Slashdot Mirror


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.

46 of 1,232 comments (clear)

  1. So Proud of Gun Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    3. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Python · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --

      Python

    4. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by lightknight · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    5. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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."

    6. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          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.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    7. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by kimvette · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    8. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Albanach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    10. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by JimCanuck · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    11. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    12. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by davydagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    14. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by flayzernax · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    15. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Millennium · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    17. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    18. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by poity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    19. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by pla · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!"

    20. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    21. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    22. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by deathguppie · · Score: 4, Funny

      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'.

      --
      once more into the breach
    23. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by 517714 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    24. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Jiro · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.)

    25. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by furball · · Score: 4, Informative

      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"

    26. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    27. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    28. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.'

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    29. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    30. Re:So Proud of Gun Ownership by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  2. A map for crime by Python · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --

    Python

  3. Criminal Shopping List by micron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State by wombatmobile · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Consider this map of Gun Deaths By State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  5. Re:AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob. by romco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob.

    Unless you are looking for guns.

    --
    AdFuel
  6. Re:I quit by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
  7. Re:AKA A map of which houses NOT to rob. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts by evil_aaronm · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  9. Re:So... Question, by mckorr · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  10. A big thank you to The Journal by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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.

  11. Re:Brilliant by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 !!

  12. Not a Complete List by GODISNOWHERE · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  13. Re:More Irrational Gun Nuts by FictionPimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  14. Re:bad idea by 1u3hr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  15. Driver Privacy Protection Act by langelgjm · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

    --
    "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson