New York Paper Uses Public Records To Publish Gun-Owner Map

New submitter Isaac-1 writes "First it was the sex offenders being mapped using public records, now it seems to be gun owners — I wonder who will be next? It seems a newspaper in New York has published an interactive map with the names and addresses of people with [handguns]." It's happened before: In 2007, Virginia's Roanoke Times raised the ire of many gun owners by publishing a database of Virginia's gun permit holders that it assembled based on public records inquiries. (The paper later withdrew that database.) Similarly, WRAL-TV in North Carolina published a database earlier this year with searchable map of (partially redacted) information about permit holders in that state, and Philadelphia made the news for a similar disclosure — complete with interactive map and addresses — of hundreds of gun permit applicants and holders.

Comments

So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet such resistance to open up data on it. These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other). Leave it up.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Scutter]

Or it's a list of prospective homeowners with property worth stealing. Or a list of people who are trying to hide from abusive exes who got gun permits to protect themselves. Why is the list of permit holders anybody else's business?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Major Blud]

According to the article, they obtained the information through "Freedom of Information" laws. By your reasoning, shouldn't I be able to obtain your social security number, credit score, and medical information through the same laws?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Python]

Indeed. I don't understand why this is public information to begin with. It's no ones business what products I buy or own.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[flyneye]

Wish I hadn't already posted, you sir need a fast-track to insightful.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[lightknight]

OMFG, this is such a bad idea! They've just publicly announced, for every felon nearby, which homes to search for a weapon!

It's going to be like the Walmart of guns! "Bob, age 32, drives to work every day at 9 AM...has a dog, Mr. Scruffles...leaves his garage door unlocked. Well, we know he has a gun, probably in the closet or under his pillow. Let's pick it up after he leaves for work, I feel naked walking around without a gun after prison..."

Why don't you publish the names, addresses, and photos of children in the local area whose parents get home late! It's about that level of FAIL.

They've single-handedly just increased the number of gun deaths and home invasions. *golf clap* Well played, well played.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the list of permit holders anybody else's business?

If it's registered with the state or feds it's basically "publicly obtainable information". Cars, businesses, professional licenses, etc. are all public (in one form or another) and searchable (in one form or another). Why should anything else that is registered with the state/feds be any different?

SSN's aren't the same at all and should not be public information. SSN's aren't registered, they are assigned, and all US residents are legally required to have one by the age of one y/o.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[erroneus]

It just proves the right to privacy is meaningless if you have to tell the government what you are doing, buying and owning.

This practice will just make gun owners buy their stuff "illegally."

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[JWSmythe]

    I see this ass an introduction on how a newspaper can be involved as a conspirator or accomplice to a variety of crimes.

    I've known people who get firearms permits for all kinds of reasons. Some people get them to protect themselves because of their line of work. Like managers of stores carry because they are transporting the end of day cash to the bank. Some people get them for self defense after threat or action has threatened their lives. Some just do it because they do have the right.

    In one jurisdiction, at least it was, off-duty police couldn't carry their firearms unless they had a permit. Their weapon went in the trunk of their car at the end of the shift, and then they moved it from the trunk to their home. So virtually all police officers were also concealed carry permit holders.

    I am concealed weapons holder. I've carried a few times, for need. If I lived there, I really wouldn't want my name and address published. I'd be furious.

    This list is not a list to inform. A dot map without specific names and addresses would have done that job. What they've done is made public a shopping list for criminals. They know they can observe a residence for a while, learn the patterns of the occupants, and when they aren't home, rob it. There's an increased chance of finding a home containing firearms.

    While B&E to a home can get them some pretty high value items, not many items are as compact and easy to transport, and as valuable on the black market, as a firearm. A $500 pistol that can fit in your pocket can bring double that on the black market. A $500 TV doesn't fit in your pocket, and will only sell at a small percent of it's list price.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[kimvette]

By "well-regulated militia" the founding fathers meant that individual citizens are trained to use guns, to secure a free state. Free from what? Tyranny and fascism. So, what does "well-regulated" mean? It means that you know how to use that gun to kill tyrants.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Albanach]

Really you should have no concern with someone else getting your social security number. The only reason you're concerned about keeping it private is because the finance industry have misused it as a secret personal identifier for decades.

As for your credit score, that's private information created and held by private corporations. Why do you think that has any relevance to freedom of information?

Medical information is much the same. That's between you, your doctor and your insurance company. I don't think you need to provide details of medical treatments to the government, or request government permission in advance to be allowed the treatment.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the inverse of this map would be map of safe places to rob.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[moehoward]

I have a FOID card, but do not own a gun. Sorry that so many here do not understand the difference. There is no gun in my home, but I would appear on such a map. Is that really right? I think not. Why not an "armed robbery" registry? Murderer registry? Speeding ticket registry? Drunk driver registry? Car accident-causer registry? Etc., etc. ...

At least the fact that I have a FOID card indicates that I have been vetted by the state police. To me, that makes me a safer neighbor than one who has not been vetted by the government. Right?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[JimCanuck]

Regulated != Trained.

If the Founding Fathers had meant "trained" they would have written "trained" instead of "regulated". But they didn't because it's not they they meant.

Actually no he is right, regulated means trained and properly equipped in this sense. The English language has been corrupted over time to mean strictly mean only regulated in the sense of controlled under the law.

A well regulated machine is one that has proper preventative maintenance and can preform when called upon without fail. Not because it is regulated by law to preform or function.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[cmdr_tofu]

It becomes everyone's business when your property is a hazard or risk to others. If you on a sweater that's fine. A gun is more like a car. If you want to own it and operate it there some regulations to limit the risk that your neighbors have to endure.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[davydagger]

by publishing information on fellow citizens....

how is this than anonymous posting "dox" of people they don't like. This is simply put, an enticement for politically oriented targeted harassment of otherwise law abiding citizens.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Rockoon]

It becomes everyone's business when your property is a hazard or risk to others.

So that infectious disease you have should be public information?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[davydagger]

If this isn't a 1984ish set up when the system is asking you to spy on politically "undesirable" citizens, I don't know what is.

