Handgun-owners map draws outrage

[UnrepentantLiberal]

An interactive map showing the names and addresses of all handgun permit-holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties has drawn a response from mostly disgruntled readers since it was posted Saturday on a newspaper's website.

The interactive map published by the Journal News, prompting more than 1,300 comments as of Tuesday, allows readers to zoom in on red dots that indicate which residents are licensed to own pistols or revolvers.

"So should we start wearing yellow Stars of David so the general public can be aware of who we are??" wrote one commenter.

Some of those responding threatened to cancel their subscriptions or boycott the publication completely.

More: http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html?c=us

[ZombieHorde]

1. I don't own a gun, I don't see how that is anyone's bussiness.

A map that shows the addresses of hand-gun permit holders also shows the addresses of folks who are not hand-gun permit holders. The fact that I don't like guns is my own business.

Note: I am talking about my tastes, and not the law. I don't think the paper did anything illegal, they just did something I don't like.

[elehhhhna]

26. agree 100% and people aren't mentionig that

creeps break into houses to steal guns. Nothing appropriate about this at all. As long as ownership is LEGAL, there should be an expectation of privacy.

[Skittles]

128. I agree

[MrModerate]

12. Standard gun-lubber pablum.

Things that aren't equivalent can't be made so just because you're pissed off. Sorry about that.

[geckosfeet]

32. What? Because people own a gun they lose their right to privacy?

Are you sneerious?

[Capt. Obvious]

52. What? Because someone registers to vote they lose their right to privacy?

What? Because someone signs a petition they lose their right to privacy?

What? Because *insert any multitude of actions that puts your name on the public record*

[geckosfeet]

74. Please note that publishing the address of guns for thieves to target puts lives

at risk. Thieves who steal guns use them in crimes. Maybe a crime that will be committed against me, or you. Not to mention that the homeowners safety has been compromised.

Publishing this list is moronic. You think this is funny, justifiable and reasonable. I don't.

[Confusious]

77. You know, I've seen two arguments about this

Not that I agree with publishing names, it serves no purpose.

The first argument is that people with guns will be targets for criminals wanting the guns.

The second is that people who don't have guns will be the target.

So in the end, going by the arguments, it doesn't make any difference if you have a gun, you'll be a target.

[Capt. Obvious]

83. That's why everyone needs guns!

[geckosfeet]

88. Less chance of being a target for gun theft if your address isn't published in newspaper.

[Confusious]

89. Since you apparently didn't get the point

going by the arguments, it doesn't make any difference if you have a gun, you'll be a target.

You'll probably be MORE of a target if you have a gun.

[Capt. Obvious]

82. Heavens to betsy

Criminals don't know how to access public information?

[geckosfeet]

87. The average street thug or crack head? You must be kidding.

Perhaps a more sophisticated criminal. But they probably would not take the chance of breaking onto a home for a gun.

[Capt. Obvious]

101. The average street thug or crack head

must have internet access and uses it to further their crime sprees.

Makes sense.

[CTyankee]

91. by your own reckoning you are implicitly saying that gun ownership feeds crime.

I find that amusing, from a gunners perspective. If anything, I would think you would want to de-emphasize that point or not mention it at all.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

71. I love that it makes the gun nuts so uncomfortable

It warms my heart on a cold winter day.

[NutmegYankee]

90. It makes regular people uncomfortable also

I could pick any trait and start making searchable maps. It's wrong to call attention to people who have committed no crime.

[CTyankee]

94. It is a public service. If I were the parent of a young child, I sure would like to know who has

a gun on my street! That way, I would be able to tell my child he/she is not permitted to go into that house (and why) and the playmate who lives there would have to come to mine.

How would I know whether or not my neighbor's guns were securely stored? I couldn't go to their front door and demand that information. How do I know if there was somebody living there who had mental health issues or a drinking problem that led to drunken rages? The thought just terrifies me.

The newspaper never said anyone committed a crime, it was simply pointing out that guns had been registered under that homeowners names. If the gun is now gone, the homeowner can share that information one on one with their neighbors. This is called taking responsibility like a big grownup.

[NutmegYankee]

102. And it doesn't specifcally say if there is a handgun present

Only that the owner applied for a handgun permit. Shotguns and rifles are not tracked by this database, and those are just as deadly. And unlike a handgun, a rifle is harder to store securely. A simple inexpensive safe is all a handgun requires.

The paranoia you give off regarding handguns is a bit over the top. Just ask the owner if they have secured their guns securely (which is CT state law) and if so let your child visit his/her friends. I grew up with guns in the home (secured) and can't understand how people want to issue scarlet letters over this.

Frankly, the government has no business releasing this kind of information. It violates a fundamental privacy. Just imagine if the newspaper had published the address of every gay couple. The fundies would be all supportive. Releasing this info was wrong.

[CTyankee]

109. First of all, my "paranoia" is to me a "wise fear" because the gun violence due to handguns is

much greater than with long guns. So right there, is a good argument not based in paranoia.

Second, while I probably would ask my neighbor if their weapon was secured, if I knew about it in the first place (which I probably wouldn't without the publication of this public information) I very much doubt anyone wants to go marching door to door, clipboard in hand, surveying neighbors whether or not they have a gun in the house before allowing their child to play there. Sure, if they had volunteered that info such as in a conversation about a hunting trip they were going on. But other than that, what do I do? What you are saying is "trust" them with my child's safety. If that's good enough for you, then I tremble for you at best. But my child's safety is called good parenting...

