You would be wrong, why don't you take a look at crimes that have been precipitated i the last two years where the target was obtaining the guns and ask the criminal where they accessed their information that there were guns in the home?

Stephen you are adorable, but you aren't any good at logic. You call it bullying when we do it, but these women voluntarily attached their names to the article and made it public record. Whats wrong with posting their personal facebook accounts or other personal information that they voluntarily made publicly available? Or if they are homeowners, their home addresses? After all, its public record. Sure, its not responsible to do so, but its public record so those posters @ iowaoutdoors are within their rights to post information. They are just acting as citizen journalists. Just like they chose to publish a list to merely harass those who wish to exercise their constitutional rights.

Alos, there is no post titled 'Revenge' - there never was. Their personal information is freely available by simply google it. Just like any gun thief could easily take the list you published, search them all at this website:

http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/web/inven/query/queryHome.html

Then go steal hundreds of guns from the homes of the gun owners listed on your page (or hopefully get shot trying).

I've been reading that thread on Iowaoutdoors since it was originally posted. There never was a post entitled 'revenge'- if there was, do you have a screenshot or any proof to back up your claims?

Interesting Stephen I see nothing of the sort labeled "Revenge". I see no bullying. I do see their name and contact information posted. However, how is that any different to what they have done to the permit holders?

I'm not going to threaten you I'm going to ask you if you were a Polk county resident and your name was not published why are you not outraged? This is putting the non-gun owners at risk as well.

I understand and respect the 1st amendment as well as the 2nd, what I do believe is that reporters have a duty to report responsibly, an article stating the numbers have gone up and that the permit holder information is public knowledge and can be obtained is about all that is needed. Publishing names and DOB is irresponsible, it makes those permit holders targets for burglary and home invasions as well as the non permit holders. If one crime was perpetrated from this list the responsibility for that crime is shared by those who published it. My children are often home after school alone, what if that burglar decided to take an afternoon stroll to my home? You have now put the lives of two children in direct danger. I could give more reasons for not publishing. However, I feel this is the strongest reason. Be responsible in your reporting and protect your customer/reader base and don't publish names of permit holders.

"Alos, there is no post titled 'Revenge' - there never was."

I was referring to a post on this site that was deleted. But nice try.

"Stephen you are adorable, but you aren't any good at logic. You call it bullying when we do it, but these women voluntarily attached their names to the article and made it public record. Whats wrong with posting their personal facebook accounts or other personal information that they voluntarily made publicly available? Or if they are homeowners, their home addresses? After all, its public record. Sure, its not responsible to do so, but its public record so those posters @ iowaoutdoors are within their rights to post information. They are just acting as citizen journalists. Just like they chose to publish a list to merely harass those who wish to exercise their constitutional rights."

You're right it is public record. But there is a difference between attaching a PDF to an article and singling two people out for retribution. I know I am not very good at logic, but I think I can figure out that much.

Also, if you want to pretend to be a citizen journalist, try being brave enough to use your real name. I know that makes Internet trolling harder, but...

@TWY

I find the privacy argument otherwise known as the "it's none any of your business if I own a gun or not" argument for not publishing these names compelling, and I'd be willing to not post based on that, but I'm not sure if I understand the safety argument you're making. How does this list of names put anyone in danger? You could get more information for a burglary from a phone book, except the phone book doesn't tell you that the homeowners have guns. Would this be a disincentive for a burglar to rob someone? How would they know you're gone during the day"

@Butthurtbasementdweller: Also, I could think of a lot of easier ways to steal guns than to comb a list of concealed carry permit holders and hope I catch them when they're not at home. Or, assuming that they somehow decide to follow through on this, and they wanted to go through the effort of masterminding this scheme, they could just go request the information themselves. If a no account rag like us can do it from the safety of our parents' basement, surely a brilliant criminal mind should be able to manage this much as well.

@TWY

The Revenge post I was referring to was deleted. I generally am a fairly good natured fellow so I assure you I would not get worked up for no reason. By the way for the record I am the editor of the Iowa City and Marion sites, so the decisions on this site are not mine. These two reporters, however, are my coworkers.