Lets start a public list of other harmful products

Liquor - let us know where the drunks are, lets name them by face
Tobacco - so you know when your kids might be harmed by tobbaco smoke.
Red Meat
Sugary Soft Drinks.
Cars larger than 3000 pounds - don't wanna get run over by roadhogs.
$CONTROVERSIALMUSICSTYLE - Those cretins probably don't vote for $CANDIDATEOFCHOICE or $PARTY, along with being "scary" or terrorists.
Or we could stop this politically oriented targeting of citizens. This list should not be public.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[nurb432]

You are an idiot.

its not about a conflict between first amendment and the 2nd, its about privacy for citizens. As a prviate citizen, what i own should not be public record. Criminal records are public, and should be, but a legal act should not be.

And i do agree, while they are within their legal rights, the paper was not being responsible, and are doing it just to push their agenda to try to instill fear into people exersizing their rights. Which is wrong to do.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[flayzernax]

Guns by themselves are just as inert as rock music. For fucks sake this is political and evil at its core.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Spaseboy]

Social security numbers are public information. How do you think agencies and businesses can use that number to identify you? People think SSN is some secret number, it most certainly isn't.

Credit score is owned by private agencies. Nothing about credit is registered with the government.

Medical information is covered by HIPPA that supersedes the fact that medical records had no embargo of any kind on them.

We have no guarantee of privacy in this country. Nowhere in the constitution is privacy even mentioned.

Educate yourself. At your intelligence level it will be profoundly simple.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Millennium]

I thought that owing a gun was supposed to deter crime? Be proud, put up an "armed response" sign on your front door.

If gun ownership is to deter crime en masse, then it's important for it not to be known who has a gun and who does not. The risk is what truly matters: someone specifically looking for a gun to steal needs to not be able to be sure which houses have them, and someone not looking for a weapon needs to not know which houses will bring no chance of armed response.

Yes, a few irrational folks might be scared to not know who has the Big Scary Weapons. That is their problem, and no one else's.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a citation is needed to corroborate the claim vis-à-vis regulated = trained.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_.22well_regulated_militia.22

I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out once a month to drill.

I'd say most would enjoy belonging to and participating with a group of like-minded individuals, but the FBI has a history of not liking these kinds of things. Isn't a powerful government great? Let's give up more of our individual sovereignty!

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[cmdr_tofu]

A lot of so called "gun nuts" are not really a threat to anyone, but IMHO it is really HARD to keep a gun physically secure (unless you have a private security firm to guard your weapons) I know when I get car insurance they ask questions like "does anyone else drive your car". Imagine if gun owners needed to buy gun liability insurance and key questions were asked like "do you have any one with previous or current psychological or criminal issues in your home". I'm not saying that insurance is the right answer, but just as a thought it probably would get a more formal risk assesment done.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[jhoegl]

Actually, if someone obtains your personal information you can sue them for damages, but they are not breaking any laws.
So yes, they can be obtained. But whoever gave them to you, and yourself, are liable for any issues that arise from that, much like publishing a gun owners list.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[jhoegl]

Fear of what?
I know many people have guns, shit, I live in Arizona.
But I dont care, because fearing what may or may not come to pass is just too stupid.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[hsthompson69]

Actually, I'll assert if you get services from the government those records should be public (schools, medical, other entitlements). Furthermore, if you *work* for the government (as an individual or a company), your employment/financial records should be public.

So frankly, if you're going to allow the government to track you with licenses and permits for firearms, you have to *expect* this information to be public record. Once you've given up the 2nd amendment, don't expect the 1st one to care.

Lesson to learn - maybe allowing the government to track you isn't such a great idea.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[poity]

He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others. Diseases are not a risk to others if the carrier follows quarantine procedures, in the same manner that guns are not a risk to others if owners keep their guns secured. However, if we are to make the assumption that gun owners in the aggregate cannot be trusted to be 100% vigilant in securing their guns and therefore pose a risk to others, then we must assume the same of disease carriers.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[CrimsonAvenger]

When the 2nd Amendment was written and passed, every town/state had a list of the militia members and the guns they owned. Why? Because that's how a militia is "well regulated."

Well, no.

Read the Militia Act sometime. Everyone was REQUIRED to own a musket, since every adult male (being defined as 17+ years of age, as I recall) was a member of the militia.

Note also that, "well regulated" meant "trained", as in "regular army", based on other period writing.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also a map for which homes are safe to rob even when they occupants are home.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[poity]

If someone used voter registration rolls to publish a map of all registered black voters, would that be a 1st Amendment vs 14th Amendment issue, or would that be a 1st Amendment vs privacy issue?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[pla]

Really gun owners.... really?

No, not really.

The problem here has nothing to do with the availability of the information - As TFA says, it all comes from public record

The problem involve "inducement", a crime entirely separate from your right to publish things about which you should know better. NY already has a problem with gun crime. So how do we deal with that? Let's put a "respawn/restock here" point on the map for every petty thug in the city looking for a gun but too clueless to drive a few states away and buy one themselves (possibly even legally, depending on what they've gotten busted for up to that point).

Yes, having a gun in the home means you can defend yourself from a random intruder; the situation changes when the gun becomes the target of the home invasion; and I would definitely say we have liability involved when some asshats effectively sent the thieves to your door in a fucked-up attempt to make a point.

If people die because of this, I sincerely hope we put the owners and editors of this paper on trial for murder; of course, in reality, we'll just hear one more artificially inflated statistic about gun violence.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[EverlastingPhelps]

20+ school kids have only been killed by a rampage killer 3 times in history. Frankly, it's so rare that its not even statistically significant. School busses kill more kids at once, more often than rampage killers.

Government and armies, on the other hand, kill 20 or more schoolkids at once far more often. That's why we have the 2nd amendment.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[downhole]

How would you feel if they registered all of the homosexuals and printed maps of where they all live? What's that, there's a difference, you say? Indeed there is - gun ownership is a specifically enumerated right in the bill of rights, while homosexuality is not.

Both being recognized as rights is good for society. If you think you can justify one, then why not the other?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[pla]

I wonder how appealing gun ownership would be if the owners had to turn out a compulsory drill every month.