As for gay couples, there is no public safety issue involved, so why would I want to ferret out information about their status. Other than new marriage licenses what would be the safety issue involved that would rise to the level of concern about gun violence in this country?

[NutmegYankee]

111. If you say so...

I've had someone ask me if I owned guns and I responded that they were securely locked away in a proper safe. Sometimes it does get asked. My Republican neighbors across the street are very anti-gun and the mother was concerned. And then there are the other dangers that are scattered about. One neighbor has swords on display throughout the house, some of which are quite sharp. I consider those to be a greater hazard as they are not locked and it is likely for a child to imitate some game move and hurt someone by accident.

Do I think your fear is justification to publish the address and names of anyone who might own handguns on a searchable map - NO! Would you want a searchable map posted with you on it?

[CTyankee]

112. I can't imagine what such a searchable map on me would be unless it is how I am registered to

vote, which I don't hear anybody squawking about, and isn't a matter of public safety anyway. Guns are very different.

As for gay people, again I can't fathom what searchable info would be available. Maybe recent marriage licenses but not not if someone was married previously to moving there from another state. And anyway, what is the public safety issue with gay people living in a house together? Or unmarried heterosexuals?

As for swords, yes, I would have an issue with them being displayed in a house where my child played. But they would be obviously there (you said "displayed'). I would probably ask how they were secured in their display case, yes.

The key words here are PUBLIC SAFETY.

[NutmegYankee]

116. Proving that everyone will find a way to justify/rationalize their biases.

Riddle me this: Why is there no searchable list of people suffering from diseases that can be spread? It sounds like you would support it in the name of PUBLIC SAFETY.

I don't condone such a list, but want your take.

[CTyankee]

123. Public Health is a different issue than Public Safety.

And indeed, there have been such things as quarantines, which is about the closest thing to what you probably mean.

Here is a thoughtful piece on modern thinking about quarantine policy, which I urge you to read: http://www.fpif.org/articles/a_global_public_health_policy_based_on_science_not_demagoguery

I think you will find this helpful when considering public policy issues, of which gun proliferation in our society is certainly one.

[derby378]

142. I figured you'd have learned your lesson about privacy after the Bush/Cheney years

But since you didn't, people like me are going to keep on keepin' on until you do.

[CTyankee]

145. Yeah, the safety of my kids. I'm crazy that way...

[calimary]

151. I'm truly torn by this, but I find that I still keep coming back to what you're saying.

I'd be SERIOUSLY nervous if I knew my young children were over at another kid's house where there were guns. I don't think I'd want my kids over there. Mine are all grown up now, so it's past that time for me. But we've had WAY too many tragedies in which presumably responsible, law-abiding citizens don't keep their guns completely safe and hidden from curious children's prying eyes and searching fingers. Kids can wriggle their way into all kinds of places where they're not supposed to go, and where they're not supposed to know about it. Some kids know where their parents keep those guns because maybe they go out to target practice together - and what's to stop one of those kids from saying to their friends - "hey! C'm here! SHHHHHH!!! Don't tell anybody... You wanna see something REEEEEEEALLLY COOL?!?!?!!!!!" And then we have another one of those horrible nightmare family tragedies. You KNOW that kind of thing happens. How many times have we seen stories like this in the news, where it was just one really terrible mistake?
We've seen WAY too much of that. Hell, the mother of that nutcase in Newtown CT was a responsible, law-abiding citizen, too. Those were HER guns. Including that dreaded bushmaster (WHY???? WHY ON EARTH would she want such a thing in her home - under ANY circumstances????). How'd that work out for her - OR for any of the other grieving parents in that town now?

I'm really torn.

I completely understand and support privacy rights. I truly do.

But as someone who does NOT believe the answer to the gun problem is more guns in more hands, or that any Tom Dick and Harry is entitled to have free and unfettered access to any kinds of guns they want, for WHATEVER reason, I think I'd actually appreciate knowing who's got guns in my neighborhood. I would want to avoid them. I would not want to go into the house of somebody who had guns - knowing what could happen in a random or uncontrolled moment of madness - or of negligence or carelessness. ONE moment like that is all it takes.

So I'm torn.

You know how your first reaction tends to be the real one for you - it's always tell-tale. Well, this one's mine. The first time I heard about it, my immediate reaction was - "GOOD!"

And yet the right to privacy is also a key right that I recognize and greatly appreciate. I certainly demand it when it comes to MY body and a woman's right to choose.

I'm seriously torn. This is a difficult one. I don't know which side I'd take on this one.

[CTyankee]

158. This is personal for me. My neice was shot and killed by her stepgrandfather. He was

that "law abiding gun owner" who happened to have a drinking problem along with the gun he kept for "personal safety and home security." She was there to help care for her grandmother who was dying of cancer. The man shot her, her mom and grandmother then turned the gun on himself. One murder, two gunshot wounds, one suicide.

I told my story here on DU a few years ago only to have one gunner challenge my veracity. I ended up telling him he could read all about it in the Dallas Morning News and gave him the exact date of the crime. That's when I got a taste of how callous these people could be.

Oh, and I truly wonder how much the true believers in gun privacy would stand up for the privacy of your or my daughters/granddaughters reproductive rights. I wonder.