@Stephen,

Funny how in your last paragrahy you state "I am interested in hearing arguments for not posting them, and if I am convinced I won't post them on my site." making it sound like you have not posted them, yet you posted a mirror of this article for Linn County the day prior to this one, in a searchable non-PDF format and you have received Zero comments. Why do you think this is? Do you think you have less readers or it just hasn't been posted on another public forum for others to know about it? Lets give that a try for you, I will help with the shameless plug for your article...

http://marion.patch.com/articles/gun-permits-issued-in-linn-county-increase-again-in-february

2 observations here:

1) I don't see the journalistic value in including the list of names. To me, it appears sensationalistic and the article can stand on it's own without the list. I don't have a strong opinion regarding guns either way, so it's a complete outsider's view.

2) "Bully two WOMEN journalists". (Shudder). Why do you feel the need to call out their gender? Don't these women have journalistic integrity as individuals? Why feel the need to protect them just because they are women? Nobody would say that someone is bullying two MALE journalists. We women are strong and I'm sure they knew by writing this piece it would be highly controversial. Please don't under estimate our gender. We can take the heat.

That is all.

@Debby I regret the "women journalist" reference as it never was my intention to make it seem like they needed me to come to their defense. I reacted without them asking me to do it as I felt things were getting a little out of hand and I wanted to change the discussion back to civil grounds rather than having my coworkers be targets. You could argue, probably rightly so, that I could have done a better job of that, but that was my intent.

Incidentally, both women are much more dangerous than I am. One owns a Taser and has fired many a weapon, and the other has a mean swing with something called a grain shovel. I own none of these things, although I would like to try target shooting some day, as I covered a skeet shooting club once and it seemed interesting.

But anyway, if there's anyone at Iowa Patch who'd be easy to pick on, it'd be me. As the cliche goes, I'm a lover, not a fighter.

1. The PDFs aren't as search engine searchable as putting the text in a post, especially when accompanied by a link.

2. The names on the list were not singled out and there was no mention of malice towards any of them. In fact, there was no comment made about them at all, except that they applied for conceal carry permits. Whereas the two journalists were insulted and threatened, albeit fairly innocently by Internet standards. So no, I do not consider this a quid pro quo sort of exchange.

3. We are fans of capitalism here. In fact, if the Iowa Sportsman wants to pay money to advertise on this site, I would encourage them to do so, along with gun clubs, gun sellers, or anything else having to do with the second amendment. Or if you would like, feel free to just send us money.

Furthermore, if you or any other poster from the Iowa Sportsman wants to blog on our sites about guns, or if you can manage to comment on this article without threatening us or other posters, we'd be happy to have that, too. We appreciate all viewpoints here, I just draw a line at people who would try to bully my comrades, as I'm sure you would, as well.

@Nathan: As Deb said we tend to just post the information as we get it from the counties. I am interested though what level of information is too much? Do you mind if the names and the birthdays or released? Or just the names? Would there be a difference in your mind?

I am asking because for future reference I want to be consistent in my own decision making on my site. For example, birthdates and addresses are released on most police blotters that I've seen. I know that is a false equivalency since gun owners haven't committed a crime, but I'd think if you wanted to limit the information on gun permits, wouldn't you want the information limited on criminal complaints as well?

@butthurtbasementdweller

I think I can see your point on there not being a lot of public good that comes from posting the names, aside from informing the public who may be armed, which I imagine is the intention. I have posted the PDFs on my site but not publicized them much and they mostly pass without comment. I have yet to receive one complaint in fact. If it really bothers people I may stop posting on my own sites just out of a respect for their wishes.

Your nightmare scenarios are possible, but I'm not sure if we should make decisions based on nightmare scenarios: isn't that the sort of thing that drives 2nd Amendment defenders crazy when people do it to them? What I think should happen more often in the dialogue is to not to talk about nightmare scenarios as a basis to prohibit things, whether it be guns or free speech, but instead to talk about what we can do to minimize harm based on what is likely to happen.

@Stephen,

"Your nightmare scenarios are possible, but I'm not sure if we should make decisions based on nightmare scenarios: isn't that the sort of thing that drives 2nd Amendment defenders crazy when people do it to them?"

what drives a 2nd amendment defender crazy is when the nightmare scenario doesn't hold water, the argument to make guns harder (or illegal) for law abiding citizens to obtain will "fix" crimes is not historically accurate. If guns are not avaliable other means will be used to perpetrate the crime, or only the criminals will have the guns. Just like prohibition or making drugs illegal, or even better other countries that have banned guns crimes perpetrated by other means skyrocketed.