Actually, Hamilton (in Federalist #29) only suggested an annual inspection - "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"


You'll do it in the rain, snow, and sleet, -20; you'll do it in the hot sun, 100+; you'll do it one Saturday

Aside from the pure BS nuisance factor of weather, an indoor range would make it safer and easier (for the testers) to run people through a battery of drills to demonstrate their proficiency. Though make no mistake, I have friends who would pay to spend a weekend crawling through the cold mud on a military obstacle course / rifle range (if doing so didn't require that whole "joining the military" thing). ;)


Now, in spirit, I have absolutely nothing against something akin to Hamilton's original suggestion. The slope gets pretty damned slippery, however, when someone in power needs to decide what counts as passing. Banning civilian firearms then requires nothing more than setting the bar absurdly high - "Oh, gee, sorry, you went outside the allowed 4" spread at 100 yards, better luck next year!"

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Rockoon]

Funny, I didn't know having an infectious disease was a choice.

I didn't know that securing the means to defend the lives and liberties of me and my family was a choice.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[SuricouRaven]

Unless you're specifically aiming to steal guns. I've no experience trading in the criminal underground, but I would guess a stolen and thus untraceable gun has to be worth something.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[CrimsonAvenger]

Let's put a "respawn/restock here" point on the map for every petty thug in the city looking for a gun but too clueless to drive a few states away and buy one themselves (possibly even legally, depending on what they've gotten busted for up to that point).

Well, no.

It's actually illegal to buy a gun outside your State of legal residence unless:

1) it is a private sale, not innvolving a licensed dealer (you want to buy a gun from your uncle, no problem, you go into a gunshop, no sale)

or...

the sale is executed through a gun dealer local to you. I had to do this once when I saw a really sweet Mauser hunting rifle while traveling. Only way to actually buy it was to arrange with the gunshop that had it to ship it to a gunshop local to where I lived, and do the actual sale there. And pay sales tax twice, essentially, plus dealer markup twice.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Runaway1956]

You miss the point. Weapons shouldn't be registered to start with. The state shouldn't have any idea who owns what. It's none of their business. The only people whose business it is, is mine, the wife's the children's, and whoever the hell tries to break into my home. That's it.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[517714]

The "well regulated militia" part is an introductory subordinate clause, as such it is completely unnecessary, and we needn't worry about its interpretation. The right is stated in an independent clause that stands by itself.

It seems to me that this data falls under one of the exemptions to FOIA: "Personnel, medical and similar files, disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(6)" and/or "Records compiled for law enforcement purposes, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(7)." Perhaps someone in the office that provided the information needs to review the procedure.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Runaway1956]

" dangerous gun-owners"

How about you just make some attempt to identify DANGEROUS PEOPLE, then stop defending their rights to be dangerous?

That sumbitch that ambushed four firefighters yesterday? He had murdered his own grandmother with a hammer. Served 18 years, and was paroled.

Hello, world!! You don't think that hammering Grandma to death was a danger flag? Why wasn't he left in prison to die?

Oh - some namby pamby bleeding heart sumbitch felt that he had "paid for his crimes" or some such?

Again, I repeat: HE MURDERED HIS OWN GRANDMOTHER WITH A FUCKING HAMMER!!!

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[deathguppie]

Maybe so, but as justice Scalia has stated on numerous occasions, 'concealed weapons should be legal especially if it's like a totally bad ass maching gun being hidden under a trench coat like in the matrix'.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Runaway1956]

Citations. You're pulling that out of your ass, and everyone reading it knows it.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[AbNo]

Tell that to the woman hiding from her abusive ex-husband who has already tried to kill her before. If she purchased to a gun to try and defend herself from him, now the Times has a database of exactly where she lives. Tell that to the criminal looking to steal a gun. He now has a checklist of houses he can watch to find out who lives alone, what their schedule is, when they leave, etc. Tell that to the undercover cop and his loving family. If someone's looking for revenge on someone against the guy that arrested him/their brother, there's a good chance that same last name is on that map somewhere.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[BetterSense]

"Regulated" is a governmental euphemism that came to mean what it does because instead of saying "We are going to pass laws to control X", the government consistently comes up with more palatable (like "we are going to regulate(old meaning) X") to hide the true nature. Over time, now "regulated" actually means "controlled by law". People eventually wise up to the new meaning.

There should be a special category for language changes caused by government euphemism. I predict the following future usages:

Current word:True political meaning, eventually becoming common meaning after people wise up
Liberated:Invaded
Stimulated:Taxed
Fair:Socially Engineered
Racist:Fair
Encourage:Force
Rich:Not dependent on government
Peace:War
Slavery:Freedom

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[517714]

Evil is correct. We have rights, stated clearly in the Constitution. If you want to take those rights from us there is one legal means to do so - amend the Constitution, any other means is subversive, illegal and evil.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jiro]

Unlike being a sex offender, gun ownership is not something that is considered shameful or abhorrent by society, so one cannot really say that gun owners are "outed".

Owning valuable jewelry isn't considered shameful or abhorrent by society, but publishing a list of people who own valuable jewelry is a bad idea and encourages crime.

(Besides, there are some segments of society who do consider gun ownership abhorrent. In this regard it's like publishing a list of known homosexuals. It shouldn't be considered abhorrent, but it sometimes is, and the list makes people a target for prejudice.)

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[furball]

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+44-1

"The militia of the Commonwealth of Virginia shall consist of all able-bodied residents of the Commonwealth who are citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied persons resident in the Commonwealth who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States"

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Lord Kano]

So, you follow the NRA line that we should arm all the teachers and students so they can defend themselves against Obama's stormtroopers? How long do you think they'd last?

Longer than they would if they were unarmed.

LK

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[erroneus]

Making people target to all manner of scams and crap?

select * from diseaseRoster where terminal = true;

Reach out to them with life insurance scams that actually pay nothing

select * from diseaseRoster where sexuallyTransmitted = true;

See if any of them can be exploited in any number of ways.

Health privacy exists for a reason. If we can't trust our doctors, diseases will go untreated and things get far worse than they are.

You have a bizarre notion of things you think should be shared.

If you have nothing to hide, please provide me with your real name, your real home address, your real employer, your real phone number and lots more useful informaiton. How about your religion? Your political affiliations? Sexual preference? Your REAL sexual preference? No? Don't want to share? I can't imagine why.

