New York newspaper to list more gun permit holders after uproar

[onehandle]

Source: Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A suburban New York newspaper that sparked an uproar among gun enthusiasts by publishing names and addresses of residents holding pistol permits is now planning to publish even more identities of permit-toting locals.

Further names and addresses will be added as they become available to a map originally published on December 24 in the White Plains, New York-based Journal News, the newspaper said.

The original map listed thousands of pistol permit holders in suburban Westchester and Rockland counties just north of New York City.

Along with an article entitled "The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood," the map was compiled in response to the December 14 shooting deaths of 26 children and adults in Newtown, Connecticut, editors of the Gannett Corp.-owned newspaper said.


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/york-newspaper-list-more-gun-permit-holders-uproar-120534293--finance.html

[slackmaster]

1. And their new list will surely include battered women, stalking victims, etc.

Among the thousands on their list will undoubtedly be people whose addresses were previously not available to the public.

But that's just acceptable collateral damage to some of us. Or they think of convenient rationalizations.

[Hoyt]

6. Does being battered/stalked explain why you covet assault weapons?

I'm for protecting battered/stalked women. But I really don't think that explains why most of the gungeon elite, and right wing Tbaggers elsewhere, covet their guns.

I'm really not for publishing these names. Apparently, it must be popular with readers though.

[grahampuba]

10. the article said pistols

any reason you made the assumption that they 'coveted assault weapons'
or is that just the popular buzz word or are you so uninformed that you cant make a distinction.

[Hoyt]

14. Pistols are assault weapons too. Loughner and many others used handguns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SfDjvhsdQoo


Truthfully, semi-auto handguns are more of a threat than assault rifles -- especially from those who have to strap one or two handguns on before venturing out into public parks, Chuck E Cheese, schools, churches, bars, etc.

[grahampuba]

18. so that would be,

uninformed.
while there are a few automatic pistols that could be categorized as assault weapons 99% of them are not.
the pistol in the clip there looks like a Glock 18, available only to law enforcement / government agencies.

[Hoyt]

21. Depends on who is doing the categorization, doesn't it? We need to broaden the categorization beyond

that "written" by NRA types. A semi-auto, with a hi-cap mag is probably more dangerous than a Bushmaster. Might not cause more gun cultists to get aroused, but it's just as deadly and certainly easier to conceal.

[grahampuba]

27. would CA have a definition that suits you?

http://oag.ca.gov/firearms/awguide
lists 8 pistols.
so that would be 8 pistols out of ~800 that qualify?

[Hoyt]

36. Nope. I think all semi-autos should be categorized as what they are.

[Plucketeer]

40. Yeah - what's IN a word?

Cannot one commit an assualt with a Derringer?

[Hoyt]

49. One could, but it's not likely. If gun nuts were satisfied with derringers, we'd have few problems.

But derringers just don't have the arousal/drool factor for gun cultists.

[Cooley Hurd]

59. Oh, bullshit on the "definition of an assault weapon"...

The fucking Glock that Loughner used still KILLED multiple people because of its extended clip. I could give a crap what is defined as "an assault weapon". The fucking device KILLED multiple people VERY easily.

[grahampuba]

116. its an established term

just because it does not square with the scope that you would consider applicable personally, it does not change the definition.
there are enough valid points to discuss these issues, no need to resort to hypberbole and inflated claims to bolster your argument.

not a supporter of fanaticism on any side of an issue, it only servers to further polarize this country.

[Chan790]

133. Is taxonomy that important to you?

If so, we can come up with a new word to describe the guns we wish to see off the streets.

"Potential mass-murder guns" I like the sound of it.

The point is not taxonomy, it's what guns should be outlawed, whatever you call them.

[slackmaster]

15. Hoyt is just trying to bait me

He failed.

[azureblue]

16. well

what did this killer use, anyway? See here's the thing about you gun nuts - you want rapid fire weapons because you can't shoot. You aren't good enough to hit your target with one shot..

Back in colonial days, the colonists would use black powder muskets to bring down a turkey. Note that black powder muskets do not fire when you pull the trigger -there is a delay due the powder being ignited in the pan, then that ignites the powder cartridge that propels the musket ball. So hungry colonist has to pull the trigger and keep the (heavy and long barrel - I know, I shot one a few times) musket aimed at the in flight turkey, all the while leading it so that the bird flies into the path of the musket ball. If you can do that, then you are qualified to own a gun. if you can't, no, go practice, till you can.

[Hoyt]

23. Good laugh of the day -- "you want rapid fire weapons because you can't shoot."

[NYC Liberal]

28. Information that was already public record.

So it's not "their" list.

