ETA: I wrote this just before the thread was locked, but didn't get a chance to post it back then. I wish I had, since I thought it had some nice Christmas-y thoughts.
I'm not Christian, but knowing American culture, I'm going to make the assumption (dangerous, I know) that many gun enthusiasts are.
I had a girlfriend who was Catholic whose mother was abusive. Although I'm not Catholic, when my girlfriend was institutionalized after a suicide attempt, I prayed on the rosary she'd given me, which had belonged to her grandmother, hoping it might help bring her back safely.
I didn't become a believer, but the words that stayed with me were from the Lord's Prayer: "forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us."
I can't help but look at the religious right, at the gun nuts, at the many people in this country who are Christian and yet who are so quick to turn to violence, whether real or imagined, and wonder where along the way this sentiment was lost for them.
Guns and violence won't save the world, even if they're necessary sometimes.
It's mercy and sympathy that will save the world. Or else, without them, I don't know if the world would be worth saving.
Thank you, kuwisdelu. That's both true and moving.
Next, on the subject of the published list of gun owners, I can't help but be struck by the eruption of outrage at people having their IDs published, when public mouthpieces against gun regulation have been calling very loudly for a public, government-run registry of the mentally ill.
So let me see if I'm following along here on the logic of the issue: Are we to understand that maintaining accessible lists of people's personal contact information is cool if the people are mentally ill, but it's not okay for people who own guns? So, it's okay for the government to track people the gun lobbies tell them to so we can all know if those people are around us, but if the government track gun owners and someone disseminates that information, that's a police state and an invasion of privacy? I see...
Also, are we to understand that the public being told a person has a gun, puts that person at risk? But... isn't that what the gun is for in the first place, to protect them from risk? So what are they worried about? Haven't we just spent all this time since Newtown being told that, if criminals know you have a gun, they'll be less likely to attack you? But now that this paper just said "all these people have guns" now those people are at greater risk from criminals who may come and steal their guns??? Mm-hmm...okay...
Finally, in reference to who is to blame for publishing this information: It's called the Freedom of Information Act, and it is intended precisely to allow private citizens and the media to gain access to information held by the government. It strikes me as yet another point of irony that members of the same group that rails against government secrecy and lack of transparency as evidence of tyranny are now miffed by the exercise of one of the very laws that protects us against that very kind of tyranny. For real, there's no pleasing some people.
Now, myself, personally, I probably would have printed only a list of neighborhoods while keeping the map with the dots of precise locations, rather than print the full names and addresses. Make it be a 2-step process to see the more detailed info. But that would only have been a symbolic courtesy. We can assume the vast majority of people would be too lazy to see the map and the generalized list and put the two together. However, the specific details are right there to be requested by anyone, so meh. If there is someone out there who wants to give a hard time to gun owners, they could just as easily file the same info request this paper did. The gun owners are barking up the wrong tree by blaming this paper for exposing them, in my opinion. To be honest, I'm surprised these people didn't know their information was a matter a government record available for public inspection under the FOIA.