It's all well and good to wish that others lives were laid out for all to see, but not yours right? Before you think everyone you disagree with should be exposed, perhaps you should consider that things change and before you know it, you might be singled out for some cause or reason.

People like you have taken the bait. Hook, line and sinker. So quickly you forget what you know.

The shool shooting couldn't happen as it did without two important conditions being met:

1. A person had to be capable of such an act: mental/emotional problems gone unresolved and unaddressed
2. Availability of weaponry.

it doesn't appear to bother anyone that people with severe mental and emotional problems exist. That insurance doesn't care for them. That healthcare systems tend to look the other way in order to have them released when they can't pay. The definition of "a danger to self or others" is twisted, minimalized and even ignored. And the causes of these problems go unresearched and unprevented.

We are stockpiling these loaded weapons. The real loaded weapons are these people waiting to go off. And without guns, they won't be stopped. They will resort to other things. Poisonings? Gassings? Bombings? Stabbings and slashings? What will we hope to take away from EVERYONE then? Gasoline? Propane?

The problem is that a single event is being used to punish EVERY innocent gun owner out there. How can it be justified? The gun owner who let her son have access to her weapons paid for it with her life.

When the government reacted to 9/11 by creating the DHS and the TSA, most people generally agree this inconvenience does not make us safer. It just takes away our rights without good cause. Now we're seeing it again, but the target is smaller and now we can divide the public on the issue.

And ALL of this ignores the real problem. That we have people who need help and aren't getting it. And these people can and are dangerous to the public. Is the sub-issue of guns more important than the real issue of WHO IS DANGEROUS to the public?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Arker]

It 'also might be interpreted' as such but only by someone who simply refuses to check sources. The fact of the matter is the words had that meaning at the time and some of the debates around the wording are even preserved so you can see for yourself exactly how it was understood. Regulated didnt acquire the secondary meaning of 'under strict but indirect government control' until later. The original meaning of 'in good order, well prepared' is still found as well, in phrases like a well-regulated machine or in the practice of regulating shotgun bores, but it has been eclipsed in usage. So the only way that argument can be made is out of ignorance or willful deception.

Under the militia acts from that date, the militia was understood to be 'all military aged males' in a given area. Trained and organised groups raised from the militia were specifically distinguished as 'select militia.'

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[uncqual]

Possession of a car is not a basic right guaranteed by the United States Constitution. So, no, they are not alike at all.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[ClickOnThis]

He has a good point since GP committed the initial fallacy of saying that an inanimate object is a risk to others.

Chemical and nuclear weapons are inanimate objects too. So are poorly-designed bridges and childrens' toys.

Inanimate objects can be a risk to others. The risk may depend on context but that is not a fallacy.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[fredgiblet]

Less likely to be robbed while the homeowners are present because of danger.

More likely to be robbed when not present because of value.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[westlake]

So, what does "well-regulated" mean? It means that you know how to use that gun to kill tyrants.

Talk to a colonial era re-enactor and he will tell you that rifles were rarely seen in combat and that muskets were useless except as a mass fire weapon . The problem is accuracy. The problem is rate-of-fire

The long rifle is prone to fouling, and takes a full minute to re-load.

The "well regulated" militia wasn't a beer and chowder marching society. Every move you would make in combat had be rehearsed again and again and again until you got it right. Then next week you come back for more....

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jarik C-Bol]

by what justification does registering for the selective service NOT count?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Anubis IV]

I've never heard of or seen learner plates before. I'm genuinely curious where you live that they have those, since it's an interesting idea, though a bit excessive, I think.

As for risk, how does owning a gun put anyone at "significant risk" compared to any of the other risks you regularly tolerate? A gun is only a source of risk if there is ill intent or negligence involved. But if you're concerned with ill intent, the chemicals in our garages and kitchens are more readily available, cheaper, more dangerous, and easier to procure, not to mention that our cars can do a lot of damage too if we want. If you're worried about negligence, why not have smokers register? There are almost 45x more deaths caused by secondhand smoke (49,000/year in the US, not to mention that 17% of fire-related deaths in residences in the US are caused by smoking) than accidental/unknown intent gun deaths in the US each year (about 1100 in 2011). If risk is your concern, there are FAR greater risks we regularly face that do not require that we give up our right to privacy, so I'm not sure why you think guns in the hands of properly registered owners put you at significant risk.

And if you believe that the intended use of the items impacts how private they should be allowed to be (i.e. cars and chemicals are fine, since they're intended for good uses, while guns are bad, since they're inherently destructive), that argument falls apart in light of the fact that I'm explicitly given the right to own them, as well as given the right to privacy, which would override any "want to know" that you have. But if you're still not swayed, what about cigarettes? They're only intended for smoking, which is an inherently destructive action that is directly responsible for about 20% of US deaths every year (roughly 443,000) according to the CDC link I provided earlier. That stands in stark contrast to the roughly 31,000 intentional deaths caused by guns in the US in 2011. Again, why not have smokers register?

Besides which, even in your example with the learner's permit and the learner plates (which I think is an excessive and unnecessary practice), I would assume those plates go away once the training period has ended. At least in all the places I've lived, before a gun owner can be licensed to carry they must go through a training period, so even based on your analogy there should be no need for gun owners to continue to sacrifice their privacy after they're properly licensed. And if the gun owner merely keeps the gun at home, rather than concealed carrying, that doesn't give you a right to know about it, any more than you have a right to know about the car that the parents next door bought and keep in the garage for their kid who doesn't yet have his permit.

Your "want to know" does not give you any sort of right to know what I have or what I do in my own home. I don't own any guns, but your comment strikes me as a lot of FUD. I prefer sticking to facts.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[jcr]

More to the point, the right to keep and bear arms isn't contingent on militia membership at all, and it never was. The second amendment doesn't even presume to grant the right. It acknowledges it as pre-existing, it cites one reason why it's important to preserve it, and specifically prohibits the federal government from infringing it.

-jcr

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Zak3056]

We have no guarantee of privacy in this country. Nowhere in the constitution is privacy even mentioned.

While I'm not a fan of abortion, I'll point out that Roe v. Wade rests on the right to privacy, "whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."

