And some of the consequences of publication were foreseeable.

She's lucky not to be sued for the damages she's caused.

...in an attempted burglary allegedly facilitated by the publication of their address.

Damages.

So it could be won.

In any event, case or no case, publication and distribution of this information, especially in the form of a map, is behavior that could reasonably be expected to lead to some crime.

Just the same as if all coin collectors' or gold owners' assets and addresses were published in a searchable Google map, one can imagine that people would use that to identify targets for burglaries.

It seems pretty self-evident.

There were red dots on houses where the occupants did not own any guns at all.

there still has to be evidence of some wrongdoing that resulted in harm in order to state a cognizable legal cause of action. I don't know what cause of action that would be. And no, it's not self-evident.

But I would remind them that the map also shows who does not own firearms. A criminal planning a home invasion might pick his target off the map and few criminals wish to encounter an armed home owner.

Of course, that decision should be made by homeowners and not by journalists.

No dog I owned was all that aggressive but people do stupid things around a dog and sometimes they get bit. I decided it might be wise to post my yard for that reason.

When the last dog I owned died of old age, I found the sign still worked.

because that happened once - the family had several guns.
Caught the boys oogling them one day, he never was allowed to be in that home again.

I almost had a heart attack when I looked in the window and saw them scurrying to put them back
in the useless hiding place.

At least with the GOP it does.

Keep them ignorant of things and they'll always be safe from everything that might harm them, right.

I bet you want them to learn all about climate change, a woman's right to choose, evolution and all other things related to the constitution and science. But stay totally in the dark about firearms?

Nice solution.

It's your choice, I chose differently with my own children and grandchildren when it was age appropriate.

that says guns in homes with minor children have to be locked up or disabled from firing.

It is poor parenting when kids find guns in dresser drawers or closets.

That being said, it is often the friends of the children who live in homes with guns who are the ones who wish to 'play' with them.

I obviously do not know how old your children are or where you live, but once they are 12 to 14 years old, I suggest you enroll them in a gun safety course. Everyone should know enough about guns to be able to know what is going on if they ever happen to be in the presence of a gun. For instance, if one of their friends brought out a gun, your kid would know enough to tell them to point it in a safe direction, and to put the gun away. They would also know that removing the magazine from a semi-auto gun does not mean it is unloaded.

avoiding that house after the demonstration of irresponsibility was a reasonable call. I would echo the comments of others though, that it illustrates the value of some very basic firearm education even for non-gun-owning kids, in case they find themselves in that situation and for whatever reason choose not to leave.

There's an approximately 0% chance that children will visit my house (I have no kids), but if some parent tells me that they don't allow their kids to go to gun owning households I'll happily facilitate that (although mine are secure enough for the prowling curious child)...

their children go to homes with guns is that I am confident that many times they are unaware there are guns in the home.

It was never a problem for my home. I have a gun safe and that's where the guns are. Most of the neighbors with children who were my childrens' friends also had guns in the home as well, so it was not an issue. My SIL used to do at home daycare with a gunsafe full of guns in their home. If the guns in the home are not locked up, then there is a problem.

However, I am not bothered too much that this editor has lost her newspaper job.

Maybe Bloomberg will hire her to sweep his offices?

Bored on a Saturday night and decided to resurrect some old threads with pointless comments I see.

Had she put proper ethics ahead of grinding a PERSONAL AXE against a large number of innocent people...

Maybe she can drive Bloomberg's bus around now? The assholes in this whole episode are now out of work... very nice result!