[calimary]

159. We had a friend who grew up on a ranch out in the country, where there was hunting and fishing

and lots of wilderness. Guns, rifles, and other firearms were commonplace in that community and perceived as "needed" - for food, for varmint hunting, homestead protection, etc. Widely accepted. Everybody in the county had 'em and used 'em routinely. She and her nephew both grew up handling and using guns, they'd had training, they had years of experience, they were responsible citizens. They worked together and traveled together and were very close. She mentored him. They were in many ways best friends. We loved them both, and my son was particularly attached to both of them. They were both good, ethical, moral, spiritual, intelligent, emotionally and mentally stable, trustworthy, kind, generous, inclusive, all those good things.

And one day, they had a really intense argument. I got a phone call from a mutual friend who'd been like a sister to the woman. They'd grown up together. She'd just learned that our friend had shot her nephew to death, and then turned the gun on herself. I felt as though I'd been kicked in the stomach. It was a HUGE blow to my son. He was stunned by this, shocked, horrified, bewildered, shattered, utterly sucker-punched by this. Took him about a year to get over it. Those of us who knew her NEVER saw anything like this coming, never even a hint that something like this was even feasible in her mind. She counseled people in emotional turmoil, forcryingoutloud!

My other brush with gun tragedy involved a girl with whom I went to high school. She had three brothers. They lived near us. One day all three boys went out to a well-appointed, well-supervised professional gun range on the outskirts of town together. Two of them returned. The other one had been shot to death. It was one of their own bullets - that ricocheted in the absolutely horribly wrong direction. COULD YOU IMAGINE??????? I just couldn't even imagine going through that! Can you just even wrap your brain around how devastating that would feel? I don't know that I could ever get over it. When I heard about it many years later, I suddenly came to understand why my schoolmate was SO withdrawn, SO quiet. Kept to herself. Never invited anyone over. Never socialized. Her mom was kindly enough but also withdrawn. That family was SERIOUSLY AND PERMANENTLY DAMAGED. Hell, they almost literally closed down. They were never the same.

So, CTyankee, it's personal for me, too.

[CTyankee]

160. Thank you for sharing your story of loss.

A while back I considered an effort to have a survivor's of gun violence group here at DU but was told, even by those sympathetic to gun control, that there was no help for it, nothing we could do, etc.

That strikes me as odd.

[Fawke Em]

104. But only "traits" that require public registration are searchable.

People don't use taxpayer dollars for the registration of AIDS or ADD or hair color.

[NutmegYankee]

106. Such as marriage certificates (including gay), domestic partnerships, SNAP benefits

You just know there's some asshole out there who wants a map of everybody on SNAP. The government should not be releasing this kind of info period.

[CTyankee]

113. Again, where is the public safety issue here?

[NutmegYankee]

115. Gun ownership isn't a public safety issue either.

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

You think it is because of your specific personal views towards guns and biases toward gun owners. Fundamentalists have nearly identical biases towards gays and consider them to be a hazard to their children. Rabid Libertarians would want to release TANF to let everyone know how many are "feeding from the trough" and use it for their own activist purpose to eliminate the programs and shame people. They would argue that if their money goes to it they have a right to know.

Historically lists like this are used for negative purposes:
California published names/addresses of Prop 8 donors, which was used against people.
Wisconsin published the names/addresses of recall signers, which was used against them.

You consider private ownership of a handgun to be a public safety issue. I do not. Hell, my gun isn't even in public. It's locked in a safe, unloaded, within the confines of my own home. I could maybe see your point if it was solely about carrying handguns in public. Just as a head's up, you will never see this list in CT. Sec. 29-28(d) of the Connecticut General Statutes makes the addresses and name of any pistol permit holder Confidential, only to be disclosed to law enforcement.

[CTyankee]

122. but guns are a public safety issue. Sandy Hook?

[NutmegYankee]

124. Gun violence is a public safety problem.

Legal ownership is generally not a problem. I think we should restrict magazine capacity and severely restrict ownership of assault weapons, but general ownership should not be seen as a problem.

If you and some other DUers can't figure out why regular everyday people who own guns like myself (100% Democrat, never been member of NRA) are disgusted by the newspaper's action, think about this: The only group that is normally required to list themselves on a website by name and address like what was done are sexual predators. Gun owners, who have committed no crime, are being treated like people who rape children.

As another note - I have personal experience with mass shootings. My professor was killed in the Virginia Tech Massacre.

[CTyankee]

135. you are aware that this is a public record, aren't you? Are you saying there is no reason

to have it so? Because anybody wishing to find out can search public documents (I take you at your word about the CT records since I have no reason to know about that). It doesn't have to be a newspaper.

[NutmegYankee]

136. If I read correctly is was released per a Freedom of Information request by the Newspaper.

That would imply it wasn't that easily accessible, but was releasable under the law. The newspaper had to request the information from each county, someone you or I would be unlikely to do. Obviously from the response, the people on the map believed it was not public information. What this probably did is force NY to consider changing the law going forward. Who will agree to register their guns if they will be displayed on websites like child rapists?

Connecticut makes this information confidential except to law enforcement, which is entirely reasonable. Even with that restriction, I'm sure the action of the NY newspaper probably killed any further action in support of registration in CT.

[CTyankee]

138. they didn't know? It seems to me that if it was important to them, they would ask at the

time of registration if it was a matter of public record.

And why was it deemed so in the first place...what is the rationale for having it so?