[slackmaster]

30. Not accurate, NYC Liberal. Home ownership data is public record. Addresses of renters are not.

Nor are the locations of people living temporarily in safe houses.

Think about it!

[wtmusic]

51. The gun owners have the Second, the newspaper has the First. nt

[slackmaster]

52. The gun owners have the First as well, and it's a pretty powerful weapon.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=350755

[wtmusic]

54. Fine. What's the uproar about? nt

[slackmaster]

56. The uproar, as I see it, is that among the pistol permit holders are probably some people who are...

...trying to keep their locations confidential because they are being stalked or threatened. Home ownership data is public information. The addresses of renters, and of people living in safe houses, should not be published without their permission for any reason.

The California Department of Motor Vehicles used to give out home addresses of people from their car registration data. The state changed the law in 1994 after someone used that information to track down and murder a young actress that he was stalking.

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

[wtmusic]

65. Nah, the newspaper's First Amendment rights shouldn't be curtailed for any reason.

Are we picking and choosing which Amendments suit us best?

Kinda surprised you'd want to bring up Schaeffer, as she was killed with a handgun. Especially now, when anyone can get anyone else's home address for about $20.

[slackmaster]

66. If a battered woman is staying with trusted friends or hiding at a safe house...

...you can't get her address for any amount of money.

Unless she lives in New York state and has a pistol permit.

[wtmusic]

67. She has her gun, what does she have to worry about?

I thought they're supposed to be effective at protection.

If there's no problem with owning guns then gun owners have nothing to hide, yet they're scurrying like cockroaches for cover. Demonstrative of the negative correlation between gun ownership and bravery.

Personally, I'd want to know if someone living near me has a cache of weapons. I would not want to associate with them or allow my kids to associate with them.

[slackmaster]

68. You've posted that silly straw man argument several times now. It's not working.

[wtmusic]

69. No, sounds like your argument's hit the brick wall.

"It's not working". OK.

[slackmaster]

73. I regard the issue of someone who is trying to stay safe from a stalker as a serious one

I guess you don't.

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

[wtmusic]

74. Hey, maybe if Schaeffer knew there was a gun nut near her

she could have taken preventative action.

Is that the best you can do with 20 kids dead in a CT schoolroom, trot out a 25-year-old murder?

[slackmaster]

76. She knew for three years that she was being stalked by a dangerous, unstable person

[wtmusic]

79. Bottom line: guns are not effective protection

otherwise there's no problem.

Seems you have a contradiction on your hands.

[wtmusic]

84. * crickets *....* hoot - hoot * (<-owl)

[slackmaster]

95. I don't have a contradiction on my hands at all. Guns offer enhanced capability for self-defense...

...in a last ditch desperate situation at best. They certainly do not guarantee protection or anything else.

Keeping dangerous people physically away from you is the best protection. The Journal News made that much more difficult for some people.

BTW, Rebecca Shaeffer didn't own a gun.

[obamanut2012]

91. She is why DMV info is no longer available

Without a court order in many states, as well s certain other public info.

[Ms. Toad]

89. The information on a gun permit is obviously a public record

or the newspaper would not have been able to obtain it.

It may not be easily available via an internet search - like home ownership records are - but it is public.

Your argument is with the laws governing whether permit information is public. If it is public information, not only can the newspaper get the information - so can any other member of the public.

[slackmaster]

94. You are correct Ms. Toad. My main issue is with the law itself. I feel the newspaper acted...

...inappropriately in exercising its right to retrieve, compile, and publish that information.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. They most likely won't be by the government, but there certainly has been some backlash

Subscription cancellations, advertiser boycotts, and direct social pressure on employees is all going on. Those too are 1st amendment rights. The staff in particular is finding out just how bad social pressure can be.

Those that revel in the publishing of public data, should be willing to endure the same. So far it has been FB, residential and work information. It may well escalate to criminal and driving records of them and family.

Never get in a data war with the geeks, we always win.

[Disgraceland]

152. Still flogging a phony issue-

There's zero evidence that the hypothetical situation you propose has happened or is at all likely. And your proposing it strikes me as insincere and self-serving, since you ignore the other effects of publishing this information.

Why is it not more likely that a stalker or dumped or potential boyfriend obtained a gun, and the stalkee might find out via the newspaper?

Why is it not more likely that someone might keep their family away from a home with guns and prevent an accident?

Why is it not more likely that one could urge a woman to leave a home with a gun, or get rid of her own gun, and save a life? "In 2007, 4,177 women were killed with firearms in the United States. Just over half of firearm deaths to women are suicides (2,171) and just under half (1,865) are homicides (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC))."

