In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting and the huge uptick in gun and ammunition sales, a New York newspaper, the Journal News, compiled a list of all the registered gun owners in several counties and created an interactive map showing where gun owners lived. Their readers are "understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods,” the paper's editors told ABC News. And it's within their rights to know who has registered gun permits—it's public information, available to anyone smart enough to file a public records request. In response, gun owners went apeshit in the comments:
“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote one commenter, George Thompson.
"I'm for your idea. Lets see how those dots move once that information is published. I can't believe these a$$hats published this info. Clean up your hardware, stock up on ammo. It may turn out to be handy, just sit there and wait for the libs to show up. Like shooting fish in a barrel," wrote Pamela Thomas Hickey, in response.
Maps like this are a smart idea—it's putting power back in neighborhoods, creating another tool that communities can use to apply social pressure to gun owners even as politicians hash through tricky legislative conversations on gun control. Nothing is more powerful or direct than a polite conversation between neighbors.
But it also underscores the biggest hurdle for gun control proponents: Gun owners, like Christians, thrive on their own fictionalized victimhood. They're itching for any opportunity to feel oppressed and subjugated because it justifies their arsenals. This simple map does just that—transforms them into helplessly armed sitting ducks waiting for the armies of (unarmed) liberals storming their houses looking to replace their guns with daisies (or whateverthefuck).
Imagine having a conversation about gun control with someone like that—a person who continuously brays about their Constitutional right to cultivate closet arsenals but, of course, condemns a newspaper's Constitutional right to publish that publicly accessed information, and then responds with threats of violence.