After the horrifying Newtown incident a few months back, readers will recall (perhaps quite easily given the fact that it remains ongoing) the debate over gun control which arose. During the early days of that debate, a local New York newspaper took it upon itself to publish the names of local gun owners, presumably as a sort of public service. In an incident that was, perhaps, unconnected, a local gun owner was burglarized a short time later:
"Two handguns and two pistol permits were stolen from the New City home of a man whose name and address are listed on the website of a local newspaper as possessing gun permits, police said.
The thieves ransacked the house Wednesday night, breaking into two safes on the home's third floor and stealing a third safe. The guns were in the stolen safe, police said."
While police were careful to note that nothing in their investigation suggested that the publishing of names and the burglary were connected, it is also true that would be a fair assumption to make. If true, that would place the situation firmly in the realm of the law of unintended consequences. That is, of course, unless one believes the consequences were intended...
Of course that would almost be too sinister to contemplate as it would assume that the editors of the paper wished ill upon the gun owners whose names it published. In an even more sinister logical connection, it would assume directly that the intent of the publishers was to have the gun owners be burgled...with the fruits of those burglaries being used in a violent manner...which would cause people to dislike guns more... No one could possibly want all that. Especially in the non-partisan media. Right?
No comments:
Post a Comment