Look at the statistics for accidental deaths with firearms. Look at the statistics for assaults ON women with guns--vs. the likelihood of the scenario you cook up. "U.S. women's firearm death rate is 12 times higher than the combined rate of 22 other populous, high-income countries ... Gun owners are 7.8 times more likely than non-gun owners to have threatened their partners with guns "[brady center]

If your argument is that there is more net harm caused by publication than public benefit, you need to explain why the much more likely and demonstrably common events like accidents aren't going to be prevented--and far outweigh the unlikely scenario that boyfriend X, who doesn't even know where some woman is, will surmise she bought a gun and go clicking through every dot on a newspaper website tracker of an entire county's guns on the off chance he finds her--and then conclude that he wants to confront that armed person.

And that's apart from a basic misunderstanding about public records. You take a typical right-wing position that the public should bear the cost of your "personal" activity (through gun registrations, police monitoring, the social cost of killings and accidents)--yet afford you a special anonymous status. If that's your position, you should be arguing for legislation to keep the records secret and honestly convince the public that they should agree with you. But you don't do that. you argue that the newspaper is directly causing harm But you don't take an honest view of that either. Nor do you bother to think that public access to records, inconvenient to some, is a social good on its own--that we try to uphold in general for good reason.

As far as I see, the only real harm so far is to the newspaper staffers who had nothing to do with the story and have been harassed by right wing guntards: look at the angry CT bloggers comment section to see who is doing this.

Your argument is nonsense. But I'm sure it's motivated by a longstanding concern about violence against women.

[slackmaster]

153. You're very confident that out of 44,000 people NOT A SINGLE ONE is a stalking victim

http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/inbriefs/stalking/stalking.html

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/169592.pdf

[NYC Liberal]

57. So this information was illegally leaked to the paper?

Who leaked it?

[slackmaster]

58. The paper got the information from a FOIA request, I believe.

Which anyone COULD do, but a stalker might not think to look there.

[NYC Liberal]

61. Right, so it was public information.

[slackmaster]

63. Maybe it shouldn't be public information

The California Department of Motor Vehicles used to give out home addresses of people from their car registration data. The state changed the law in 1994 after someone used that information to track down and murder a young actress that he was stalking.

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

And as for the fact that the gun permit data is public information right now, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for a newspaper to compile and publish it wholesale.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

90. The paper is just doing their bit

to keep the militia well-regulated.

[Igel]

109. Next they should list everybody that has a guardian.

After all, in most states that's public information.

Who wouldn't want to have a list of people who are in need of care and can't defend themselves published?

"Know who's demented in your neighborhood!"

Great lede.

As for "well-regulated," most people have a short enough horizon that they don't realize words change meanings from time to time. Just like "control" used to mean "monitor" and "corn" meant any grain, so the "lord" (or "loaf-warden&quot was just the guy responsible for controlling the workers and giving them their corn. He may let them starve, but he'd be in serious trouble if they starved from a lack of food. ("Starve" meant "die"--"die from lack of food" is a later narrowing of meaning.)

Yet when you use words in a way that supposes their older meaning but pour new meanings into their forms it really does sound silly. "In serious trouble if they starved from lack of food," indeed. Then again, it sounds no less ridiculous than the way people use "well-regulated" when parsing the 2nd Amendment.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

29. Doesn't that collateral damage

argument apply to both sides of this debate? Aren't gun owners who resist any and all attempts to restrict the types of guns available just as guilty of overlooking the collateral damage?

**Among the thousands on their list will undoubtedly be people whose addresses were previously not available to the public.**

The list is a matter of public record, the addresses were always available to a determined seeker.

I wonder whether an injunction will be forthcoming.

[slackmaster]

31. That's a ridiculous rationalization

Aren't gun owners who resist any and all attempts to restrict the types of guns available just as guilty of overlooking the collateral damage?

The issue at hand is the confidentiality of the addresses of people who wish to keep their locations secret.

The list is a matter of public record, the addresses were always available to a determined seeker.

Baloney.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

82. Bologna? Really?

What do you think public record means?

I'm not saying the newspaper was right to do this...I think they are as absurdly dangerous as those who refuse to consider any type of gun regulation. I'm not rationalizing anything, I do believe you are projecting, however. Surely, you can make a better case than that.

[slackmaster]

93. I'm sorry if I haven't expressed my point clearly enough. Peoples' HOME ADDRESSES are not...

...necessarily public information.

In the case of a battered woman who is hiding out at a shelter or staying with trusted friends, HER address is certainly not in public records.

I assume that one condition of having a valid pistol permit in New York is to notify the Department of Justice whenever you physically move, so that your pistol permit record always includes a current physical address. (If I'm wrong about that I hope someone will correct my misunderstanding, but that is a provision of every gun permit program that I'm aware of.)

