NY newspaper publishes gun owners' addresses

[JayQueer]

This is very upsetting news......regardless of where you stand in the gun debate..

A local newspaper in the suburbs of New York City, The Journal News, has published the addresses of every gun owner (or people licensed to own a handgun) in Westchester and Rockland Counties. The newspaper says they will publish the addresses of gun permit holders in Putnam County too.

This is a problem because:

If I have a permit to own a handgun, I don't want some random stranger to know. Yes, the police and law enforcement have the right to know, but not some stranger.

If I don't have any guns or weapons, I would be very afraid if I live in Westchester or Rockland County because now criminals know the people who are less likely to be armed (i.e. the ones without a gun permit), so I would be an easier target.

This was a big mistake by the newspaper to do this..........


http://www.lohud.com/interactive/art...-neighborhood-


http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...opstories.html


FPNY, aren't you from Westchester County? What do you think about this?

[loki81]

it's public information, but I don't get what they're trying to accomplish here.

on a side note, felons and the mentally ill now having a shopping list of houses to rob if they need to steal a gun.

[swerve]

My initial reaction is to agree with your sentiments Jayqueer...

Gannett (who owns the Journal) is a pretty HUGE (think USA Today) organization -- I wonder what the editorial staff's position was behind making this so easily obtainable...

It IS a matter of Public Record -- but that doesn't translate into something like this very often...

Any ideas as to WHY they would do this???

[Rolyo85]

Yeah that's really gross :/

[opinterph]

A local newspaper in the suburbs of New York City, The Journal News, has published the addresses of every gun owner (or people licensed to own a handgun) …

Original Source Link:

The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood

Excerpt:

… officials in county clerk’s offices in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam maintain the public does not have a right to see such things as the specific permits an individual has been issued, the types of handguns a person possesses or the number of guns he or she owns — whether one or a dozen.

Combined with laws that allow the purchase of rifles and shotguns without a permit, John Thompson, a program manager for Project SNUG at the Yonkers Family YMCA*, said that leaves the public knowing little about the types of deadly weapons that might be right next door.

*SNUG, which is guns spelled backward, was created in response to a phenomenal number of shootings and killings in 10 communities in New York State and follows the Chicago CeaseFire Model.

[Just_Believe18]

As long as it is public record, the newspaper has a right to publish the information. Although their motives should be held suspect.

[medic1]

Coming from a country where Guns are banned to the general public i can only offer a personal opinion , to me it seems a really
stupid thing to do mainly for the reasons that other members have already pointed out .

[Kulindahr]

it's public information, but I don't get what they're trying to accomplish here.

on a side note, felons and the mentally ill now having a shopping list of houses to rob if they need to steal a gun.

If any of those guns gets stolen and someone gets killed, everyone in the news organization, from whoever the reporter was right up the chain of command to the top, should stand trial as accomplices, and the organization should be subject to a wrongful death suit.

I'd vote for a judgment of $100 million dollars, payable to a foundation dedicated to finding a non-lethal weapon people can use to defend themselves as effectively as with a handgun.

Because all they're trying to accomplish is grandstanding, as the media usually does because they're not interested in facts on the issue -- they just want to sell papers.

[Rolyo85]

If any of those guns gets stolen and someone gets killed, everyone in the news organization, from whoever the reporter was right up the chain of command to the top, should stand trial as accomplices, and the organization should be subject to a wrongful death suit.

I'd vote for a judgment of $100 million dollars, payable to a foundation dedicated to finding a non-lethal weapon people can use to defend themselves as effectively as with a handgun.

Because all they're trying to accomplish is grandstanding, as the media usually does because they're not interested in facts on the issue -- they just want to sell papers.

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If it's public knowledge, you have no basis to sue anyone who publishes it.

[palemale]

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech. If it's public knowledge, you have no basis to sue anyone who publishes it.

It does let parents know whose house they do not want their children visiting.

[Seasoned]

^bingo!!

[Lestatnj]

Of 2 minds here. (As most Geminis are).

1. Agree with palemale about parents possibly wanting to know this type of info.

2 Why would a news organization do this? All the reasons above about the "wrong" people (criminals, mentally unstable, haters) getting hold of the info.