I also would point out that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" sounds an awful lot like privacy to me.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[oztiks]

LOL this comment needs framing as it symbolically shows societies degradation in so many ways.

It shows the conditioned and damaged mental state of our society as a whole. No matter how smart one is, through correct social conditioning one can become as dumb as a doorknob to preserve a set of programmed ideals.

The very core of the word "regulation" is "regulate" like "government" is "govern".

Regulate Verb
Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

Govern Verb
To make and administer the public policy and affairs of; exercise sovereign authority in.
To control the speed or magnitude of; regulate: a valve that governs fuel intake.
To control the actions or behavior of: Govern yourselves like civilized people.

I might add common sense is becoming less common these days. Now, that lack of "common" within sense is being used to pervert the constitution so individual ideals can be preserved. I may be considered a fool for stating this but sometimes people really need to get "back to basics" before perceiving the world around them, absorb it and try to see past these forms of social conditioning.

The word "trained" is not used in the above definitions. Yet "operates properly" means that a logical process needs to be ensured some how. "Training" to enable proper operation seems logical (and simple), how else do you expect to achieve "operates properly" to ensure "regulation" is instilled? hocus pocus? more social conditioning? how about more/less video games? let's hear the bullshit I can't wait.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[macs4all]

Yup, first amendment vs second amendment. It is funny to see those gun owners who run to the amendment, get outed by the one right above it. Really gun owners.... really?

Forget the lists of "gun owners", I want a list of the people being prescribed SSRIs.

You want to find a link between "mass shootings" and something, you need look no farther than (not so) Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors.

Seriously. Do some research. It's not gun owners we need to fear. It's irresponsible drug companies and lazy-ass doctors, who too often prescribe SSRIs without proper patient follow-up, or worse yet, who increase the SSRI dosage when a patient complains of "feeling worse" after taking them.

Columbine, Aurora, and Sandy Hook (as well as many, many others) all have SSRI involvement.

Prozac (the first SSRI) was approved in 1988. Check out the history of mass murders (esp. "school shooting"-type incidents) in the years before and after SSRIs became commonplace.

We've had a 2nd Amendment for 200+ years. We've had SSRIs for about 20. Look at history and you can clearly see a "knee" in these types of incidents that coincides nicely with SSRI introduction.

But nearly every voice in "the media" is dancing to the drumbeat of a very dangerous tune.

But don't take my word for it; do your own research. I'll wait...

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[ultranova]

These are legal guns and these maps allow prospective homeowners to know which neighborhoods are "safer" (one way or the other).

It lets criminals know exactly which homes to break into to get guns (or which to avoid). It won't let anyone draw any conclusions about the neighbourhood itself without doing statistical analysis. And frankly, I can't help but notice similarities with the sexual offender database, which is specifically meant to dish out indefinite punishment, thus I must conclude that the main purpose here is intimidation.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"If it's registered with the state or feds it's basically 'publicly obtainable information'. Cars, businesses, professional licenses, etc. are all public (in one form or another) and searchable (in one form or another)."

That depends on the state. It is not at all true of all states.

In my state, there is no state registration of firearms. One needs a permit for concealed carry but that is not a "public record" and that information cannot be accessed by the average citizen. For that matter, neither are license plates; here, you cannot look up the owner of a vehicle by license plate, nor can you even make a request to get that information. (I suppose technically you can request it, but you will not get an answer.) The only people who can look up vehicle owner information are law enforcement personnel for legitimate reasons (e.g., traffic stops or crime investigations), and licensed private investigators.

Businesses and the like are a different matter. Presumably, you want knowledge of your business to be spread as widely as possible.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"Until you develop a mental health problem, then it most definitely is everyone else's business."

No, it doesn't. Your mental health might become everybody's business, but not the other thing.

Since this whole discussion is in the context of the Connecticut shooting, you have to keep in mind: somebody HAS TO BE crazy to do such a thing. It was already illegal for him to have guns there. So the law is demonstrably irrelevant. What mattered, and matters, is and was his mental health.

As was pointed out many times after Columbine: almost invariably there are prior signs of mental disturbance, starting well before someone does something like this. The trick is to get society to pay attention to these signs, before it is too late.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"It is, however, the business of the thousands of people who live near you to be confident you have some capability and competency of how to handle said weapons."

Do you think so? Who decides competence? On what measure do you base it? Do you think it is something the State is itself competent to decide rationally?

Evidence tends toward no. Hell, most states can't even properly decide a driver's competence. I wouldn't trust them a bit with guns.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"Having a mental health problem doesn't automatically mean that a person isn't capable of responsibly owning a firearm."

True. It depends very much on the kind and severity of the mental health problem.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"Assault rifles have only one purpose, killing people real bad dead."

Straight from the "irrational Liberal handbook" I see.

Please tell me: what is an "assault weapon"? Something that LOOKS deadly? That's how New Jersey seemed to define them back in 1993. (Or was it '92?) Do you mean "fully automatic"? Those are restricted today anyway. So what do you mean by this term?

A semi-automatic AR15 (basically the civilian, non-full-auto version of the M16) is both a legal and very effective hunting rifle in Idaho and some other states. I have very little doubt it qualifies as something YOU would call an "assault weapon". And they are perfectly legal for hunting smaller game in many states. Someone who used one for hunting would probably be extremely offended if you told him (or her) their gun was "only for killing people". If it were me (I don't claim to own one; this is purely hypothetical) I would probably punch you in the nose for that.

"We have the right and a responsibility as a society to make sure we know who owns those weapons..."

Wow. How misguided can you get? Hint, dude: when "society" knows just who has guns and who does not, you know what you have accomplished? ONLY this: a handy roadmap for every burglar in existence, telling them just exactly who to rob and terrorize and which houses to avoid.

Gawd, you're naive.

"... ensure that owners are of sound mind and body, adequately trained to handle the weapon, and that the weapon is being cared for in such a way that it will not fall into the wrong or young and untrained hands."

And how do you propose to accomplish these goals? By whose standards should "we" decide who is mentally competent to possess a firearm? Should the State or Federal governments set those standards? But wait!!! According to the Supreme Court (and historians),we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms for use AGAINST our own government, if need be.