My issue is that the ADDRESSES of pistol permit holders should not be easily available to anyone.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

100. So your beef is with the state of NY?

Domestic Violence Shelters do not allow guns on the premises. If I were hiding from someone I doubt I would notify the Dept. of Justice,
would you?

I don't think the personal information of anyone should be easily available...however it is becoming almost impossible to protect one's privacy.

On the other side of the coin...considering the number of children killed accidentally because a gun was not secured within the home, do parents have no rights to know in what homes guns may be present? When our children make new friends at school or little league, are we now to ask the parents "do you have a gun in your home?" Are we to accept their word if they say "no"? What it they have the same privacy issues as you and say no because they think it is none of my business? And what if the worse case scenario plays out?

I don't think this issue is as cut and dried as you would like to make it. I almost envy your ability to see things through such a narrowly focused prism.

[slackmaster]

102. As I explained to Ms. Toad, my beef is both with the law that allows release of that information,

...and also with the newspaper for its actions, which while legal are to me unconscionable. The fact that you can do something doesn't always mean it's good or even OK.

Domestic Violence Shelters do not allow guns on the premises....

No, but they allow people who have gun permits on the premises. I can't cite chapter and verse of the provisions of New York's handgun permit law, but in some states it's a crime to fail to notify the DoJ promptly when you relocate. That applies whether or not you actually have a gun. Of course that may not be true in New York. I'm just citing it as an example of the conditions that usually are attached to gun permits where permits are issued.

On the other side of the coin...considering the number of children killed accidentally because a gun was not secured within the home, do parents have no rights to know in what homes guns may be present?

That's a good question. I think it's perfectly proper to ask the parents of your child's friends whether they have weapons and how their weapons are secured. I also think that basic gun safety should be taught in public schools, so that all young people are given an awareness of how dangerous guns can be, and what to do if they encounter an unsecured one or find themselves in the company of people who are not handling one responsibly.

I don't believe it's proper for people to rely on government to assist them through ordinary interpersonal interactions like deciding where their children play. I'm all for sex offender registries, but to get on one you have to commit a serious crime. The people who have pistol permits are not IMO the right people to be worried about.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

111. It may be a crime, but I wouldn't notify the DOJ.

You didn't answer the one question I wanted you to address. What happens in the worse case scenario? Would you support prosecution of a gun owner whose gun was not properly secured and used to kill someone? Otherwise I can ask, they can lie and I could find myself a grieving parent, with little recourse but revenge. Which is not a satisfactory solution.

The government seems to agree with you and takes no responsibility for protecting its citizens, not at the local, state or federal level. It would appear that our government believes only it should be protected...you can't take a gun into a federal building. I think most states still ban guns in the court house. Your assessment of those with permitted pistols assumes they are responsible as well as law abiding.
I take a much dimmer view of all people, not just gun owners.

The addresses of Domestic Violence Shelters are usually kept secret. The addresses of the agencies are public, so people can find them when in need...the shelters are 'safe houses'.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

2. Gluttons for retributions their are

The paper has already been rebuked by other journalists, and yet they persist. Many employees are already erasing their online presences and complaining loudly about being harassed. Time to start checking the criminal databases for DUIs etc.

[mainer]

3. Maybe that's why the newspaper keeps doing it

the editor must be pissed off that she's getting such blowback, so she's digging in deeper because that's her way to fight back.

[graham4anything]

9. If you have an alarm, you put stickers all over the place to publicize it

and the louder the gunnies argue, the more you know this is a good thing

so much for the lies that guns are for protection

after all, if you have an alarm you publicize it 24/7/365

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Maybe in your low rent neighborhood

you want to provide additional free advertising to the trunk slammer ripoff artists.

In some jurisdictions an alarm permit is required, which will be posted near the front door. That is all that most people display.

I do note that the tabloid's employees are getting very unhappy with the pressure being placed upon them both online, and at the job due to decreased circulation and advertiser boycotts.

Maybe your neighbors should put up one of these:

[xoom]

121. I would be so angry if I saw that in someones yard.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. Its an extreme case, but barring CC&R issues, most likely legal

There is a picture that purports to be a RL example of that. Don't know if it was photoshopped or real

The interactive map is not all that different in terms of data...how angry are you about that?

[grahampuba]

4. burn em!

freaking witch hunt fueled by anti gun zealotry akin to what is blossoming here on DU.

some awfully self righteous people these days.

[plethoro]

8. I wonder when we will have our own

Night of the Broken Glass.

[Fumesucker]

11. The killer at Sandy Hook shot out windows to gain entry to the school

So I think your Kristallnacht has already come, it just didn't come for thee, it came for a bunch of first graders.