Now, printing the names & addresses of NRA BOARD members.........that would be a different story. (& another thought. ANONYMOUS struck the Westbro cult, wonder if the NRA is on their Shit List?)

[HenryReardon]

it's public information, but I don't get what they're trying to accomplish here.

on a side note, felons and the mentally ill now having a shopping list of houses to rob if they need to steal a gun.

Conversely, thieves, robbers and felons have a checklist of mones to avoid because they are 'protected by Smith & Wesson'.

- - - Updated - - -

It does let parents know whose house they do not want their children visiting.

And it lets them know in which homes their children are more likely to be safe.

[loki81]

It does let parents know whose house they do not want their children visiting.

certainly, we can't actually expect parents to talk with their children's friend's parents.

[Rolyo85]

Yeah - the ones where they can't accidentally blow their heads off with the gun little Jimmy is showing off...

[chance1]

a clear example of ideology (against guns) trumping reason and another ideology - privacy

outrageous that a homeowner who has a weapon is now a target when they're not home for criminals to steal their weapons

it's another in a long list of craziness since the sandy hook shooting

[maxpowr9]

^It's not private if it's publicly held information: just like the sex offender list.

[chance1]

^It's not private if it's publicly held information: just like the sex offender list.

well good then

it's fine to do

and gun owners are just like sex offenders

[T-Rexx]

I don't really care for people to know what I paid for my house, either.

But, when I bought it, it made the "Real Estate Transactions" column in the local paper. Moreover, the county has a web site where you can go and see the value of every property in the county, as well as a picture of any homes or buildings on the site. Anyone who wants to can look me up on the county web site, see a picture of my house, and get the latest county appraisal as to the value of my property.

Gun registrations, apparently, are public information. Newspapers make a business out of publishing public information. I don't understand why gun owners would be upset by this. If gun ownership is so wonderful, why are they ashamed to have their names listed in the paper?

This is much ado about nothing.

[eastofeden]

At first glance I think it is sensationalist journalism and a reaction to the CT shootings. It is, however, freedom of speech as it is public record but the motive for publishing these?

My opinion...they want to sell more papers and are cashing in on the emotional response of their readers. The only thing that might change my mind..did they do it after the firemen were killed..or before? I can understand that list being published as a response to the firemen because they had to go to that man's house...unarmed...and it would have been topical to New York as that was where the firemen were killed.

[Rolyo85]

Well, it's not like they would have taken sidearms if they'd known...

[frankfrank]

This is just wrong on so many levels. Which direction does that newspaper lean politically? If Democratic, that makes the newspaper no better than a stoolie (rat, snitch, fink), the lowest of the low. If Republican, I can't imagine any benefit or advantage to running the list, which makes me extremely suspicious of the motives.

OK...I guess they probably sold more newspapers, didn't they?

[Jack Springer]

Does the newspaper publish a list of DUI's, list of dog permits, sex offenders, or list of people behind on alimony or child support payments, or how much each individual has paid for personal property or real estate taxes?

[chance1]

Terrific list of faux analogies by ideologues who can't quite say what's so obvious

as it doesn't jive with "guns r bad"

there's a list of what your house sold for .....
and a sex offender list

both have NOTHING to do with if u own a firearm

by listing u have put the owners in danger - made them a target

more jumping the shark from the gang that couldn't think straight

[T-Rexx]

^ Methinks listing what you paid for your house could make you a much, much bigger target for thieves than listing that you have a gun. But no one seems to think the former a problem.

I appreciate that gun owners are ashamed to admit their proclivities. They bought the guns in the first place because they felt inadequate, and now the paper is highlighting their sense of inferiority. But the problem is not the newspaper. It is them.

[HenryReardon]

^.

I appreciate that gun owners are ashamed to admit their proclivities. They bought the guns in the first place because they felt inadequate, and now the paper is highlighting their sense of inferiority. .

Psychobabble is always so very helpful in any discussion—not!

[maxpowr9]

Does the newspaper publish a list of DUI's, list of dog permits, sex offenders, or list of people behind on alimony or child support payments, or how much each individual has paid for personal property or real estate taxes?

Most papers, especially local ones, do publish a list of DUIs and arrests. In MA, they are required by law to inform the town that a registered sex offender (particularly pedophiles) has moved into their town. Property values [both land and buildings] are public domain also and you can easily determine how much they paid in real estate taxes as the taxes are flat rates.

Besides, people freely give so much of this information to social media networks anyways.

[chance1]

^ Methinks listing what you paid for your house could make you a much, much bigger target for thieves than listing that you have a gun. But no one seems to think the former a problem.

I appreciate that gun owners are ashamed to admit their proclivities. They bought the guns in the first place because they felt inadequate, and now the paper is highlighting their sense of inferiority. But the problem is not the newspaper. It is them.

Another in a long list of what the fuck

Robbers checking the Internet to see which house on a great block sold for 10k more

So they can decide which one to rob

Ideologicallegiance

[Jack Springer]

^^^

It's interesting to see how little some people pay in taxes.



On a more fun note .... don't you just love to break all those Christmas bulbs at the top.

Thanks JUB for letting me get a rid of a little stress.

[JayHawk]

I think you have to ask one question... is it public information? Yes? Then is it that papers right to free speech? Oh yeah kinda like the Phelps folks that were so vehemently defended by those in this thread who are up in arms about an expression of free speech.

[loki81]

I think you have to ask one question... is it public information? Yes? Then is it that papers right to free speech? Oh yeah kinda like the Phelps folks that were so vehemently defended by those in this thread who are up in arms about an expression of free speech.

much like the Westboro Baptist Church, legal doesn't mean in good taste/judgement.

[JayHawk]

Oh I think I already posted in here that it is in very poor taste. What's more it accomplishes less than nothing. Any moron that thinks thieves are conspiring to invade homes KNOWN to have arms are special. Really the folks who don't own guns ought to be scurred.

Most of all it accomplishes nothing and probably alienated most of the folks published and thereby destroyed their readership.

[maxpowr9]

^Then they wouldn't be able to be on "dumb criminals" or "Cops".

[JayHawk]

LOL... there are dumb criminals no doubt. Not the vast majority. Plus the owners got a gun often times to defend their homes.... Let 'em.

[chance1]

I think you have to ask one question... is it public information? Yes? Then is it that papers right to free speech? Oh yeah kinda like the Phelps folks that were so vehemently defended by those in this thread who are up in arms about an expression of free speech.

So confused - not me

A hate group
A newspaper

Not very similar

It's not about the right
The law is the law
Of course it's their right

Choices are something else

Phelps sucks
This newspaper sucks

[JayHawk]

How are you confused. You argued in the Phelps situation that they have the right to freedom of speech. yet in here you fail to make the same argument.

Why would you defend vile disgusting behavior in one instance and not defend it in the case of gun control by this newspaper?

Is it that you are okay with the protest of the military and police dead but not okay with the publishing of public data?

[bankside]

I'm amused to see the first and second amendments duke it out.


Of course if anyone's gun gets stolen, it is entirely the owner's failure to secure it properly. If you're willing to own a gun, it's your own damn problem how to stop someone from stealing it, and if you can't be trusted to stop a gun from falling into the wrong hands, you have no business owning one and the law and a hundred million dollars worth of liability should come down on your head.

[Kulindahr]

Yeah - the ones where they can't accidentally blow their heads off with the gun little Jimmy is showing off...

Any kid who "accidentally" blows his head off has incompetent parents.

[Kulindahr]

^ Methinks listing what you paid for your house could make you a much, much bigger target for thieves than listing that you have a gun. But no one seems to think the former a problem.

I appreciate that gun owners are ashamed to admit their proclivities. They bought the guns in the first place because they felt inadequate, and now the paper is highlighting their sense of inferiority. But the problem is not the newspaper. It is them.

Move to Uganda. Wait for a "Christian" paper to list your name and address as someone who's gay.

Now, will we hear you applauding just as much?

[Rolyo85]

Any kid who "accidentally" blows his head off has incompetent parents.

The ratio of incompetent to competent people in the world is 9:1. And the kid's head remains blown off whatever the reason, no?

[Kulindahr]

I'm amused to see the first and second amendments duke it out.