The nightmare scenario I describe below of someone targeting the home of someone named on this list, it is a real scenario not a nightmare or something dreamed up...you cannot deny that.

@TWY

So the following things will need to happen.

1. I have to be a criminal who wants to rob someone.
2. I have to be at the same time a reader of Urbandale Patch.
3. I have to come upon a gun permits list out of a list of all these articles and look at it and determine that gun ownership is a good indicator of wealth.
4. I would have to pick your name, at random, out of a list of 700 people in Polk County.
5. I would have to determine to look up your name on the Internet to find your phone number. Call you to find out in you are home. Go to your house. Scope your house out. Notice that there is a teenage girl in the house doing her homework but that's ok because I somehow know the gunowner is gone and the gun is not in the house.
6. I would then have to detemine that this is my moment of opportunity to strike in the middle of the day, all based on the premise that you aren't home with your gun.

I think this in theory could happen, but I'm not sure how the list being published makes it more likely to happen, except by somehow narrowing the list down to the 700 people for that month who happened to apply for gun permits, which I personally would think would be a disincentive. But then again I don't want to burglarize anyone's house so I can't be said to understand the criminal mind.

More likely to happen...is it easier to do a google search for "polk county concealed carry permits" and find an article that has published this information or is it easier to call up the sherrif's office and request this information? You tell me...I can have the results from google in sub-seconds...how long does it take to get the info from Polk or Linn county sherrif's office? See the logic in that?

@TWY

I can definitely understand and respect your fears as a parent, which is likely part of what led you to purchase a self defense weapon in the first place. So yes in a sense I definitely do understand the emotional basis of your argument, I just am still trying to understand the logical basis of it.

Actually my purchase of any hunting, target or self defense weapon(s) is always based in logic...

The logic for carrying a self defense weapon is simple, I cannot rely on others to protect me and my family that is my responsibility, Emotional logic: I would much rather have the burden of carrying a weapon and never needing it than have the heartache of needing it and not having it.

See despite what some may belive emotions can and do have logic sometimes very good logic. Emotion, passion, belifs morals although may not be understood by all does not negate their logical value...

@TWY I actually still see the comment from user Revenge in the comments queue, so I assure you it's still there. Their e-mail has something to do with the first amendment so apparently they have a sense of humor.

I can see your point about feeling exposed, but there is still the safety of being a member of a list of gun owners versus being singled out to an angry community as the two people who were responsible. Also, if you argue that putting a PDF up of 700 puts your family at risk, how can you possibly defend doing the same thing in retribution to two journalists, unless you somehow feel that an Eye for an Eye approach is justified.

I feel that you cannont stand behind the argument that its unfair to do it to me but I can do it to you. Its a good for the goose/gander argument, I say suck it up, if you don't want a community to be outraged and post the same information about you, don't do it to them...that was a easy solution...and a quite logical one in fact. Pretty sure I've had that conversation with elementarty students before...

Generally speaking, the person who is saying, “I would agree with you/support you/support your cause if you were nicer about it” has no intention of ever agreeing or supporting in any way. Admittedly, getting into motive is tricky, and I hate to say, “you know it when you see it,” but this is obviously going to be subject to interpretation. However, this argument often comes down not to, “I agree with you, but I think you could have phrased it better,” but, “I would agree with you if you phrased it better.” The fallacy is not objecting to wording but putting a price on agreement or support.

Apparently common sense isn't dead afterall!!!

Twy,

It existed but was in our moderation queue and was deleted before it was made live, I can track it down possibly and take a screen shot for you if you'd really like but that may not be possible in our CMS. Frankly, though, I'd rather move past that as I think I overreacted to that in the first place. Better to continue the civil discussion on both sides.

Speaking of civil discussion, I wanted to let you know that after talking with you and seeing reactions from other debaters on my site, I may decide to stop posting the gun permits altogether. More for privacy reasons than for safety reasons, but I'd rather make the visitors to my site feel like they are welcome no matter what their views are, so if this is a serious sticking point I'll take it into consideration.

Of course, HF81 might make all that a moot point, but we'll see about that. I wanted to get back to you and Mr. Butthurt, if he's still lurking around, to show that we do listen to what you're saying even if we don't always agree. Now I'll go back to my own site and stop trespassing on my Central Iowa neighbors' lawn.