[plethoro]

24. It always comes for the least of these first. As structure forms, the

victims become more sophisticated.

[Hoyt]

38. Hopefully we'll see more anti-gun zealotry so that attitudes toward guns becomes very negative.

[onehandle]

43. After the GOP Congress prevents any new gun control measures, come Spring, mothers will march.

When it gets warmer, the heat will be on.

[Hoyt]

48. I hope so.

I've seen some videos by a community mothers organization that is really behind actions that will keep guns out of neighborhoods.

[Cali_Democrat]

5. Excellent. Responsible Gun Owners™ many times aren't very responsible.

People have a right to know where danger lurks.

[graham4anything]

7. Good! The uproar from the NRA means its working.

and besides, why wouldn't someone want people to know they have a gun?
After all, if you have an alarm you place stickers all over the place to inform everyone.

so much for gun people saying its for security. It's to overthrow the government. Plain and simple.

[HockeyMom]

12. I equate this with CCW

I would rather people OPENLY carry. Let the world know who you are. Personally, I would then avoid people on the street (in crazy Florida) carrying a gun that I can see. Maybe the gun owners don't like this, and my attitude, but we have rights too.

There is no gun registration in the state of Florida, so there would be no publishing of names and addresses of gun owners.

[Buzz Clik]

53. Are all gun owners bad or potentially dangerous?

[wtmusic]

75. Yes, all gun owners are potentially dangerous. By definition. nt

[hack89]

77. Like all drivers are potentially dangerous

or all drinkers.

[slackmaster]

78. All men are potential rapists

etc.

[wtmusic]

81. Yet somehow murderers overwhelmingly choose guns.

Why is that?

[hack89]

87. Yet where I live cars kill many more people than guns

why is that?

[wtmusic]

92. Because they're used a lot more.

I suppose if you had people shooting their guns in public as much as people drive guns would win out.

But there's really no reason to, it's just a stupid hobby which murderers find easy to exploit.

[hack89]

96. And because gun violence is geographically concentrated

in urban areas with high levels of poverty, drugs and crime.

Legal gun owners are not the problem. The insistence of lumping legal and illegal gun users together does nothing but piss off a group of voters you will need to pass any gun control legislation. Think about it.

[wtmusic]

97. Nancy Lanza was a legal gun owner, and you're correct: she wasn't the problem.

It was her fucking guns.

The legislation is going to happen whether gun "enthusiasts" like it or not.

[hack89]

98. There will be no significant gun control legislation.

they will introduce some bills that will die in the republican controlled House.

Have you seen where House Dems are already backing away from an AWB and proposing just a ban on high capacity mags because they know they need repuke votes?

Savor that feeling of righteousness you are feeling right now - that as good as it will get for you.

[Comrade Grumpy]

149. ...like Newtown, Connecticut?

Gun violence may be concentrated in poor minority areas--which could help explain why we tend to ignore it--but it is certainly not limited to those areas. Maybe it takes the mass gun murder of a bunch of nice white kids in a nice town to focus our attention.

[whiteroses]

103. Gun deaths set to outstrip car fatalities for first time in 2015

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-deaths-set-outstrip-car-fatalities-first-time-152632492.html

Deaths from firearms are set to outstrip car fatalities for the first time, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and reported by Bloomberg News.

The CDC estimates that auto-related deaths--long on the decline as more motorists wear seat-belts and face harsher penalties for drunk driving--will fall to 32,000 in 2015. Deaths from firearms, which include suicides and accidents, are estimated to rise to 33,000 over the same period.

Every day, 85 Americans are shot dead, about 53 of them in suicides. This figure is still lower than 1993's peak in gun deaths (37,666), but has risen significantly since firearm deaths reached a low in 2000 (28,393). The data goes back to 1979.

Meanwhile, USA Today, which looked at FBI figures, reports that 774 people were killed between 2006 and 2010 by a mass killer, defined as a person who kills four or more people in one incident. The figures show that mass killers strike on average once every two weeks. A third of the 156 mass killings did not involve firearms, but rather fire, knife or other weapon. Almost all of the mass killers in those years were men, and their average age was 32. The dozens of deaths caused by mass killers represented about 1 percent of all homicides between 2006 and 2010.

[Pholus]

106. Ooops. Wondered why the gun stats constantly stopped in 2009... nt

[HockeyMom]

85. Why do they have defensive driving courses?

because you cannot assume that all the other drivers on the road will be following the rules.