Of course if anyone's gun gets stolen, it is entirely the owner's failure to secure it properly. If you're willing to own a gun, it's your own damn problem how to stop someone from stealing it, and if you can't be trusted to stop a gun from falling into the wrong hands, you have no business owning one and the law and a hundred million dollars worth of liability should come down on your head.

I had a gun stolen once.

It was in a locked box, locked to the floor under the sweat of a locked truck.

It got stolen because some blabbermouth told someone I had one there -- kinda like this newspaper telling where guns are.

[Kulindahr]

The ratio of incompetent to competent people in the world is 9:1. And the kid's head remains blown off whatever the reason, no?

So you'd rather deal with a symptom than the problem.

There's a rather effective solution already out there -- just ask the NRA.

[T-Rexx]

Another in a long list of what the fuck

Robbers checking the Internet to see which house on a great block sold for 10k more

So they can decide which one to rob

Ideologicallegiance

When I bought my house, it was described in the local paper's "Real Estate Transactions" column as the largest real estate transaction in the county for that week.

You think I wanted that information to be public?

But, you seem to think it a far worse crime that the papers publish that someone has registered a cheap .22 pistol. That will bring the robbers, for sure!

You don't seem to have a clue about any of this. You insult me with your "to see which house on a great block sold for 10k more" when you don't even have the least understanding of the situation.

What is wrong with you, chance?

[T-Rexx]

Any kid who "accidentally" blows his head off has incompetent parents.

I used to work for the local coroner's office.

It would seem that "incompetent parents" are pretty routine.

[T-Rexx]

Move to Uganda. Wait for a "Christian" paper to list your name and address as someone who's gay.

Now, will we hear you applauding just as much?

If the sexuality of Ugandans is recorded by the government as public information, then I have no doubt that such information will be published by the papers there.

And, evidently, you have not been paying attention. I am not applauding the publishing of such information. Did I not just complain (rather bitterly) about this? Please read before you post so incoherently and incorrectly.

[Rolyo85]

So you'd rather deal with a symptom than the problem.

There's a rather effective solution already out there -- just ask the NRA.

The NRA's choice of solutions to problems is sort of limited - "Get more guns".

And I would rather treat a symptom than a problem that has never been resolved throughout the entirety of human history, yes. Dumb people will always exist, and most of them will be incompetent. No way to avoid that, so all you can do is put failsafes. Gun control being one of those.

[maxpowr9]

It's funny how "the shooting" was the discussion of dinner tonight [mind you my brother lives in New Haven which is about 30 mins from the incident]. We all concluded that the mother and her failures were the reason of the shooting. If gun owners are not responsible when they know they have delinquent people in the house, they are solely at fault.

[chance1]

a colleague at work went home to Lynn for family holiday

he and his sister - she's a social worker got into it when his mom said

"do you think there were 26 victims or 28?"

as in were the mom and the killer "victims"

my friend said he and his sis went at it most all of the night - finally agreed to disagree - she saying yes they are victims

me and my bro went at it a bit at christmas eve dinner regarding gun control

Happy Holidays - LOL

[bankside]

I had a gun stolen once.

It was in a locked box, locked to the floor under the sweat of a locked truck.

It got stolen because some blabbermouth told someone I had one there -- kinda like this newspaper telling where guns are.

No it got stolen when it wasn't secured adequately.

One of the principles they teach people learning to fly an aeroplane is "it's the pilot's fault." "But the tower said I was cleared for landing." Nope; take your blame and your tears somewhere else; it's the pilot's fault for accepting a bad clearance; it's the pilot's fault for failing to notice an aeroplane off its approach path; it's the pilot's fault for not noticing the other plane with radio failure; it's the pilot's fault that the plane's load is out of balance.

If they don't teach that concept of responsibility to a gun owner it tells me all I need to know about so-called responsible gun ownership in your country. Frankly I'd pull the licence from anyone careless enough to let his gun get stolen, if not make him liable for equipping someone to commit whatever crimes were subsequently committed.

[chrisrobin]

well good then

it's fine to do

and gun owners are just like sex offenders

Not exactly. Sex offenses are against the law. Owning a registered gun is not. Question: what happens when a sex offender also owns a registed gun?