Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

The Roanoke Times apologizes

Discussion in 'Glockers of the Old Dominion' started by TScottW99, Mar 26, 2007.

  1. TScottW99

    TScottW99 NRA Life Member

    Jul 15, 2002
    Roanoke, VA
    The Roanoke Times apologizes

    Lessons learned in database incident
    More discussion and thought should have gone into the decision to publish a database of concealed carry holders in the state.

    We heard from literally thousands of people after our decision two weeks ago to post an online database of people in the state permitted to carry concealed handguns. Many people presented rational objections.

    Many others responded with personal threats of violence and acts of intimidation -- responses we declined to publish.

    The difficulty we've faced since is how to respond to the rational objections without validating the abusive tactics and attacks waged against this newspaper and the columnist who wrote a piece linked to the database.

    Amid the firestorm of criticism, we've re-examined our decision-making process and reflected on the valid criticisms.

    We've come to some conclusions.

    First, we had a legal right to post the database. These were public records, legally obtained.

    In some journalistic circles, that would be enough. The Washington Post's Marc Fisher praised the decision to post the information and accused The Roanoke Times of caving in to criticism when we decided to pull the database.

    But upon reflection, we wish we had more fully discussed the potential ramifications before we made this decision. Dozens of concealed permit holders expressed heartfelt fear because of the exposure of what they believed was private information.

    We gave insufficient thought and discussion to the potential that crime victims, law enforcement officers and domestic violence victims might be put at risk if their addresses were published.

    Though many of our critics believe that the database handed burglars a shopping list of households with guns and abusers a list of their victims, no one can point to a single incident where similar publications led to a crime.

    But we didn't know that until after the database was published. The potential for harm is something we should have given far greater thought to in making the decision.

    For our failure to do so, The Roanoke Times apologizes.

    We also regret that there was not a more compelling public purpose -- beyond illustrating how the Freedom of Information Act works -- behind the decision to post the database.

    There are vital reasons these records should remain open.

    But those reasons were not well illuminated -- or even particularly well served -- by the publication of the entire database.

    The public should be able to monitor how well various jurisdictions screen concealed carry applicants.

    So, yes, we made mistakes. The process for vetting this decision was not as thorough as it should have been.

    Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible.

    It was extremely important that we not allow the unacceptable antics of the fringe to distract us from a careful examination of our own decision-making.

    We want to assure our readers that, where we erred, we will strive not to repeat our mistakes. And we will continue to advocate passionately for the free flow of information that is the lifeblood of an open society.
  2. LittleLebowski

    LittleLebowski Urban Achiever!

    Mar 25, 2005
    Northern VA (WY native)
    I note Trejbal didn't write that. Not exactly what I'd call an apology.

  3. iiibbb


    Jun 1, 2004
    It was public information before.

    Again, I don't care if people know I have a permit... but I've never been keen on online parings of my name and address, especially with something controversial.

    All things considered, this article is a reasonable response to the controversy.

    It's a shame people had to threaten the guy. We should've kept the high ground.
  4. Bonk

    Bonk Millennium Member

    Nov 8, 1999
    Those mistakes, though, in no way justify the outrageous and threatening nature of much of the response. Very early on, a rational discussion of this issue became all but impossible.

    Oh BS. I read almost all of the 400+ of the responses on the RT's website (a waste of a few hours, admittedly), and only a tiny handful were even close to threatening. Most of them were exceedingly polite, indignant perhaps but still polite, and far more polite than that cretin they call an editorial writer deserves.
  5. Hunterjbb


    Feb 7, 2003
    Midlothian Va.
    Perception is in the eye of the beholder.. I read a great many of them and i'd agree the vast majority were not inflamtory at all, however that's you and i reading them, not a "journalist". Evidently they read things differently then "normal" folk..

    There were some downright stupid responses and although the pro gun folks had the initiative there's always a few.. and it was squandered.. in my opinion.. Hey at least they stepped up a little and apologized..

    I would hope that this leads to the list being restricted to some degree..

  6. sigpro357


    Apr 9, 2002
    Someone would be a fool to make threats against them on the internet. It's very easy to trace IP adresses servers etc, and locate where a threat is originiated. I would bet any threats they got were via the mail or phone calls.
  7. MrWithasee

    MrWithasee Not playing

    Nov 9, 2005
    That was the crappiest "apology" I've heard in quite some time. He might as well have said

    "We are sorry that you did not like what we did, but we'd do it again if we thought we might get away with it."