[Fumesucker]

13. I disagree

It's for shooting kids who play their music too loud.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-11-27/news/os-teen-shot-dead-loud-music-20121126_1_gun-collector-argument-over-loud-music-michael-dunn

[AlbertCat]

17. Why wouldn't these people want others to know they have guns?

I mean, doesn't the "logic" go, if all those bad guys out to get you know you're armed, they won't bother you...right?

What's the prob?

Are they ashamed of being gun owners?

[slackmaster]

19. The issue is whether all of these people want others to know where they live

Think about it.

[Travis_0004]

20. If you had a crazy ex stalking you, and you bougtht a gun for protection

Would you want your name and address published on the internet?

[grahampuba]

22. but our self righteousness supercedes that!

there is no instance that justifies abortion,.. i mean gun ownership!

[obamanut2012]

71. This

This is very upsetting to me for that reason.

[mainer]

104. Wouldn't the crazy stalker already know where you are?

Since these are public records, available to anyone, it would be easy to track the stalkee down. Now the stalker knows his victim has gun and he should leave her alone.

[onehandle]

44. They're scared of their own shadows.

'Fraid that the 'revenuers' are comin' to git 'em.

http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2010/03/23/its-the-revenues

[humblebum]

25. The paper needs to be held liable for any adverse incident that might occur as

as a result of publishing these names. Should any of the weapons be stolen and used they need to be held responsible to a large degree.

[frylock]

55. the newspaper should be held accountable for weapons that people fail to secure?

are you fucking shitting me?! put your fucking guns in a safe! that's what I do. sure, it makes it more difficult for me to look longingly at them and jack off, but I know my guns are secure.

[humblebum]

80. You bet they should be held accountable, because in fact they would be. However, there is no excuse

for unsafe storage and use of guns. But it's kinda hard to get a handgun from a safe if there is a burglar in the house.

Or better yet, how about publishing the addresses of households not having any firearms?

Or even better - publish a list of all of those who have been treated for mental illnesses and all felons, so people can cross check the lists and find out for themselves where potential problems exist.

Or how about the addresses of recognized gang members?

This witch hunt can be carried to whatever extremity required to protect the public, right?

[frylock]

120. so how many years out should the newspaper be held accountable?

say a gun gets stolen from a house with a published address 5 years from now. is the newspaper still culpable. how about 10 years? perhaps 20? stop and think for damn minute.

[humblebum]

124. yeh, uh huh.

[frylock]

141. you got nothing..

Cmon man, surely you can present a cogent argument to back up your stupid fucking proposal.

[humblebum]

142. I don't even consider your response to be a rational one. Any person reading

such a list a decade down the road is not going to rely the the same conditions of having or not having a weapon still existing. That is no different than publishing a list of those who would be on vacation for the next two weeks. The information definitely has a shelf life.

However, if you talking about a weapon that was stolen from a residence being used to commit a crime at some point in the distant future, that would be for a court to decide, wouldn't it now?

[Bay Boy]

113. That is a very weird thing to say...

...very weird.

[humblebum]

118. Yes but for a good reason. nt

[Pholus]

107. Because the gun manufacturers are indemnified of course...

Can't have product liability for a product that generates nothing but injuries when used properly of course.

Yay NRA!

[slackmaster]

33. Blogger posts names of Journal News staffers

Link to Google News search results:

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&q=Blogger+posts+names+of+Journal+News+staffers&oq=Blogger+posts+names+of+Journal+News+staffers&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i400.2361.2361.0.3961.1.1.0.0.0.0.66.66.1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.K-Vm5b6C8AI

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. ~

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Once again, this poster publishes personal information of reporters. It's against DU rules. He has had several posts hidden but just won't give it up. The newspaper doesn't have a rulle about posting such information but we do.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Dec 29, 2012, 11:36 AM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It's a link to another source. I don't see why this is publishing personal information of reporters.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Hiding because of alerters explanation.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

"Respect people's privacy.
Do not post or link to any private/personal information about any person, even if it is publicly available elsewhere on the Internet."
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: We're alerting on google now?
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Maybe I'm missing something, but all I see is a link. Whether or not someone clicks on it is up to them.

[slackmaster]

42. The alerter told an outright lie. Kudos to Jurors 1, 2, 5, and 6 for thinking with their brains.

Thanks, TA.

BTW, I've had just ONE post hidden for posting a link to a page that did contain personal information. I hadn't read the linked page carefully. My post was indeed a violation of the TOS, and I regret it.

[SCVDem]

34. It's the 1st against the 2nd amendment

Which is funny as so many people use both as a shield against responsible conduct.