[NutmegYankee]

140. I don't think anyone thought this would happen. nt

[CTyankee]

144. Isn't it funny that it did?

[NutmegYankee]

146. Not sure if funny is the right term.

Somewhere a battered woman is probably in mortal fear that her abuser will find her. A family friend went through that, and it was ugly.

[CTyankee]

147. well, who usually has the weapon and who doesn't in these incidences?

Of course, there should be exceptions for people under threat of domestic violence. That is what we have a justice system for. If someone is being stalked, they need protection. A well recognized and accepted fact of public policy or it damn well should be. This is not what we're talking about...

[NutmegYankee]

148. Many battered woman are encouraged to buy a handgun.

That happened in my family friends case. If she had lived int hat county, her name and address, which she would want posted would have been released.

That's one of many negatives to this sort of thing.

[CTyankee]

149. I really doubt that it comes from mental health professionals.

The problem is that so many women have insufficient protection from a battering partner and the gun laws are squarely in his corner...

[NutmegYankee]

150. They are encouraged by police.

[Fawke Em]

152. SNAP benefits aren't public information.

And marriage certs are ALWAYS in the newspaper. Where the fuck have you been? Apparently, NOT reading the public records of the newspaper section.

[NutmegYankee]

153. You are talking about announcements.

And they are not mapped with each address so someone who opposes that thing can do with it what they want. Also in most states, gun permits are also not public information. In fact - it wasn't generally available in NY either, but was rather released per a Freedom of Information Act request.

Where have I been. Where I've always been - A card carrying member of the ACLU. Privacy means a lot to me.

[Fawke Em]

154. Had I had Google Earth, I could have mapped marriage licenses.

And, NO, I don't mean the announcements. I meant the PUBLIC RECORDS part of your newspaper. I used to go collect them. EVERY LICENSE, by HAND, before we had them on computers. Great big tomes of the shit. They are in your newspaper every week. Unless your newspaper of record is the New York Times or something, when that would be next to impossible to record and would take up the entire paper.

However, not the case in most smaller parts of our union. I used to go get marriage LICENSES and publish them. Every week.

God, you're either young or don't read.

For you, since you think I'm old (I'm 42) or daft: http://m.knoxnews.com/news/2012/dec/09/divorces/

This is from THIS MONTH. It's in the newspaper every week.

[NutmegYankee]

156. My local newspaper doesn't publish marriage licenses

Yankees don't accidentally marry their cousins.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

114. Meh....it doesn't make me uncomfortable.

But perhaps I'm not "regular people".

[NutmegYankee]

117. I've seen similar lists misused.

Just because it goes after something/somebody you despise today doesn't mean they won't find a way to use it against you later. Best to oppose these types of lists no matter the target.

[Fawke Em]

155. I think you need to be more nutmeg and less yankee. eom

[NutmegYankee]

157. Ask the people who signed the petition to recall Governer Walker.

They had their name and address posted just like this and some received harassment for it.

[randome]

118. Or perhaps your name is not on the list.

I think you'd feel differently if your name showed up on a list and you didn't want it to. Someone pointed out that abusive spouses might be able to find their 'victim' by means of this list.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

119. So let me get this straight

You believe abusive men or women will be trolling this list to find their next relationship (prey) based on whether or not someone owns a gun or not. Mmmmm kay.

With all due respect, that's completely fucking ridiculous.

[NutmegYankee]

120. He means a woman escaping from an abusive relationship. Many buy a handgun for defense.

In fact, some states encourage it as the police won't devote the resources to protect them.

[randome]

126. Post #35 above is a good reason against bulk publishing of info, even if it is public.

[slackmaster]

127. An abuser could search through the list to find out where an existing or past victim lives

A piece of information that may not have been available to them previously.

[Bucky]

3. I wouldn't mind annoying gun owners if it accomplished anything.

This didn't really serve any purpose. It was gratuitous nosiness. The problem is not with the individuals who respond in a perfectly legal way to the security and safety concerns of a violent society. The problem is with a culture and a social policy that allows the gun violence to flourish.

[Denninmi]

4. A lot of them seem to have no problem forcing those of us with psychiatric diagnoses to wear it

As distasteful of a metaphor as it is, I have to wonder if, for people with mental health issues, it isn't Berlin 1936 if the NRA gets it's way.

[elehhhhna]

27. correction: those of us who are being treated.

undiagnosed = free pass

shit countrywe got

[Denninmi]

63. True.

You can walk around for years with serious conditions and symptoms, if no one calls you on it. My father did, and it made my life a living hell.

[graham4anything]

5. As the gun owners keep saying its for protection, why are they hiding their guns?

that is the paradox of the situation if what the NRA and gun people keep saying

guns are for protection
well, normally you want to stop an intruder before inside, therefore advertise it loudly and intruder don't come in, like d'uh

it is so transparent what people might actually be doing is not using a gun for protection against a home invader as they lie about, or hunting, or collecting or sport, but doing what the wackos in Waco were doing- stockpiling guns to overthrow the government, a coup'd'etat

guns were manufactured weapons to provide mass killing and destruction in a seconds notice.

When I go to a home with a little baby(say the age of the 20 killed in CT), I want to know if that place has a pool, and google photos can show me an outdoor poor in a milisecond.

I am all for this

Gunnies should be proud of their piece, isn't that why they have them in the first place.

So why all of a sudden are they scared?