So we have an inherent conflict of interest there. I am filled with visions of all those Soviet-era political dissidents who were sent to "mental institutions" that were really just prisons.

And further, even if you do not believe that (historically and legally accurate) justification for bearing arms, surely you believe in an individual's right to self-defense? But there's another problem: a gun that "will not fall into the wrong (and who is 'wrong'?) or young or untrained hands" -- i.e., a gun kept unloaded in a safe, for example -- is almost completely useless for self-defense.

"For those that need an AR-15, I want a great deal more background, training, and understanding of that individual."

You aren't going to get it. At least the understanding and background part. And you are going to have to guess about the training, because there is no way for the government to practically or legally regulate it, unless they train EVERYBODY, like the Swiss do.

By the way, I'll repeat what I wrote to someone else: the AR15 is a perfectly legal hunting rifle for small game in much of the United States. Not that hunting has much of anything to do with right of ownership. See Miller v. U.S. and other such court decisions.

And learn to live with it. I understand that you mean well, but your ideas are not just unworkable, but actively dangerous.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"Right, there is no mention of a well regulated militia of automobiles."

Another mis-reading of the Second Amendment. This is one of the most widely misunderstood parts of the Constitution, even though we know its actual meaning beyond any reasonable doubt.

The "well-regulated militia" is the Government's standing military force. As opposed to The People, who made up the "regular" militia, or just "militia", which was ad-hoc and not "well regulated". This seems to be the part that many people have misunderstood. The "well-regulated militia" and "the people" are two very different things.

According to court records, the regular militia consists of every able-bodied person in the country above 16 years of age.

The People were guaranteed the right to bear arms BECAUSE the government needed to have a standing military force. The Founders considered this "well-regulated militia" to be the single biggest threat to freedom. Thus The People could possess arms to fight off the "well-regulated militia" if necessary. This is exactly why the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that The People have a right to own military-grade arms... because there may come a day when they are fighting against a military.

Aside from the fact that there were no automobiles at the time, there is no mention of a "well-regulated militia of automobiles" because it would make no sense. What would a Government fleet of automobiles have to do with the public?

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

The Supreme Court ruled long ago that citizens had a RIGHT to travel within and between states using common modes of transportation. The ruling stated that the right was based on English Common Law predating the Constitution, and that it was considered so obvious at the time that the Founders did not feel the need to spell it out explicitly in the Constitution.

So regardless of whether it says so in the Constitution, SCOTUS has ruled that you do have that right.

Remember, according to that document itself: items that are NOT enumerated in the Constitution are reserved to the States, and to The People. And SCOTUS has ruled that this is one for The People.

Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership

[Jane Q. Public]

"Sheep train sounding louder, Glide on the sheep train..." -- Fat Stevens

AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

[Anonymous Coward]

AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

Re:AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

[romco]

>AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

Unless you are looking for guns.

Re:AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

[lightknight]

Exactly. They've just destroyed the element of surprise for those homeowners. Might as well have posted the security codes to their alarm systems.

Re:AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

[cervesaebraciator]

Which gives lie to this sort of stunt. Ostensibly, you do this sort of thing for public safety. But if you facilitate the theft of guns, by definition you're helping to remove guns from the hands of people who follow laws and put them in the hands of criminals. Nevertheless, this sort of stunt is done because the issue is political and you have to win political battles because the other side is full of bad people.

Re:AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

[Cruciform]

"Criminals". That magical word that everyone uses to delineate the us and them.
Gun crime is as much crimes of passion, negligence, and stupidity by people that wouldn't have been considered "criminals" until after the fact.
The US is not a shooting gallery just because it has Jesse James on every corner and guns are falling into the hands of wild gangs. It's poor regulation and background checks, poor safety requirements, mental health, etc.

So... Question,

[skovnymfe]

All these people that shoot up eachother, are their guns legal or are they illegal?

Re:So... Question,

[mckorr]

The Newtown guns were stolen (from the mother.) The Columbine guns were acquired illegally, using a combination of outlawed third party purchasing and illegal underage sales. Very few mass shootings were done with legally acquired firearms.

A map for crime

[Python]

So basically its a map of people without guns, and therefore excellent homes to invade and rob. Thanks Journal News! Douch bags.

Re:A map for crime

[lightknight]

Both, actually. Homes that aren't marked are safer to rob, while homes which are marked are now offering a gun-special.

Criminal Shopping List

[micron]

This is just a great example of responsible journalism. Now the criminals know exactly where to go to get firearms that will never be traced back to them.

Re:Criminal Shopping List

[Rockoon]

..and then which places to invade after they have a firearm.

Re:Criminal Shopping List

[Python]

That, and which homes are also the safest to rob. All in all, a bang up job for the journal! Really, this should call attention to the poor privacy laws in New York. This kind of information should not be public.

I quit

[Jetra]

Dear America,

I have tried and tried to defend you and get you to see just how idiotic you all are. I've attempted to defend your right to pirate and your right to defend your opinions. However, I believed in the Constitution wholeheartedly. I had believed the good in all, even the lousiest men. However, time and again, you have shown only the dark, ugly side of you, beginning with the war on Rebecca Black's Friday. You all make me ashamed to be an American right now, letting the government seduce you into thinking that guns are bad simply because one maniac decided to let loose on an elementary school.

Removing guns will not solve anything, in fact it will cause more problems. Our will is slowly being drained as they try to pass more and more laws restricting our freedoms, taking away our pride, and eventually turning us into slaves. I came from the 1990s, the final decade where we didn't let government tell us what to do, we all had individual thoughts and cared for the whole rather than ourselves

The internet, while a fantastic tool, has only reinforced the point I have been trying to make. It has made us less unique and forced us to think like a bee hive - all the same thoughts and act in the same way. What happened to being different? Right, being different means you are either gay, a Nazi, or pathetic. Well, call me all those names, but I'm through sticking up for this sorry-ass country I live in. It sickens me to admit I actually tried to defend you and the Constitution.

Now that gun owners are being tracked, it tells me that the final stages are being put forth along with our loss of ownership over photos. Good job, America, you've screwed yourself on all levels. Would you like to be chain and whipped or held in concentration camps while your so-called "government" protects you?