[slackmaster]

35. With rights come responsibilities; with actions come consequences.

[NoGOPZone]

37. they must be selling a lot of papers nt

[slackmaster]

39. Yes, and that is the ONLY reason they would do it.

[TheCowsCameHome]

46. Like the NRA sells a lot of guns.

They are a front for the gun and ammo manufacturers.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

64. NRA sells t-shirts, hats,etc but not guns

The group the fronts for the manufacturers is the NSSF and it is located in Newton, Conn.

[TheCowsCameHome]

126. The NRA is in the business of selling guns.

Make no mistake about it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

129. How so?

Does the NRA itself (not the affiliated groups) hold and FFL?

They do not represent the manufacturers, that is the NSSF

[ProgressiveProfessor]

62. Not so much anymore

Apparently they are losing subscribers and advertisers over this.

In addition, the staff is feeling not only economic heat but direct personal heat as well.

[TheCowsCameHome]

45. Does having pistol permit mean you own a gun?

[slackmaster]

47. No, it means you have a permit to own a gun.

It's a safe bet that some of the people on those maps do not presently own any firearms.

[TheCowsCameHome]

60. I have a license to operate certain specialized machinery

but I don't own any, or do it actively any more.

[ret5hd]

108. how much does this "specialized machinery" cost?

is its main function killing?

[Bay Boy]

115. I don't do it very actively anymore either...

...wait a minute, what are we talking about here?

[obamanut2012]

72. No, it means you can buy one

[Historic NY]

112. You are given a coupon to purchase one ...

if you don't purchase a weapon they don't issue the permit. Thry serial number etc is required for issue.

[Historic NY]

50. The entire database was on a website whospacking.com ...

my local paper even published a lookup list on line. Yeah I'm on it, so what. All the whining then, it even went as far as the NY Assembly & Senate...and guess what they didn't make it illegal to publish a list, the bill languished. Pistol permits and the applications process's and rulings of the court are public information.

Some people think criminals are just looking up databases on-line to get the infomation. In most cases you need a paper subscription even on-line now. The press has publish pension lists for all public employees, that was the doing of a conservative think tank in NY City. Google published your names,address's, phone numbers and in many cases now a photo of your home. The batter wife BS doesn't fly in the face of all the other on-line presence. Having a gun doesn't make you any safer if your exposed all over the internet, for a few bucks annually a person can get your shoe size on line if they wanted it. How many people check to see if there if there is a sex offender or parole or work release person in the neighborhood.....I worry more about that.

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=494748
http://thedailystar.com/localnews/x371478747/Pistol-permit-website-sparks-debate/print

***The original entire database is still on-line if you know where to find it..so much for the hue & cry 2 yrs ago.

http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S2488-2011

http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/30209/griffo-bill-would-end-handgun-permit-database-disclosure/

I found my name w/o an address on the old one but all my info was scrubbed
on the second one.

[A Simple Game]

70. About time, these patriots should be recognized for their contribution to our Country.

I'm sure it's not easy being a member of a militia. I can't praise these people enough.

And how thoughtful of the newspaper to let me know where I can contact a militia member when I need one.

I really wish I had access to that list before the elections. There were several politicians that just kept calling me and calling me, some even came to my door! How I now wish I could have called a militia member to take care of the oppression I was receiving from my government.

Not to mention the next time some cop wants to give me a speeding ticket. Or how about the DMV clerk giving me a hard time when I try to renew my registration or license? Their tune would change quickly if I had a militia member with me!

Maybe we could get an app for our phones, one that tells us the nearest militia member that's packing.

[otohara]

83. I Woudn't Want My Kids In The Homes of These Patriots

considering how many "accidental" gun deaths happen with kids and guns. Teen suicides, etc...

[wtmusic]

88. .

[JohnnyRingo]

86. Is it a good thing to possibly inspire hate crimes?

Would it be alright to publish the names and addresses of DU members? Certainly it would cut down on some people's post count, and I know we aren't committing crimes here, but neither are most gun owners. This is too much like publishing the names of known homosexuals just because the newspaper editor believes they're likely to commit a sex crime and thinks he has to alert neighbors.

I don't even like public police blotters that give the names of people who are arrested for drunk driving. Wait until they're convicted.

In all cases I say unless a crime is committed, there's no valid reason to the print the names of a particular group of people. It's none of our business.

[marshall]

99. Kind of like publishing home info on abortion doctors

I guess curious folks want to know where these people live.

[slackmaster]

101. The Gladys Kravitz type people are eating it up

[mainer]

105. All my political contributions are online

So, it turns out, is my address and phone number. Any wacko can find me. Any wacko can probably find most of us.

How is knowing who's got a gun permit any different?

[Bay Boy]

114. How would someone misuse

the information that you are a donor? I can see how someone could misuse the information that you have a
concealed weapon permit, a thief may assume that you have other weapons in your house and decide to break in and steal them when you aren't home.

