View Full Version : Paper Publishes Interactive Map of Handgun Permit Holders
The Journal News, a New York paper, has developed an interactive map (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html?hpt=hp_c1) showing "the names and addresses of all handgun permit holders in New York's Westchester and Rockland counties". The link is to a CNN article that will link you to the actual map if desired.
This isn't a map along the lines of those showing the location of convicted sex offenders. These people have committed no crime. In fact these people have taken all the steps to make sure they can legally own a handgun if they so choose. (It does not show who actually owns a handgun, only those who have a permit to do so, although the lists are probably similar. It also does not show who owns, or could legally own, a shotgun or rifle, including assault rifles, because no permit is required for those in Westchester and Rockland Counties.) This is a map showing the home address of law abiding citizens who simply wanted to go through the process that allows them to legally own a gun. This is not even concealed carry permit holders, it is simply people who, if they so choose, can legally purchase a handgun and keep it in their home.
I can see no good whatsoever coming from this. How about you guys?
I think this shows us how vile those who would oppress us are.
Yossarian
12-26-12, 2:51pm
Well, it depends on your perspective. I think it would be a fabulous resource if you were looking for guns to steal.
This result is similar to what the gun registry in Canada accomplished and why there was such opposition from legal gun owners until the registry was abolished. The owners' names and addressed\s were supposed to be confidential but somehow the listing of owners was made public and surprise, surprise, more gun collections were targeted.
Never understood how a listing was supposed to make people safe.
Miss Cellane
12-26-12, 3:59pm
There have been complaints that now, the criminals know which houses don't have guns, and are now easy targets.
And--many people in law enforcement and judges own guns. Their addresses are supposed to be confidential. Now, they can be looked up by bad guys who might want to harm them.
On the flip side, the paper got the information using the Freedom of Information Act, so the info is out there. The paper just made it a lot easier to find.
In all honesty, I can sort of understand why the paper did this. Not agree with it, but understand it.
However, just because someone has a permit doesn't mean they have a gun. Or that the gun is at that address.
Ten years ago, a child was killed in my town, by a registered sex offender who was living in her apartment complex. Thing was, the registered sex offender registered at his mother's house in the neighboring town, but was living with his girlfriend in her apartment. Listings like this don't provide the safety people think they do. They are slow to be updated, and only give a very small piece of the whole picture. Just because there's a record in a computer somewhere that says there's a gun or a sex offender at a given address, doesn't mean it's really there.
I may not agree with all the guns that people own here in the US, but this sort of thing serves no real purpose. Except publicity for the newspaper and some fear-mongering. If you want to reduce gun ownership in the US, there's a legal way to attempt that.
Lordy. My first thought was the same as yours, Yossarian.
It would also seem to be a useful resource for burglars who aren't interested in stealing guns to help them target houses where they are less likely to get shot because no permit means a lower likelihood that the owner will have a gun on hand to defend with.
Well, if you're gonna perpetuate a culture war, you gotta identify the enemy.
Well, if you're gonna perpetuate a culture war, you gotta identify the enemy.
Perhaps we could all be required to wear little yellow emblems sewn onto our clothing.
Perhaps we could all be required to wear little yellow emblems sewn onto our clothing.
Yes, perhaps stars. Stars stand out.
Clothing can be lost. Tattoos are forever. A simple series of identifying numbers would suffice...
Clothing can be lost. Tattoos are forever. A simple series of identifying numbers would suffice...
Tattoos are popular these days, but barcodes are better left for stage two.
Perhaps an updated version...
1082
to replace the more antiquated...
1083
I knew some folks when I was younger who had those old-school tats. They had such wonderful tales of days gone by.
Wasn't the information all based on public information? That's the issue.
Media was just being the media - I bet it helped sales.
Wasn't the information all based on public information? That's the issue.
I suspect this is why many gun owners are...hesitant...about registration schemes.
Making this sort of information "public information" discloseable under public records requests seems a bit daft to me. It would be similar to allowing drivers license/auto registration information be public, which would certainly help stalkers track down women. Or making income tax filings public, or medical records, or ...
Publishing this information was clearly part of the culture war, meant to demonize and intimidate gun owners in that community. It increases the risk to those citizens, as now it is much easier for them to be targeted. I suspect your average burglar isn't going to file a public records request looking for a site to rob, it is much easier when a Google-map-based-tool can just be clicked on - "burglar - there's an app for that now!".
I note that the author of the article, the people in editorial positions at that newspaper, and the technical people who built the tool have now had all of *their* personal information published on the internet, including in some cases pictures of their home and details about their family.
Just a lovely way to go. Keep pushing in this direction folks, and in a few years we can be like Rwanda.
I suspect this is why many gun owners are...hesitant...about registration schemes.
Making this sort of information "public information" discloseable under public records requests seems a bit daft to me. It would be similar to allowing drivers license/auto registration information be public, which would certainly help stalkers track down women. Or making income tax filings public, or medical records, or ...