Re:I quit

[cheekyjohnson]

Copyright infringement is called rape, actually. Get it right!

Re:I quit

[cheekyjohnson]

That's what happens when people get obsessed with safety. Freedoms are sacrificed to get safety, and sometimes the safety received isn't even real. That is precisely why we have the TSA, the Patriot Act, and other such nonsense, and why people try so hard to get rid of guns. They'd rather remove people's freedoms than accept a few casualties.

Re:I quit

[Jetra]

Isn't there a nice balance or do we just think in extreme black and white?

Re:I quit

[Gaygirlie]

You cannot e.g. take an idea from someone and not return it -- there is absolutely NO WAY of removing the idea from someone else, you merely copy it. Similarly, piracy is all about copying, not stealing. You should learn the difference.

Re:I quit

[flayzernax]

Not everyone who supports the 2cnd amendment is a member of the NRA, or a dickhead.

Re:I quit

[cheekyjohnson]

Isn't there a nice balance

If by "balance" you mean trying to find ways to increase safety without removing 'fundamental' freedoms, then probably. Get rid of the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, and all that other garbage, though.

Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts

[Scutter]

So, the best response you could come up with is an ad hominem attack and profanity? Nice.

Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State

[wombatmobile]

Does gun ownership make for a safer, better, society, or something else? Statistical correlation is not the same thing as causality, but what do these facts tell us?

Re:Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd suggest you temper your map with some localized information from these charts http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/leadingcauses.html. You'll see that a simple map of "injury from a firearm" almost always includes suicides.

The concerning part is the illogical application of constitutional amendments here. If I published a list of all the people who commented on political forums in 2012 with their home address would that be okay?

Re:Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State

[Anonymous Coward]

They tell you nothing. For one, "gun deaths" have nothing to do with the actual number of homicides committed using firearms. The phrase "gun deaths" is used by those pushing an agenda because they get to pump up their numbers with suicides (which would occur with or without guns). Suicides account for more than two-thirds of the "gun deaths" in the US, and our suicide rate doesn't even come close to matching many other countries (including ones such as South Korea and Japan where gun ownership is severely restricted).

As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

In other words, when you look at this from a neutral angle rather than trying to push one side or another things don't seem as dire as they appear.

Re:Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State

[orzetto]

[...] suicides (which would occur with or without guns)

No they wouldn't. Suicide is not something that is decided upon irreversibly by the person who does it. It can be a moment of desperation that could very well wear off after a few minutes. In fact, if you have any experience with crying children (or adults), you probably noticed that there is a brief transient of desperation while the person calms down. If the desperation is high enough, and this person has undisturbed access to a gun, they can kill themselves on the spot; if they need to hang themselves, cut themselves to bleed to death, take poison, all of these operations require a minimum of preparation, and most importantly they take time (e.g. poison and drug overdose are not immediate; there is still time to call a doctor).

As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

Seriously? Then I guess the air quality in Beijing must be pretty good, compared to the atmosphere on Venus. Honduras is a crime state that went through a coup just a few years back, and is basically a failed state. The US murder rate is 4.2 (see the wiki), let's see which countries have a lower one...

• Turkey, 3.3
• Uzbekistan, 3.1
• Cambodia, 3.4
• Niger, 3.8 (the poorest country on the planet)
• Afghanistan, 2.4 (war casualties excluded)
• Syria, 2.2 (again, war casualties excluded)
• Jordan, 1.8
• Sri Lanka, 3.6
• Iran, 3.0
• Bangladesh, 2.7
• China, 1.0
• Egypt, 1.2
• Western Europe, average 1.0

So yes, the US murder rate is unparalleled for a developed nation, and much closer to that of poor or half-failed countries. Of course if you drag into the picture narcorepublics and countries that are more like institutionalised criminal syndicates than republics, the statistics look a bit better, but it's like putting lipstick on a pig—it's still 4.2 by 100k.

Re:Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State

[Thiez]

> As far as murder rate, the US is relatively far down the list with approximately 4.2 per 100,000. Compare this to ~91 per 100,000 for Honduras.

Are your standards really so low that you would compare yourself to the country with the highest number of homicides in the world? How about you compare your country to some first-world countries instead? Try any of the countries in Western Europe, or Japan, or even China...

Re:Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State

[drinkypoo]

So yes, the US murder rate is unparalleled for a developed nation, and much closer to that of poor or half-failed countries

You need to count state-sponsored murder. Murder of the citizenry one at a time because you don't have a better solution is still murder no matter how you dress it up as the "death penalty". Now, compare murders in China to the USA. HTH, HAND.

Why is the list of permit holders anybody ...

[Tim Ward]

... else's business?

Maybe I'm trying to work out where I'm going to live, and want to avoid neighbourhoods that are so dangerous that their residents think they need guns.

Re:Why is the list of permit holders anybody ...

[dgatwood]

I think the comparison to the sex offenders map is apt. This map serves as a perfect counterbalance to that registered sex offenders map.

You see, there's a fine line between self defense and vigilantism. Whenever somebody gets raped or a child goes missing, there's a heightened risk of violence against people on the sex offenders list because everybody assumes they did it. Since random gun owners now know where former sex offenders live, it's only fair that the knowledge be mutual. :-)

great idea

[Dolphinzilla]

lets give everyone another reason to buy guns on the black/gray market and not register them - that is utter stupidity

Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts

[flyneye]

Well when the paper uses it's free speech to endanger the lives and property of others by noting for criminals which houses are unprotected and may be burglarized without fear of adding a felony gun crime to possible charges when a crowbar will do. On the other hand if one has a gun and wants another it becomes easier to do your shopping if you know where to go, which really amounts to the paper condoning, hell, even facilitating future " gun crimes", how extremely profitable for the paper. Not so much for free speech or free people. This is an example of the fatal error of slackly publicly educated liberals ignorantly shouting FIRE! in a theatre to generate headlines of people being trampled. UYYEAAAHHH , free speech alright.....Doh, Homer!

Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the response he came up with was to refer to the First Amendment, which gun nuts are conveniently ignoring, and thus are probably not mentally stable enough to own a gun.

Ad Hominem means "You insulted people instead of presenting an argument", not "Even though you presented a logical and coherent argument, I'm going to pretend it's invalid because you also happened to insult people and use naughty words while presenting it. And because I have no counter-argument".

Brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Being aware of the presence of a gun and whether it is in a safe mode is essential when children are involved.

So... I have just looked at the map, and discovered that my little nephews live next to gun owners on three sides. Their parents now know this, and can ensure that their neighbors properly "safe" their weapons if they are at their house.

IMHO, this was a very important community service.

Re:Brilliant

[Dolphinzilla]

maybe they should publish a list of homes with poisonous household chemicals, prescription drugs, swimming pools, razor blades, exposed A/C outlets, 6 foot ladders, ornamental samurai swords and anything else that might harm children... Do you not see how absurd this is ? IMHO this is utterly insane, it is NOT the same as publishing a list of registered sex offenders, protecting children from people is not the same as protecting them from objects. If your child goes over to a neighbors house its OK to ask them if they have guns and they are safe, in fact its YOUR responsibility as a parent !!

Re:The price of freedom of the press...

[lightknight]

Uhh, no. No shame in owning a weapon. Instead, they just announced who to rob, and who to rob during the day when the home's occupants are at work. Because a fair number of felons acquire guns after leaving prison, and this newspaper just handed them a holiday shopping list. Merry Christmas everyone!

I'm sure the people with guns will be happy knowing that their homes may be ransacked by criminals looking for their guns (worth more than jewelry), while the people without will be happy knowing that criminals now know that they do not possess any firearm, and so can murder / rape / whatever them without fear of dad or mom busting out a .44. "My dad is going to shoot you!" "No he isn't; Bob here has that gun permit map thingy from that journal a while back loaded up on his phone, and it says neither you, nor any of your neighbors have any guns. Now Bob here...he hasn't seen a woman in years, on account of him being on the inside, so I'm gonna go make some popcorn while the two of you get comfortable."

Re:Pointless exercise

[ColdWetDog]

Which is an exceedingly important fact. While handguns and long guns go together like .... well, I'll leave it to your imaginations - lots of people have one or the other. So the only utility of this map is to annoy gun owners and make some sort of social noise (ooh, lots of people have guns).

Let's rephrase it: This is a map of people with registered handguns. Not rifles, not caches of ammunition, diesel and ammonium nitrate (those are the people you want to have a reasonable buffer around), not unregistered guns. So it tells you - not much.

Want to see who has more disposable income? Check out property values. Look at cars.
Want to see how many people have alarm systems? Stumble around Google Maps or for heaven's sake, walk around a neighborhood ('case the joint').

It's a dick move and won't help move the discussion very far, but that's journalism.

Re:bad idea

[houghi]

[About how robbers would get your gun when that gun is locked up]
They put a gun to your kids head (or a knife to their throat) and politely ask for the key to the guns.
Now it is up to you to use your right to defend yourself with said gun and shoot the robber. Extra points if your kid gets away unharmed.

Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts

[evil_aaronm]

You assume that because I don't show up on such a list that I'm unarmed. None of the shotguns that I inherited from my father are listed anywhere, but they all work perfectly well. These lists indicate permit holders, which are required for hand guns. Owners of rifles generally don't need permits.

Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts

[rmdingler]

Full discloser: I am armed at home. Always. Please publish this information for all to see. Much as my dogs make my home a less ideal target than my cat-loving neighbor, this revelation is further deterrent to the "takers".

A big thank you to The Journal

[russotto]

...on behalf of gun rights advocates, for graphically illustrating one reason requiring gun registration is a bad idea.

Another thank you from Westchester & Rockland Organized Crime, Inc, both for providing homes to avoid for their junior members, and high-value targets for their more skilled housebreakers.

Not a Complete List

[GODISNOWHERE]

This is only a list of handguns, which you need a permit to own. It does not list rifles or shotguns, which make up a significant percentage of guns owned by Americans. Although it is more probable that the households that own handguns also own more of the rifles and shotguns than households without handguns, there are still many gun owning households that are not listed here. In fact, I know someone who lives in this area who is not listed, but has a rifle in her house.

Re:Not a Complete List

[FictionPimp]

It also assumes that just because you have a permit, you have a pistol. I have a few friends who have lifetime carry permits, but no pistols. They had to sell them during tough times.

Gun owners should be all for it.

[Arancaytar]

Since they're so proud of their guns. And since guns are mainly intended to secure by deterrence, publicly advertising their presence makes a home that much safer from intruders.

Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts

[FictionPimp]

The first amendment now means all government records should be public? I don't think anyone is denying the right of the people to publish any information they can legally obtain. Instead the argument is that the information should not be public. That in no way violates the first amendment. Unless you think the CIA should just be a web forum where we can all pitch in.

Re:bad idea

[1u3hr]

They put a gun to your kids head (or a knife to their throat) and politely ask for the key to the guns.

Right. They're going to risk a murder rap to steal your pistol. What is it, Elvis's silver plated limited edition Colt? There are 300 million guns in the USA at least. Any idiot can get a gun for pocket change. And it's a lot easier to steal pocket change and buy one than take your family hostage. Just because you love your gun more than life itself doesn't make it the crown jewels.

Re:The price of freedom of the press...

[Nidi62]

Make it a socially reprehensible act to be homosexual(even though it's not illegal) and you'll see how fast people's attitude towards gays and lesbians will change for the better. And the good news ? You don't have to get Congress involved, or the LGBTA, etc... Just public shame.

Because this is just as ok, right?

Driver Privacy Protection Act

[langelgjm]

A gun is more like a car. If you want to own it and operate it there some regulations to limit the risk that your neighbors have to endure.

There are also rule about privacy of car ownership. Under federal law, you can't simply call up the DMV and find out the registered owner of a car based on the license plate. You have to have specified, limited reasons for doing so, and there are records kept of such requests: Driver Privacy Protection Act

Re:Rather Have a Map of Assualt Rifle Owners

[Indy1]

Move to California or NJ or CT or NY or MA, and you can enjoy your false sense of security.

BTW, REAL assault weapons are almost impossible to get due to NFA of 1934 and Hughes of 86. What you're so terrified of are rifles that only LOOK like assault rifles. But considering the stupidity of your statement, I highly doubt you have the IQ to understand the difference.