[mainer]

127. If you're the only Dem in a town of rabid GOP

can't they use that against you? Or you give to gay-rights PACs? Taking an unpopular stand can always be used against you.

[Bay Boy]

135. So do you feel that both lists...

...are invasions of your privacy?

[mainer]

138. I'd prefer not to be on a public list, but it's the law.

and just about every Democrat here would agree that political donors' identities should be public information.

It's funny how those of us who are political activists, who have donated to sometimes unpopular causes, who are regularly vilified by the opposition, manage to get through life without being terrified just because our names and addresses are public.

Yet gun owners, who have the BEST MEANS OF SELF-PROTECTION in the world (or so they think) are terrified about their names being public. You'd think, being gun-owners and all, they'd feel a lot safer than the unarmed people who actually become public figures because they so courageously take a stand.

[mainer]

140. Political donor sites give name, occupation, zip code, and amount donated.

Easy peasey to cross-reference that info and find the address thru white pages, or other online search sites.

Even though I have an unlisted number in the phone book, I was able to find my own address online. How that info got online, I have no idea. The point is, those of us who take political stands have no privacy. And we accept the fact that we could be targets. But we don't moan and whine that "oh my god, now someone will break into my house!!!"

And we're not even armed.

[mainer]

144. OK so your friend took extraordinary measures

So all the rest of us who donate or take unpopular stands should hire a law firm and set up a trust to hide ourselves?

If I were a huge lottery winner, that might make sense. But most of us don't feel paranoid enough to do that.

[mainer]

146. I was once vilified in a wacko RW online site

and identified as a gay rights activist. My mother-in-law called up terrified that my home would be attacked. I told her that that's the price of taking a stand.

We would all love the right of complete privacy. But in this day and age, most of us don't have it.

I'm not saying the release of the gun owners' addresses is right; I think it's wrong to invade anyone's privacy. I'm just commenting on the complete hysteria and fear you hear from gun owners, which reflects somewhat pitifully on their sense of cowardice in the modern world. It's the terrified squealing that makes me shake my head, as if they've just discovered what the rest of us live with every day.

[mainer]

148. Sounds like a very interesting church you belong to!

A congregation of the modest, I presume.

[Flatulo]

117. I could be used as a gun thief's shopping list, which would have the opposite effect the paper

is trying to achieve, I.e., more illegal guns in the street.

Most responsible gun owners secure their firearms against their kid's friends getting in, but a determined thief might still break into the home looking for one. Even if they can't find any, or if they can't defeat the safe, they're still in your home invading the shit out of your privacybandntaking all your stuff.

This was a stupid, stupid move on the part of this newspaper.

[Zax2me]

119. Why are they declaring war against gun owners?

It just seems that there are many people operating outside the law that deserve ink -
Before you start printing anything about people operating inside the law.

[slackmaster]

125. Because they are assholes

[Blandocyte]

134. Too funny

Well done.

[murray hill farm]

128. I believe the list is a self defeating activity.

It informs readers (including thieves) that your home is protected by guns. It also informs if your home is not protected by guns. If I had guns, I would be most appreciative of the wide spread publication of the fact, which I would see as a deterrent to thieves, etc. If I didn't have guns and knew the fact was now publicized, I would be more likely to buy one...and then put notice that I had done so on my doors. I see this as another activity that will promote gun ownership.

[Bay Boy]

136. I would prefer if the newspaper gave me the choice...

...as to whether I wanted to advertise my gun ownership or not. I have seen people with stickers on
the door like "we don't call 911 we use 357" or "this house is protected by Smith & Wesson". It's not something
I would do but it's their choice. This newspaper decided to make the choice for all the permit holders in the area.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

130. I wish they hadn't done this.

We're actually to the point when some assault weapons could be banned and the average Bob and Mary are now gonna feel bad for the gun owners. Little things like this can sway public opinion for those undecided.

[davidn3600]

132. Undecided? 74% are against gun bans according to USA Today

The idea we will ever have successful UK or Aussie-style gun bans in the USA is completely asinine. It will never happen!!!

And I don't support it either. Im sorry but I don't.

If you can guarantee me that the police will respond to a 911 call at the same speed it takes for a homeowner to grab his gun while his home is being invaded, then I will support your gun bans. If you cannot provide that guarantee...i'm sorry, but I do not agree with your position.

[WhoWoodaKnew]

137. I said "some assault weapons"...

You said gun ban. That's dishonest.

[Old Troop]

151. If I was someone

planning a home invasion, say, this would be very useful information to me. I'd avoid the listed addresses and concentrate my effort on those not singled out.