If its good enough to have a sticker on your window and fence that one has an alarm,
then why hid the gun?

(it is a question I already know the answer of as said above).

and what hypocrites are some people who laud the criminal hackers who publish congress info and govt info, but want to hide their guns.
Love how the rights are only applied when it affects them


those that spew da constitution, da constitution are like the old comedians joke about sex.
those that talk about it all the time, just don't get it.

[Fumesucker]

6. Doesn't Mr LaPierre want a list like this of people with mental illness?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

7. Yep.

Tit for tat.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Not exactly.

Well, actually I don't like speculating on what that jackwagon LaPierre thinks, but most of the proposals I've seen call for what amounts to a "blind database" of people with certain diagnoses to be included in the data the NICS background checks uses. Someone querying that database doesn't get any details about the person. They just get a yes or no to whether the sale can be made. It doesn't tell them why the decision was made.

[chatcat11]

8. Two wrongs DO make a right.

[Warpy]

9. The main problem with this

is that it's going to show burglars which houses to hit to steal the guns. Guns are some of the most lucrative things to steal these days: small, light, easily concealed, easily transported, and worth a fortune on the street.

It's just another reason I won't own them. I don't want to be responsible for any more of them out there being used to hurt people.

[Lasher]

10. That is my concern.

Burglars will use this to plan which houses to hit.

[Are_grits_groceries]

13. Any burglar who uses this as gospel

about the location of hand guns is going to get surprises. I'd bet cash money there are more homes with guns than that.

[Lasher]

14. Yes, there are surely more homes with guns.

But my point is, burglars are more likely to hit houses if they know there are guns inside. There's a good chance that there are guns at a residence where CCW permit holders live.

[JohnnyRingo]

59. It's true it could go very bad for the burglar...

...a stupid burglar that is.

Any experienced burglar would pick a home near where they live so they can spend a few days casing the target to find out when the victim isn't home, and to make sure there's no Rottweiller. The problem arises when the burglar is wrong and an adult child or spouse is in the home. In that case, the burglary can go very bad for one party, with advantage to the thief who likely would come prepared to defend himself. All this list does is create dangerous situations with no upside.

Media outlets here in Ohio tried to get a list of CCW permit holders, but the governor rejected it out of concern for privacy and public safety.

[Sancho]

18. Isn't that what the NRA wants?

The burglars will leave them alone, just like a sign on the door that says, "Alarm system". Come to think of it, wouldn't an alarm system be cheaper and safer than most guns, guns safes, permits, etc.?

[Lasher]

20. It's foolish to put up signs like that.

Unless your home is going to be occupied 100% of the time. Here's a familiar MO for burglars in my area:

Drive around during the middle of a weekday looking for houses where it appears nobody is home.

Ring doorbell/knock on door.

If no answer, kick in door.

Alarm systems are good, but where I live the police are not going to show up until long after a crime has been committed - if at all.

[MrModerate]

11. If the excuse for having a handgun is personal protection . . .

Then these people should be applauding the newspaper for advertising how dangerous it would be to mess with them.

Unless they're actually embarrassed to be seen as wusses afraid of their own shadows (or the last cop show they watched). Or afraid that neighborhood parents won't let their kids come over to play for fear of them being killed (by accident, of course).

And as far as the "yellow stars" commenter goes: FU, buddy. Being Jewish in Nazi-occupied Europe wasn't exactly optional. Nor was it something you could purchase down at the local Kaufthaus.

[safeinOhio]

15. Many of those against this are also

for "open carry".
Go figure.

[Quantess]

17. I think a wide swath of people are against this,

not just those in favor of "open carry".

I think this was incredibly poor judgment.

[Sancho]

16. Good idea...is there an app for my GPS?

That way I can avoid people with guns if I want...

in fact, maybe a tracking device on all guns would be cool.

[safeinOhio]

19. First Amendment vs Second Amendment.

Having a gun in the house is a 2nd Amendment right.

A free press includes publishing what some don't want to see.

I'm for both.

[hack89]

23. Where does privacy fit into your concept of rights? nt

[safeinOhio]

24. Right where it is stated

In the Bill of rights, like the 1st and 2nd.

[LooseWilly]

62. Public Record Information is *NOT* private.

If the gun registration information is Public Record... then there is no privacy right issue, because the information in question is NOT private- it is Public Record.

Fourth Amendment not at issue.

[Remmah2]

92. What happens when the press is bias?

Then you have a witch hunt.

[customerserviceguy]

21. At first I was outraged about this

now, I see a possible positive side.

You know those reich-wing types against civil rights for gay and lesbian people who think they don't know someone of that orientation? Generally, when they find out that someone who they like and admire is not straight, they go through an adjustment period, then become a bit more relaxed on gay rights.

I'm hoping the same happens with the neighbors of pistol owners. I looked up various folks last night in Rockland County, and they're retired cops, or business people who have given a lot to the community. I hope the gun grabbers come to find out that it's not all paranoid monsters who want to protect themselves.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

25. That's a little over the top.

[customerserviceguy]

81. Hey, thirty years ago

the reich wing would have wanted searchable maps of people with HIV. It's all a matter of what irrational fears a person has.

[pipoman]

22. An effective arguement against registration

and in favor of the tiahart amendment..

[Lizzie Poppet]

51. Precisely.

It will certainly be used as an argument against registration proposals in jurisdictions (like mine) that have no registration requirements.

