The freedom of the press is a very sacred thing. Our founding fathers saw fit to protect the profession of journalism like none other, to ensure that the truth, no matter the cost, would be accessible.

And yet one Des Moines newspaper, Cityview, decided to abuse that freedom by publishing a list of all roughly 5,200 legal Carrying a Concealed Weapon (CCW) permit-holders.

To begin, if it is a public service, where are other such lists of issues more pressing to the public’s concern? Lists of registered sex offenders, lists of people whose licenses were revoked due to OWIs? Just as the names of CCW-holders are public information, so is other, more pertinent, information.

The people on the list are no threat. Their backgrounds are already checked out; they’ve been cleared to possess firearms.

Honestly, I struggle to determine why this list, reported by Jared Curtis, was published in the first place. It seems like intimidation to me, as if those who wish to be clandestine about possessing firearms should be utterly thwarted by having their names published.

This is irksome because it goes against the very motivation of having a concealed weapon: not having anyone know. The plan is not to show people your awesome new Glock, but to never have to wish you had it when it’s needed.

I can see possible points from Curtis’s side, such as: Since those people on the list chose to procure firearms legally, they should have no problem with the legal divulgence of their full names.

Perhaps most distressing is the fact that no open discourse has come about as a result of this. I am aware of two individuals who left comments on Cityview’s Facebook page, and yet the paper has taken them down. Where Mr. Curtis may have had a chance to explain his rationale, there is only silence. Cityview’s website is also without comment, yet for some reason the banner ads I saw were for CCW permits. Who knew?

Frankly, I’m tired of the scorn heaped upon gun owners.

I can state the case no more clearly; a criminal has no concern for lawful possession of a gun.

The mentality that any sensible person has about a gun is that it serves not only as a weapon, but also as a deterrent. The hope is that those who wish to cause harm may reconsider when aware that a firearm is in the equation. If they do not, the gun’s second purpose is to stop them.

A belief that fewer guns or even none at all will somehow make our streets safer is shortsighted at best.

This being said, I don’t get the vibe from Curtis’s article that he wants to rid us of guns, or even that he’s anti-firearm. He actually does a good job of leaving comment out of the article and simply reporting the figures, without letting us know where he stands on the issue.

But until Curtis or Cityview defend their reasoning, people will misunderstand whatever point they wanted to make.

And the only conclusion that I can reach until then will be that a free press is meant to defend against tyranny, not to propagate it.