders them dangerous and odd to many of their fellow citizens. Trejbal wrote at the very top of his first piece on the subject:

I can hear the shocked indignation of gun-toters already: It's nobody's business but mine if I want to pack heat.
Au contraire. Because the government handles the permitting, it is everyone's business.

The reaction was swift and wild. The very first commenter on the Times' site posted Trejbal's home address. So there! Trejbal calmly debated his readers, arguing that he was not making any comment on the gun law, just on the public information law and the need for citizens to lay claim to those sunshine rights.

The editorial writer did look into the impact that concealed carry laws have on crime rates. Checking FBI records, he found that overall violent crime rates are slightly lower in concealed carry states, but in some especially awful crime categories, rates are much higher in concealed carry states--for example, rape, aggravated assault, property crimes, burglarly and theft. But Trejbal didn't include any of that in his original piece because he was not aiming to criticize Virginia's gun law; rather, he only sought to celebrate the public information law.

Trejbal discovered that about 2 percent of Virginians hold concealed weapon permits. By listing all of those who lived in his paper's area, he allowed readers to make their own choices--some might feel safer knowing that the guy next door carries, while others might decide to ban their children from playing in a house where the parents are packing. Information is not the enemy--information is a tool. You can use it to argue your case, defend your rights, push for change or merely check up on the neighbor. (I'm waiting for publication of a database of who owns dogs that bark every morning at dawn--that way I won't ever again make the same mistake I made a few years ago, when I moved out of one house thrilled to get away from a nuisance dog, only to land at another location where a dog sometimes serves as our early morning alarm.)

It's terrific to see a newspaper serving its community by making public databases more open and available. I was disheartened to see the Roanoke paper back off so quickly. As the Internet has taught a new generation of readers, information wants to be free. That doesn't necessarily mean free of charge (Trejbal had to pay a fee to get the gun permit database and the Roanoke paper has to pay Trejbal's salary and the cost of putting the database on its web site), but it does mean freely and broadly available to all.

Of course, his blog allows comments, and many seem to be going Fisher's way . . .:what:
 
Last edited:
Here's A Crazy Idea!

If you want to know if your neighbor has a gun, go TALK TO THEM. I have no problem with people comming over and asking me about guns, heck, I'll even offer to take them to the range. But sneaking around and gathering intel off of some government registry seems more like digging up dirt than trying to be a good neighbor.

so come on......


Won't you be MY neighbor?:p
 
Won't you be MY neighbor?

So, umm, Fink? You a, yaknow, a gunowner or like that? ;)

...if your neighbor is prepared to shoot someone who attempts, say, to mug him, you'd certainly want to know about it.

Why, you planning to mug your neighbor?

But Trejbal didn't include any of that in his original piece because he was not aiming to criticize Virginia's gun law; rather, he only sought to celebrate the public information law.

I call BS.
 
I'd love it if, in response to this fiasco, the VA government changed their CCW law to match Vermont's. Once it's no longer a "public information" matter, their true colors will become more visible.

Not a likely scenario, but I'd be laughing my butt off.
 
Checking FBI records, he found that overall violent crime rates are slightly lower in concealed carry states
-------------------------------------------
Slightly???
Slightly, compared to where, what?
That's a rather vague statement. Is it based on a per capita rate?
That statement is so grey, it does'nt state anything as fact, just hyper-opinion. :fire:
 
Here's my response to Marc Fisher's Column on his blog:

Marc,

As usual, you get it wrong when it comes to firearms. It's known that you are anti-gun, so what I state here is probably going to fall on deaf ears, but I will write anyway in the hopes that you understand why some information should not be publicly accessible.

Mr. Trejbal and the editorial staff at the Roanoke Times took the occasion of this article to reveal the full names and HOME addresses of 135,789 Virginians who legally possess Concealed Handgun Permits (CHPs)while sanctimoniously equating these CHP licensees to sex offenders in regard to the level of danger they pose to the public.

Just in case you aren't aware, in order to get a CHP in VA, one must undergo safety training and provide proof of it, undergo an FBI and VA State background check, and in some jurisdictions be fingerprinted. CHP holders are probably the safest, most responsible people in VA. CHPs are acquired by retired police officers, active duty military, judges, prosecutors, civilians in hiding from abusive ex-spouses/ex-lovers, newly elected US Senators, and those Virginians wishing to carry a firearm for no other reason than general self-protection. The purpose of having a CHP is so that one can carry a handgun safely and discretely so one can effectively defend oneself against society's predators.