[samsingh]

28. how is non-violent mental illness anyone's business?

crazy wayne is okay with a database of those folks

[Walk away]

29. As someone who prefers not to be around guns...this map is useful to me.

It is my right to feel safe and secure too. For me that means not being around guns and their users.

[Remmah2]

34. Is that why some people run from the cops?

[Walk away]

72. What a pathetic response to my post. I can hardly wait to ignore you!

[otohara]

30. If This Was Detroit or Chicago - The White Folks Would Cheer

but because these are upper middle class neighborhoods....outrage.

I would love to know who in my neighborhood was packing heat - and just assume something could go wrong. If I still had little kids, I wouldn't want my children in a house with guns. I wouldn't want my teenagers in a house with guns.

[catbyte]

31. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee secercy.

[Remmah2]

33. How would people feel about a map of persons infected with hepatitis?

WTK?

[Robb]

38. Or SARS.

[RomneyLies]

42. HIPAA makes that illegal

There is no law making gun ownership private.

[Remmah2]

45. But according to a post above gun ownership is a mental illness.

Therefore protected by HIPAA.

[RomneyLies]

58. But according to some idiot on the internet, Obama is Hitler

What's your point?

[slackmaster]

35. Rebecca Shaeffer was murdered in 1989 by a stalker who got her address from the California DMV

Maybe it's time for states to make it a little harder for personal information about citizens to be released wholesale to anyone.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebecca_Schaeffer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driver%27s_Privacy_Protection_Act

[Robb]

36. Or stop licensing drivers.

[slackmaster]

37. That almost makes sense. California, like most states, does not require a license to own a firearm.

But we do require a difficult-to-attain permit to carry one in public.

[Robb]

39. Well, a car's a big responsibility.

[slackmaster]

40. Simply owning a car, not so much. Driving it on public roads is everyone's business.

[Robb]

44. Toddlers accidentally go driving a lot.

[Remmah2]

43. Put gun registration and DMV registration in the same department.

No one would ever get through the lines.

[slackmaster]

47. That is a chilling thought

Made my day.

[Remmah2]

49. I'd sell my guns and buy a bus pass.

nt

[RomneyLies]

41. I commend the paper for this action

Well done.

Bravo.

[slackmaster]

46. The paper didn't do it as a public service, or in pursuit of some moral high ground

They did it for profit.

[RomneyLies]

57. A paper does EVERYTHING for profit.

What's your point?

[Nevernose]

48. You can do the same map w/ voter ID

How is this any different?

[JohnnyRingo]

53. This can set people up for theft, or worse.

It's nonsense that thieves would always get shot by the homeowner, no competent burglar would enter the house when someone is home. The burglars would find names near their own homes so they can spend some time casing the house of a confirmed owner to find out when they aren't home and to make sure the resident doesn't also have a Rotweiller.

A problem arises when the burglar is wrong and someone else, perhaps an adult child or unarmed spouse, is in the targeted home. In that case, the bungled robbery could go either way, with an advantage to the burglar by element of surprise. Unlike breaking & entering, those who commit burglary are often armed and more desperate. That's why there's a stiffer penalty for burglarizing a residence as opposed to an empty warehouse.

On the upside, such a list that identifies gun owners by address is... well nothing. It's not like they're pedophiles. News outlets tried to pass similar legislation in Ohio to release a list of names and addresses to the media years ago, but Democratic governor Ted Strickland vetoed it over privacy and safety issues.

[dorkzilla]

54. Yipes! This is where I live!

It honestly makes me very nervous that so many of my neighbors have handguns. Crazy!!!

[slackmaster]

65. The good news is there is no permit required to buy a rifle or a shotgun.

So you can't see which of your neighbors have one or both of those.

[dorkzilla]

66. that makes me feel so much better (not)!

I just hovered over my neighborhood. I think half my near neighbors have handguns. Ironically, they're probably the same people who make remarks about something of mine being "dangerous" when I walk my pit bull down the street. She's SOOOOOO dangerous she'd lick your face right off, and she'd injure you by suddenly flipping over on her back so you could give her a belly rub. I'm sure I've had a million times more training with dogs than they've had with guns.

Yeah, pit bulls should be banned but handguns are a-okay.

[slackmaster]

68. No, about half of your neighbors have REGISTERED handguns. It's the ones who have UNREGISTERED...

...handguns that you have a legitimate reason to worry about.

[Coyote_Tan]

73. Why?

Some were registered when purchased, some were not through private sale or gift or inheritance.

What makes one more dangerous than the other?

[slackmaster]

75. OK, I have to admit I am not familiar with NY law

I thought everyone who owned a handgun had to have a permit for it regardless of how it was acquired.

I apologize for my ignorance.

[Coyote_Tan]

79. You could be right...

I was basing it off of my experience in more gun friendly states.

[slackmaster]

80. It seems even California is more "gun friendly" than New York

No permit has ever been required to own a pistol, rifle, or shotgun.

We do have handgun registration here, for guns sold or transferred beginning in 1968. There has never been a process for registering guns that were personally owned since before registration began, so a person of sufficient age in possession of any gun older than that can plausibly deny a charge of possession of an unregistered weapon.

[spin]

55. A warning for those who think it is a good idea to publish the names and addresses of gun owners: ..

A criminal who specializes in home invasions might look at a map and discover that both of your next door neighbors own firearms but you don't. Your house is effectively a "gun free" zone.