Publishing this information was clearly part of the culture war, meant to demonize and intimidate gun owners in that community. It increases the risk to those citizens, as now it is much easier for them to be targeted. I suspect your average burglar isn't going to file a public records request looking for a site to rob, it is much easier when a Google-map-based-tool can just be clicked on - "burglar - there's an app for that now!".
I note that the author of the article, the people in editorial positions at that newspaper, and the technical people who built the tool have now had all of *their* personal information published on the internet, including in some cases pictures of their home and details about their family.
Just a lovely way to go. Keep pushing in this direction folks, and in a few years we can be like Rwanda.
I disagree with it being publicly available. However, it might be useful for someone responding to a domestic violence or 911 call. Or to volunteer firefighters.
IL Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan wanted to make all of the FOID (Firearm Owner ID card) database public last year, but the IL State Police who maintain it said no way. I was very happy with the ISP's decision.
DocHolliday
12-27-12, 12:14am
Ah, turnabout is fairplay:
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/
Someone not happy with what the paper has done has posted newspaper editors and employees home addresses, phone numbers, facebook pages...etc... Now let's see how they like it. From the look of a couple of their facebook pages, lots of people were not happy with what they did.
ApatheticNoMore
12-27-12, 12:37am
Because it's all the food columnists fault. Gotta love it. Or not, really not.
I disagree with it being publicly available. However, it might be useful for someone responding to a domestic violence or 911 call. Or to volunteer firefighters.
I don't know about NY, but here in NE firearm permit records are maintained by the police who, through the dispatch network, are in constant communication with any emergency responders who are not part of the force. As a result none have any need for a media based tool of this nature and I think they would much rather trust in the system that they themselves developed.
As for what is available through the freedom of information act vs. what is readily accessible, consider how the authors, editors, etc. are probably feeling tonight when nothing more than their point and click info was broadcast to a larger audience. My guess is they are feeling a little violated.
Ah, turnabout is fairplay:
http://christopherfountain.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/sauce-for-the-goose/
Someone not happy with what the paper has done has posted newspaper editors and employees home addresses, phone numbers, facebook pages...etc... Now let's see how they like it. From the look of a couple of their facebook pages, lots of people were not happy with what they did.
Yes, because we all know that two wrongs is better than one.
You all know I am for more gun control but the publishing of gun owners name and address was very very wrong. I am totally against the publishing of gun owners information.
iris lily
12-27-12, 2:01am
I remember that 40 some years ago the Des Moines Register and Tribune printed the names of conceal-carry permit holders. I remember that because the father of one of my friends had this permit.
I don't have any real point except to say, I don't think this is something new. Doesn't mean that it's a good thing.
On a related note, responses to these Freedom of Information Act requests can be hurtful in other areas too.
The recent Powerball winner from AZ initially told the Lottery Commission that he wished to remain anonymous. That's okay, it's his decision. However, a news media outlet filed a FOIA request for his name, which was granted and then his name became public. He's a man in his 30s with a family. Right away they then googled all of his information, including his home address and employer, when then also became public. To me this is now a safety issue for this man and his family, which trumps any citizen's "need to know."
On a related note, responses to these Freedom of Information Act requests can be hurtful in other areas too.
The recent Powerball winner from AZ initially told the Lottery Commission that he wished to remain anonymous. That's okay, it's his decision. However, a news media outlet filed a FOIA request for his name, which was granted and then his name became public. He's a man in his 30s with a family. Right away they then googled all of his information, including his home address and employer, when then also became public. To me this is now a safety issue for this man and his family, which trumps any citizen's "need to know."
Things like this worry me - the government doing FOIA poorly will be an effective way to get support to get FOIA gutted - the primary beneficiary of that being the government.
Originally posted by Miss Cellane.
the criminals know which houses don't have guns, and are now easy targets.My thought, too.
Any good journalist (editor) should always weigh the public’s right to know against the potential harm publishing could cause. This paper did not do that. They only published the list "because they could." Not a good enough reason.
They could have used the list as background data in myriad ways to explore relationships between gun permits and local crime numbers, say, or faulty permitting systems, etc. But they did not do that.
From what I've read they're really paying for this in terms of public backlash.
There have been complaints that now, the criminals know which houses don't have guns, and are now easy targets.
My thought, too.
It is interesting to see where people on different sides of the gun debate find common ground. I too agree that something as simple as the belief that a gun may be present can act as a deterrent to criminals.
What will be interesting to see is what happens when a homeowner shoots a thief inside their house with an unregistered, illegal gun. The way our current legal system gets twisted around that thief will probably sue the paper because the article did not state clearly enough that this was not a complete list of ALL guns in the area. Said thief will probably get 6 months probation for breaking and entering plus a large civil suit settlement from the paper and the homeowner (who will be bankrupt because their insurance company will not pay out since the gun they shot the perp with was illegal). Crime pays, at least as long as the homeowner isn't a great shot.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.