The Roanoke Times blew that out of the water by providing, on its website, a searchable database of ALL Virginia CHP licensees without regard to the licensees' safety or the safety of their families. The discretion promised by the permit is now completely blown. This list also establishes a "weapons shopping list" for criminals across the commonwealth and endangers public safety.

Mr. Trejbal's "Sunshine Week" article was sucessful in at least one way: it shed some light on how easy it is to abuse public information and what irresponsible, yellow journalism truly is.
 
Many on the left believe that gun owners have a "social disease." They may not own up to it but they believe it. Push 'em hard enough and they'll tell you.

Maybe that paper would like to publish a list of all known AIDS carriers in its area?
 
I reposted my reply to Mr. Trejbal in Fisher's blog as well (for all the good it'll do).

Mr. Trejbal,

A number of law abiding citizens go to a good deal of trouble and expense in order to obtain a concealed carry permit. This process is, in fact, considerably more involved than getting your drivers license (and if you think firearms are more dangerous than cars you really need to do some research). We could, quite legally, forgo that time, expense, and governmental investigation and simply open carry as we please. This is perfectly legal in Virginia.

So why do we bother with all of the hoop jumping?

Because "Bill of Rights" topics seem to get people worked up (on all sides of the matter). In consideration of that, some firearms owners prefer to be much more discreet in their actions. Also you may consider CCW permits as a compromise between those who believe in the Bill of Rights (especially the 2'nd Amendment) and those who think only duly authorized agents of the state should be armed. Isn't compromise supposed to be good?

It appears that you do not feel that compromise is good since your article simply blows the lid off of any attempt at discretion. You may truly believe that "the people have the right to know" but I have to ask you WHY do they need to know?

The people you have "uncovered" are law abiding citizens who have been "vetted" by the state via a background check, and who have spent their own precious time and money to go through an OPTIONAL (they could just open carry) process of training and authorization that is supposed to lessen tensions for everyone concerned. That these people have gone through all this bother AND PASSED should make you consider them MORE trustworthy not less.

That you don't understand this is, at best, terrible ignorance and at worst smacks of prejudice and yellow journalism.

Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons known to be gay? (people might want to know.) Would you post a list of names and addresses for persons returning from military service? (people might want to know). The point is that nobody, in any of the examples, has committed any crime so I wonder again WHY you would feel the need to spotlight any of them.
 
Many on the left believe that gun owners have a "social disease." They may not own up to it but they believe it. Push 'em hard enough and they'll tell you.

Maybe that paper would like to publish a list of all known AIDS carriers in its area?

Well, yeah, but everybody knows the Bush administration causes the spread of AIDS.
 
Trejbal knew from the start that some folks would not like their neighbors to know what they are carrying around with them. Maybe deep down, those people with carrying permits know that having that permit renders them dangerous and odd to many of their fellow citizens.
I think it helps my personal security considerably if people think I am dangerous.

Pilgrim
 
Maybe deep down, those people with carrying permits know that having that permit renders them...

a tempting target for burglars and in some cases abusive ex-spouses. What a moron.
 
What the Washington Post and Roanoke Times and other media fail to understand is that the Freedom of Information Act is in place to prevent the government from hiding it's activities. The FOIA is not there to shine daylight on the activities of individuals. That area is still covered by the Bill of Rights and common courtesy.

Some of these reporters would like every piece of information to be made public so that they have something to editorialize about.
 
What a strange fellow. I wonder who are all these 'many' people who consider me odd and dangerous if I carry a concealed weapon? Even more dangerous than I am already anyway... I don't happen to know of any but if he says they are out there than surely it must be at least him and one of his friends. Here is to inspiring fear 24/7....
 
Was that you, Mr. Hairless?

There was a very funny sardonic comment there, by "John" directed at "SUMB44":

"OF COURSE gun ownership is compensation for other shortcomings. My penis is rather large, but it still can't shoot a 165gr JHP at over 1000fps - that's what my HK is for."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top