The criminal might target YOUR home rather than your neighbors.

[kenny blankenship]

61. Bzzt. Criminals would target your neighbors

to steal their guns. Criminals love guns, and guns are one of their favorite things to steal. Stolen firearms act like fuel to the fire of other crimes:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Stolen-guns-nuture-deadly-violence-3868619.php

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Not all criminals have the same MO.

A burglar, who prefers to hit an unoccupied home, might target a house know to belong to a registered gun owner. A home invader would do the precise opposite.

All the idiots that published this map have done is create a very strong disincentive for people to comply with registration laws. Yet another "law of unintended consequences" moment in the War on Guns...

[kenny blankenship]

69. Let's see if you can figure out which is much MUCH more likely to happen to you:

A) someone breaks into your house, knowing you're there - or B) someone breaks into your house, thinking you aren't there (regardless of whether you are or aren't), with the intention to steal your guns, silverware/jewelry, your TVs, your drugs and whatnot.

A map of guns and street addresses is a fucking treasure map to thieves. Tell a thief that there's a gun at such and such an address and he'll probably visualize a trove of other portable belongings with high street value at the same location, plus money stuffed in a mattress or a shoebox, and begin to salivate. There's a compelling mirror logic to it: he himself is the kind of person who accumulates highly portable valuable stuff and guards it with a gun. Thus to the thief the presence of a gun -which is itself an irresistible temptation- indicates the probable presence of a lot of similar stuff that is very portable and fenceable.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. You're preaching to the choir.

But since you can't seem to manage to do so without pointless and utterly unnecessary condescension, eel free to do it to someone else. Welcome to ignore.

[spin]

67. Some might. Others would chose your home. ...

Be aware that anyone who breaks into an occupied home is either young and stupid, a fool or extremely dangerous.

Not all home invaders are looking to steal your possessions.

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. One reason this argument fails: not everybody is as paranoid about "criminals targetting their home"

as your average gun nut.

I'd spend less then 25 second actively worrying about those ev-ul crim'nals "discovering" that my house is a "gun free zone."

Correction: less than 10 seconds.

I'd put this one up there with the one about the "stalker" who discovers where his stalkee lives through the publication of gun owner addresses - public information that he has not bothered to track down himself: laziest stalker EVER!

The excuses are so dumb they hurt the brains of sensible people.

[spin]

139. You have every right to make decisions about your own home security just as I do. ...

The fact that I have firearms available for self defense in my home is a careful decision that I reached after some serious thought.

When I made my decision it was influenced by the fact that I had enjoyed target shooting handguns for over 20 years on a weekly basis and consequently already owned the firearms and had the training to use them safely as well as the required proficiency.

Of course you may state that I am excessively paranoid and fearful and should have absolutely no reason to believe that my home will ever be invaded.

I would reply that my decision proved wise on one occasion. A man was attempting to break into my Tampa home by forcing open the sliding glass door in the kitchen. A burglar alarm was blaring and a 60 pound Black Lab was in the house. Neither discouraged him.

My daughter who was home alone woke up to the alarm and walked into the kitchen. The intruder was halfway through the door when she pointed a large caliber revolver at him and he wisely decided to run.

The handgun would have done my daughter little good without the alarm and the dog was a very gentle animal and probably would have never defended my daughter. The noise of the alarm terrified this dog just as thunder would. My daughter told me that the dog was hiding during the incident.

So perhaps you will understand why I discount any arguments that you will make against having a firearm available for home defense.

But I have no problem with your decision that a firearm is useless and I am in no way advising you to get one.

[TheMoreYouKnow]

56. So apparently Mr. Worley is a gun owner himself

http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/so-how-does-journal-news-reporter-dwight-r-worley-rate-a-nyc-pistol-permit/

I sure hope he's ok with his address and other readily available personal info being put out on the web for everyone to see.

[sarisataka]

60. Cost/Benefit of this

Cost
- criminal casing a neighborhood can find likely targets to obtain firearms. He just has to break in when the house is empty
- criminal then uses stolen firearm(s) to break into houses with lesser chances of there being firearms
- if criminals wish to invade home where firearms are likely, they know to arm themselves appropriately, perhaps just murder everyone in the house to be sure.
- those who have reason to conceal their addresses and gun ownership police, judges, prosecutors, people who have an abusive ex-, witnesses who testified in the face of fear of retribution...) have just been tossed out in the rain without an umbrella
- average people, who happen to have a permit, ostracized by their community.
- the chance of gun control legislation just moved a little more distant as x% of gun owners who strongly support such, now support it less.

Benefit
- people can 'avoid' gun owners (has anyone considered that may include a long time neighbor or friend-- Gee, Bob I'd love to go bowling but I just looked you up and you have a handgun permit so I'm never speaking to you again)
- people can keep there children away from such owners (In my case, I know the parents well enough to know if they have guns before I allow them to play in other's houses)
- opportunity to track household crime in these counties to see if there is a shift towards armed houses, away from them or no change.

[HooptieWagon]

76. The anti's "legitimate rape" moment.

The teabagger's Waterloo was when they went after women's reproductive rights...self-righteous in their certitude that they were a majority and moderates wouldn't perceive their position as extreme. We know how that story ended.
Now we have the anti-gun crowd, equally self-righteous in their zealotry. They are certain the country is at a "tipping point"...that they represent the majority. They are certain that moderates won't perceive their position as extreme. Thus publishing the names and addresses of permit-holders (a favorite tactic of RW anti-abortion and anti-gay groups) is perfectly justifiable in their holy war.
Well, they are in for a shock. As usually happens, the self-righteous overplay their hand. The sheer numbers of gun-owners (many of whom are Democrats) is going to require the support from some gun-owners to get any legislation passed. Registered gun-owners are doing the legal and responsible thing. For that, they are outed and their privacy violated. Expect no help. If extremists are going to lead the gun-control efforts, they've just pissed away any support from moderates.

[slackmaster]

78. I've noticed several replies in the various threads in which people who live in those counties...

...express shock at the number of their neighbors who have handgun permits.

That's just a suburban area of New York. They'd really be flummoxed if they saw figures for my neighborhood, and I live in a blue part of a purple city.

[Quantess]

84. "the self-righteous overplay their hand"

So true!

[cherokeeprogressive]

86. I'd bet money there are names missing from that map.

And that they are either employees of the paper or family members of employees.

[Fawke Em]

108. I'd bet money you were wrong.

When I was a reporter and we published the salaries of some government employees, some were the spouses/children/siblings of some newspaper employees and they were NOT exempt.

[alcibiades_mystery]

93. I thought people were "proud" gun owners

Half these douchebags go around crowing all day about all their guns, posting pictures with their guns, putting on bumper stickers with their guns, and otherwise carrying on. Yeesh, gun fuckers. Which is it?

I also love the "criminals will now target me!" argument. These fuckers constantly tell us that that's why they need their guns in the first place! What's changed!?! Besides, they're protected, right?

Whatevs.

[CTyankee]

95. The whining is remarkable, isn't it?

Suck it up, gun owners. Time to take personal responsibility.

[alcibiades_mystery]

98. I don't care about "responsible" gun owners; I want to see accountable gun owners

Responsibility is a personal state, a quality of a person. Accountability is public. What we have now is supposed responsibility without accountability - the kind of "responsibility" that makes no difference. This is what they promote: think of "responsibility" as a quality that attaches to gun owners, rather than public accountability. It is, as a result, a quality without consequence, like when the Bushies would take "responsibility" for something, but nothing would happen to them. Anything that hints of public accountability rather than personal responsibility is attacked viciously, precisely because it heralds the day when the gun nuts will have to be accountable, rather than just continuing on with their fake and consequence-free "responsible" pose.

[Remmah2]

99. Just as with responsible gun ownership, the first amendment should be used responsibly.

There are cases of verbal and Facebook bullying that have pushed people to suicide. Apparently some people feel that is appropriate use of free speech. What would happen if the newspaper had printed incorrect information?

Just because you can does not mean you should.

[CTyankee]

100. In your opinion, what is the equivalent here of "verbal and Facebook bullying'?

Put aside the fact that such information is a matter of public record and can be looked up by any of your neighbors anyhow, just what do you mean is not "used responsibily"? You must have something in mind...

[Remmah2]

96. Stereotype?

How come the anti-gun people go off half cocked shooting their mouths off?

I firmly believe people should secure their firearms and put their mouths on safe.

[abelenkpe]

103. I'd like a map like that for my area

So I know who to avoid.

[randome]

105. Like you're going to know everyone on some kind of list?

Or will you carry the list on an iPad and every time you meet someone, you check the name on your list?

Face it, the bulk of the information that was released is unusable and ultimately serves no purpose.

[abelenkpe]

121. Of course I woulldn't know everyone

but I already ask parents my kids spend time with if there are any weapons in the house so this could potentially save time. I don't want my kids in homes where there are weapons. My husband lost a good friend to a gun found in a home. Why risk that kind of tragedy when one doesn't need to.
Why not google it the same way one googles for traffic, movie times, places to eat, credit checks, criminal backgrounds, or any other information? Almost everyone has a smart phone. It's just another form of information useful to some, unimportant to others.

[randome]

125. Post #35 above is a good reason against bulk publishing of info, even if it is public.

[abelenkpe]

130. Yeah

it is a good reason. Unfortunately lots of corporations make money off of making lists out of publicly available information and selling it to others so it probably won't stop anytime soon. It really is amazing what one can find out about others simply through the internet or newspapers. I am confused as to why this particular list has so many upset? Are you saying gun owners would be targeted? Wouldn't that knowledge be more of a deterrent?

[slackmaster]

131. The whole thing is a smear by the Journal News. Read the article and editorial that accompany...

...the pin maps. They attempt to portray anyone who owns a gun as a danger to the community. Only the most extreme fuckwits believe that.

[abelenkpe]

132. What? Believe that gun owners are a danger to the community?

[NCTraveler]

107. A news organization attempting to make news instead of reporting it.

Fox has taught them well.

[abelenkpe]

133. That I believe! nt

[libodem]

110. The true believers

Might makes right. Look at that effing map, for gawds sake.

[hughee99]

134. I wonder if attitudes would change if they posted a map of those with Medical Marijuana licenses. nt

[Jim Warren]

137. Yes, or whatever else someone

might care to keep private, though legal. Think about that. If one does not get to pick and choose the issue, just whatever emotional hot button gets pressed.

[hughee99]

141. People are more than willing to give up the right to privacy,

as long as it's someone else's privacy.

[Lizzie Poppet]

143. +1

So true...